(Topic ID: 58556)

Bumper Action Amusements Australia owes 79 WOZ Games or refund!

By Ballypinball

10 years ago


Topic Heartbeat

Topic Stats

You

Linked Games

Topic Gallery

View topic image gallery

Gary Stern.jpg
JohnClark-FP.jpg
image.jpg
banned.JPG
popcorn.jpg
getaway.JPG
Bumper.JPG
Liquidated_store.JPG
Kidding.JPG
Phantom_Puller.jpg
tumbleweed2small.gif
Too_late.JPG
Bumper_Reg.JPG
07-minister.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg

You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider noodlebox.
Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

#9 10 years ago

Company Registration 101.

Clearly not too many company owners in these forums, hence the wild speculation and innuendo.

Guys (and girls?), you can figure this out for yourselves.

Closing a company does always not mean closing a business, a company is just the legal entity within which the business operated. Businesses can and do get sold on, usually with the assets (and trading names) attached but not the liabilities.

Then the company that had the rights to the business (and the trading name) is no longer needed and the company gets wound up as it no longer has income or assets and is technically insolvent. That is the correct and legal obligation.

Appointing a receiver or administrator is also a legal obligation and hence the right way to shut down a company in Australia. You cannot just decide to stop having a company, it has to be cleaned up and shut down according to law.

It all becomes clear when you do a proper search, not just of company closures but also of company formations.

https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/adf.task-flow?adf.tfId=panelSearch&adf.tfDoc=/taskflows/panelSearch.xml&searchText=bumper%20amusements&searchType=OrgAndBusNm

Here we see a new Bumper registered a short while ago. And now we see the old Bumper Action Amusements closed down.

Therefore it is likely that the newer company has bought out the assets and name of the old Bumper Action Amusements. The trading name would go with it as Bumper Action Amusements trading name is no longer listed under former landlord Del Reiss or his trust's name.

With the new address and new company, the new Bumper and new owner are pretty much saying that the former landlord and disaffected staff can go and play in traffic.

Forum stories and associated rumours support this. There are plenty of forum comments that mention former landlord Del Reiss doing strange and stupid things to his tenant. Also plenty of stuff about old staff who were fired not being happy with their lot.

Methinks the new company and new location are a case of "out with the old baggage and in with the new ideas".

Good luck to the new Bumper, you guys have certainly been through a lot.

#10 10 years ago

As for "destroying the books", that is no longer something that current or previous owners of Bumper have any say in. Only the formally appointed Administrator controls Bumper Action Amusements Pty Ltd as a compnay. Administrators always pay themselves well and first. Often there is nothing left for anyone else. Good luck to any former staff and landlords who are making claim to some cash...ouch!

-1
#14 10 years ago
Quoted from PismoArcade:

So that ShowMeTheMoney guy was right?????

No he was wrong both in fact and in speculation. He was confusing companies with trading entities. His allegations that Bumper as a business were going under are proven to be untrue. Bumper still operates as a business, within the company identity Bumper Amusements Pty Ltd.

Bumper Action Amusements Pty Ltd (the old entity) has ceased to operate and is now in adminsitration. ShowMeTheMoney and former landlord Del Reiss now have to deal with an Adminstrator for any claims against Bumper Action Amusements Pty Ltd. Adminstrators pay themselves first and well (they set their own fees to in effect be paid by themselves). If the company that has folded cannot pay them the former directors usually agree to cover the administrator's fees otherwise the administrator won't take the work.

It looks pretty clear that Bumper Amusements Pty Ltd will have purchased all of Bumper Action Amusements Pty Ltd's assets (WOZ contracts, trading name, moneys owed from customers and debtors, any machines, parts and equipment, employment contracts, chattels (lights/furniture) and cash at the bank held on behalf of WOZ buyers.

It is highly unusual for any company to accept the liabilities of a business when it is purchased from the old owner. Occasionally a new buyer may take over staff entitlements like long service leave and accrued holidays etc, but why would you?

For example anyone owed 3 months leave at the average wage has to be paid out say $18,000 when they take their holiday. Multiply that by say 10 staff and $180,000 is instantly sitting as a liability on the balance sheet of the new company, and in some cases that could make the new company insolvent. So most business takeovers involve the vendor terminating employment contracts and paying them out, with the new owner starting fresh contracts with retained staff.

