Just read Justin's post.

Typical lawyer, doesn't answer the key question.

Can bf in any way access client funds in the trust, including loaning to bf?

Can a situation arises where there is insufficient funds to cover customer balances? Excluding events beyond BF's control,

BF's current financial state is irrelevant.  As is the current investments.

The issue is in the future when/if BF needs cash. Will they be able to access the funds in Trust by whatever mechanism?

trust additional rights (look up "tracing" and restitution if you want)

"tracing" and restitution to a bankrupt company is the issue and why I still say its worth sweet fa.

Hello there pxb.

The whole reason that trusts are set up is to keep the money separate from the company. Only the trustees have the power to control the money not the company. Sure the employer could request that the trustees do something with the money but all they can do is request.

The trustees have a legal duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries, all beneficiaries and not the company. If they fail to do this and act on behalf of the company at the expense of the beneficiaries they can face custodial sentences.

That's probably the biggest reassurance you can get/or be given. You can ask the trustees to personally assure you that they wont act dishonestly, but when was the last time someone didn't say they would  act honestly before they went on their alernative course of action.

Never shy of blowing your trumpet are you pxb

Rocket,

Not sure why I got up your nose.

Unlike some here, I say what I do only to give some credence to the statements I make.

If it comes across as bragging then all I can say is that's not my intent.

I think you are being a bit too simplistic.

For starters if you had a fund of £X gazillion pounds as a trustee you are sure as hell going to take Independent Financial Advice as to what to do with that money. Given that returns on the money is not important it is the security of that money the IFA is certainly not going to recommend that the overwhelming majority of this money does not go into anything but the most secure of investments.

Afterwards you are within the realms of the FSA and all of their regulations.

As well as this you have the person who created the trust saying that the funds are 100% ringfenced. Unless you can get them to give you the money and you bury it out in a desert in Western Australia the location of which only you know, you are not going to get much more assurance than what you already have that your money is safe.

Is this twit for real ?
I've always said he's sad and delusional ( aka Walter Mitty), now we can add paranoid.
How many times has he said that he's posting on WA time ?.

And you guys say I argue just for the sake of it ?
What pxb is saying is too stupid to respond to.
At least both sides of the PC debate have some merit, this debate is just too stupid for words, particularly considering the lengthy reply that nemesis made, which was phrased (deliberstely I would think) in a pretty non-legal manner for the general benefit of all reasonably intelligent readers on here.

1) nemesis addressed this specifically. You didn't like his answer ?
2) covered already in standard boilerplate style.
3) I don't understand tbh.

And yes you're right, I'm realled p!ssed off with all those HT draws on the J league ?.

Fckin codswallop.
Would most certainly not want this idiot pxb near any trust fund with my monies in it that's for sure.

Presidente,

Basically directors approve major business decisions as being in the interest of shareholders. If they have already approved a decision say to start a new subsidiary, then approving the Trust to invest in it is essentially the same decision.

----------

no, that's completely wrong. if it ever came to a situation where they were in court - and I'm sure it never will - they would be there solely in their capacity as trustees. acting in the interests of the company would be no defence to a charge of failing to act in the interests of the trustees.

"---you're making---"

Presidente,

If the directors decide an investment is in the interests of BF shareholders, then that must be a sound investment for others including the trust.

I see a decision on behalf of shareholders and the trust as substantially the same thing. Ensuring others money is spent/invested wisely.

no, pxb, that doesn't follow at all. it's like saying that if an investment's in the interest of the company invested in, it must by definition also be in the interest of whoever's money is invested.

FAFH

"It is of no apparent material interest or concern at all to the external investment community, whos study these things fairly closely"

Is this the same investment community that valued Betfair's IPO shares so badly?
Is this the same investment community that "studies these things fairly closely" but still does not understand how exchanges, let alone Betfair, works?

Obviously Betfair is concerned with the topic of this thread, and customer's attitudes expressed, to put up their lawyer in response.
That Betfair are at least communicating on real issues rather than tiresome public relations froth is justification alone for this thread.

Presidente,

Directors are responsible for how shareholder money is spent/invested. Their responsibility isn't to the company as such.

Neither of us are lawyers, so lets agree to differ on this.


I have Froggie blocked, but to answer his resposted (rhetorical) question.

The pc is a clever and subtle beast. And there will be very few outside bf and this forum who really understand what it is doing.

I would be astonished if any financial analyst understood its ramifications.

Hello there pxb.

Everyone has the right to feel how they feel about how secure their funds are. I've stated my stance, and i understand yours. I really can't be bothered with anymore arguing on the subject as it quickly becomes arguing for the sake of it.

You have stated on previous posts your location, apologies for remembering this, perhaps I should spend more time arguing and not reading other people's posts.

Anyway it saddens me that you resorted to stating that I have a financial arrangement with BF. I would happily deny it but i'm concerned that you would still not believe me even if I did. Please don't take this the wrong way but this is the best way I can prove to you that I have no financial connections to BF. I can only apologise for my rudeness.

You are a drongo.
Please take your money elsewhere and never place any bets with betfair ever again.

There how many employees would insult their customers and tell them not to use their service. I hope this is enough proof for you of my lack of connection to the company.

No hard feelings.

For starters if you had a fund of £X gazillion pounds as a trustee you are sure as hell going to take Independent Financial Advice as to what to do with that money. Given that returns on the money is not important it is the security of that money the IFA is certainly not going to recommend that the overwhelming majority of this money does not go into anything but the most secure of investments.

Afterwards you are within the realms of the FSA and all of their regulations.

UA, for someone who is now implying you are now a regular Aussie punter, you are remarkably well informed about the UK regulatory environment.

And I'm pretty sure I only ever refer to my location on the cricket forum.

How would all this ring fencing business work if any big hitting customers had some sort of credit facility. Which has been rumoured but may or may not be true.

Siverback
Then I would assume that BF would have a specific charge over the specific monies held in BF accounts by those customers at any specific time.
Don't see how it would have any actual or potential negative effects the ring fencing ofmonies of non-credit customers.
Do you see it differently ?