It therefore looks like ShowMeTheMoney and Reiss the old landlord will need to go and whistle as the administrator will have nothing left to offer them.

After all the wild allegations and attacks against Bumper and its owners, plus the intrusions reportedly made by Del Reiss at the premises, I'd now say "nice one Bumper!"

#15 10 years ago
Quoted from sammiesguys:

This thread may help answer a very interesting meteorological question. Do shitnadoes spin in the opposite direction down under?

Dunno. They do have a habit of wandering off course and returning the sh*t back down on the creators of the sh*tnado.

#17 10 years ago

For clarity, you are confusing the Bumper Action Amusements (BAA Mark 2) that recently shut with the Bumper Action Amusements (BAA Mark 1) as operated by Del Reiss, who I understand is the landlord of the premises just vacated. The company that went into administration just recently was BAA Mk2. The new company (with a shorter name) now runs the business.

BAA Mk1 is long gone (probably died when BAA Mk 2 took over) . BAA Mk1's owner (Reiss) has a very um, colourful history and had apparently continued to meddle in things with his tenant.

So closing BAA Mk2 and having a new lease is one way of getting rid of Reiss and his history. There's only so much distraction that any business owner can tolerate from their landlord.

Therefore Reiss's shenanigans under the name of Bumper ended when he sold out to BAA Mk2. His recent activities are in his own name or that of his trust (do some ASIC searches). BAA Mk2 had apparently had enough of Reiss as a landlord, hence the new entity now taking things over.

Company manoueverings like these are relatively commonplace when former owners, landlords and disgruntled staff don't accept what is offered to them. There are often a few people caught up in things who cannot see the reality of a situation.

#18 10 years ago

Overall, I see the new entity taking over WOZ obligations and Bumper's good assets as a positive step for the industry. New ownership, new location = a clearer path ahead for the business.

#21 10 years ago

It is the liquidators job to contact all creditors, that would include the ATO, staff etc.

Given the short history of BAA Mk2 I would think that the $50k and $171k substantially belong to the former business (BAA Mk1).

From the other side of what has been posted here and what has been put out by Bumper, the WOZ creditors and entitlements are transferred to the new company, as they should be.

Sounds like normal business to me.

#24 10 years ago

Welcome to the world of business and Australian law.

It's not unusual, unless you haven't been exposed to it before.

Thousands of companies end up going through this process every year, some do it intentionally to close out a defunct operation, others have it forced on them by creditors. There is nothing to show in the notice that it was the latter for Bumper. There is ample evidence that it was the former (new company and location).

What we should remember is that regardless of what any directors do or did, they no longer have a say in the company, and in many cases there are still innocent staff involved. Speculation in forums does not incentivise former directors to reply, all it does is deflate and depress the staff left behind so maybe you should go easy on them.

Moving on, Ballypinball has various aliases online and they differ across forums, which one are you referring to? Ballypinball is perhaps not a financial stakeholder with the old Bumper Action Amusements, therefore s/he is unlikely to know anything for sure. But don't expect lack of actual knowledge to slow him/her down.

As I am not the administrator and neither is Ballypinball, I suggest you contact the administrator directly rather than rely on forums for your "facts".

As the administrator has only been on the job a few days they will still be contacting creditors and advertising for claimants to come forward, this is standard practice in case the business accounts are less than complete for any reason and the creditors list needs updating.

All they would usually provide for now is a schedule of claimants and what they claim, few of which would have been examined yet and therefore all cannot be declared to be valid claims.

Notice is given that a meeting of the creditors of the Company, or a meeting for each of the Companies, (for multiple companies), will be held:
Location: The Boardroom
City Side Serviced Offices
200 Alexandra Parade
FITZROY VIC 3065
Meeting date: 12 August 2013
Meeting time: 11.00 AM

The administrator should also be doing an audit of transactions and getting a feel for the business and its accounting systems. All of that takes time and finally the administrator will be able to give a report on the status of the company (not the trading business which is no longer housed within that company). In this case, the administrator needs at least ten more days to get an initial list together, before examining any claims.

I would expect that the old Bumper company and credit claims will be finalised by the end of the year, or shorter if creditor claims can be quickly determined.

Until that whole process is complete, the actual financial position of the old company is unknown.

The administrator is now the only person who can decide anything about the old company for example who would get paid, how much and when, if ever. Former directors or staff have no say in this anymore. Genuine queries and your speculation should therefore be aimed at the liquidator. Non-genuine queries (non-creditors) will not usually be informed what is going on and how much is owed.

Dealing with non-creditors costs the administrator money so don't expect a reply. And haranguing former directors for payouts or abusing existing staff no longer serves any purpose. Mate, that doesn't leave you much to do does it?

As for WOZ, I understand that buyer's moneys and WOZ places have been assumed by the new Bumper, indeed that is what has been advised in newsletters. Maybe you should get a hold of one.

-1
#40 10 years ago

David M in all your various aliases here, Bumper (the new one) have issued updates on the change of owner and the safety of WOZ presales. As you already know.

You would also know that Del had run the old business into the ground and faced going broke as the market changed after 48 years doing the same thing. What caught the manufacturers and killed them was also catching Del. You were there.

Speculation about debt in the recently closed BAA Pty Ltd is just that, speculation, as the administrator has not received all statements of claim or processed the accounts for the business. Let me know if you want that repeated a third time and I will type more slowly.

FWIW, the cash paid for an item on pre-sale becomes a cash asset on the balance sheet. As long as the item is not supplied, the future payout to the supplier is then a matching liability as it is a promised purchase. There is no doubling up of liability back to the purchasers unless they cancel their orders, in which case the equal amount is no longer a liability to the supplier. You only get to count the money once. That said, there would be a small difference between cash paid and what goes on to Jersey Jack as Bumper would make a profit of the sale. But you get the idea...maybe not.

So the new owner can buy the assets (cash on the balance sheet) and take on the obligation/commitment to pay money to Jersey Jack (liability on the balance sheet). The cash on the balance sheet and the matching liability cancel each other out so they are treatments on paper only. The new owner would then agree to pay the money from customers over to Jersey Jack when it falls due to take over the management of the programme, they would not need to pay for the cash being held on the balance sheet. Look, go talk to an accountant about that.

As the new Bumper Amusements Pty Ltd is a management buyout of the owners who took over from Del, why can't those owners who bought the business off Dell sell the business again next year, taking a loss if they want to? It does seem that they got fed up with Del's interference and just wanted to get shot of him and were prepared to take a hit to get an exit. Happens all the time when the vendor misrepresents the business being sold.

#50 10 years ago
Quoted from Ballypinball:

I don't know who the hell you think i am
I am not David M or anyone who ever worked for Bumper, nor do i have any other Aliases
I can tell you I saw Dels Financials and it was far from being run into the ground with profits near 300k a year on the Financials.

WG I know you're not David M but I suspect Paulbozo might be. Your original post said "just posting the facts", you did not mention that you are a competitor to Bumper.

Necroscope, the administrator will have no opinion about WOZ. The WOZ project, funds and obligations have apparently been taken over by the new Bumper, as per the Bumper news releases of this week and results of calls some forumites have made to Bumper since.

Sparkup I am just explaining what I know about businesses in administration, and in this thread I have given more credence to official news releases from the source rather than relying on gossip and rumour.

I have not said anything that is not already in the public domain, I have just run my own research and put results together in a way different to other posters in these forums. It's all just my opinion but I think it all stands up OK.

LukeX, I am sure if JJ ramped up his deliveries to Australia then he would get more payments. After so many broken delivery dates, Bumper are wise to insist that until more boxes ship, there is nothing more to pay. It would be reckless to pay more money to a supplier who repeatedly broke agreed schedules and quantity commitments.

Anyway, that's how I'd run my business if I was selling pinballs or anything else.

#53 10 years ago

WG you are confusing liquidating a company with closing a business. Only the former happened, the latter has not.

Were Bumper a strong competitor to you last week or over the last several months? Unlikely, with all the issues they had to deal with including a difficult landlord who sounds like he has a screw loose.

Were Bumper your competitors before that? Yes, as both you and they trade pinball parts and machines - but there are points of difference between you.

A) You have been trying to become a manufacturer and had some hiccups, shall we say - Bumper did not try manufacturing.

B) Bumper have an agreement with an innovative pinball manufacturer, you do not.

I'm just reporting the facts...

Are Bumper a hot competitor this week? No.

Next month? Hopefully this is where it will get interesting.

I have to admit I admire Bumper's tenacity and ambition. I also admit to liking the fact that they have been playing a clean game and have not tried to mask their difficulties, nor point finger at others who have/had problems.

You said at the beginning of this thread that you were just reporting "fact".

The liabilities could be greater or lesser that what you suspect. FACT is, the liabilities will not be known for several weeks.

I recommend you change the title of the thread to be more FACTUAL "Former owners of Bumper Action Amusements Pty Ltd liquidate a disused company".

#58 10 years ago

Assists? Sorry absocountry2 do you mean assets?

#61 10 years ago

WG you have finally found out for yourself what Bumper Amusements the new company have been saying, that the WOZ programme continues with the new company and the new owner. That is the only reason why the liquidator has not heard of JJ or WOZ because they were no longer part of the old company when it ceased to operate. The new Bumper will hold all the rights, deposited moneys and agreements with JJ.

What's so unclear about that?

You are however still confused about the directors. Bumper (new management) said that the former GM has now bought the business in his own right.

What the directors of the old company do with the old company is therefore nothing to do with the new owner, they remain as separate legal entities.

You would know that arlready, as the new owners of your old Bally rights and assets would attest that you and they operate separately today. Are you responsible for what they do with your old assets? Of course not.

WG I am not knocking you personally, I admire anyone who takes on a tough assignment like manufacturing product in a country with very high manufacturing and export costs to supply a declining industry, when most others have failed.

#62 10 years ago
Quoted from lukex:

I am putting it out there and asking.
Noodlebox, you sure sound like Rob Farrell, former GM of the now defunct BA and new owner of the Phoenix company - the reborn BA.
Tell me I'm wrong.

You are wrong.

I am a business and marketing consultant with 20 years experience helping struggling businesses and start ups. I also like supporting the underdog.

#66 10 years ago
Quoted from Paulbozo:

Just ask for a refund and see how quick you get your money.
You don't need to liquidate a disused company, you just stop trading under that name.
I don't see how a director of a company can go into liquidation and then buy the asset back and start up fresh. Something is just wrong with this picture.
Like I said I feel for anyone who is mixed up in this mess.

Geez, Paulbozo (or is that David Maxton, the paulbozo handle was registered almost same day you lost your other login SMTM), please read things again - if you stop trading a business you lose income, run out of cash and become insolvent, this forces the company into liquidation at some time.

But sell the business first and you no longer need the company that contained it, so it still gets liquidated as it too has no income. The difference is the assets are protected, as they go within the business to the new (company) owner.

What doesn't get sold with the business, such as unwanted liabilities, these are liquidated when the company closes down. The argument tends to become one of ethics ie should you liquidate a business that owes tax to the Government. Before you answer that, think of any times you have taken cash and not paid tax, and tell me whether your illegal tax evasion is less of a crime than legal tax avoidance.

That said, there are provisions for deliberate large scale or serial Phoenix company activity to be unwound and directors held accountable. It's not common and it usually has only ever happened where the debt to Government is in the millions.

FWIW I have seen Phoenix companies in operation, they used to be rife in the IT industry as manufactured goods fell in price and distributors were left holding higher priced inventory. Phoenix companies tend not to move location, they just do a shabby legal quickstep and leave everything else the same.

I used to advise clients against the tactic, rather they should build a faster supply chain (difficult) or copy the Dell model and make to order. Over time they always destroyed their brand.

What I believe I see with Bumper is not a Phoenix side step, despite what former staff and competitors would say. It feels and reads more like a gigantic effort to eliminate ongoing blatant interference in the business (Del the landlord) and provide a fresh start for the new owner. Time will tell.

If that doesn't convince you think about this - Google maps and Streetview shows the new building as being larger than the old one and only one floor. That move just has to give better operational efficiency to the the business.

Moving gets rid of a pesky landlord and makes the business easier to run, hey why wouldn't you?

#67 10 years ago
Quoted from jeffspinballpalace:

I appreciate the bloodhounding done by many so far to keep us up to date. Having read through this thread with interest, am I to conclude that the WOZ buyers from BUMPER ACTION AMUSEMENTS PTY LTD have likely lost their money?
In spite of assurances above from some posters, I don't see how the WOZ buyers are not screwed. Anytime a company closes to avoid paying debts it has legitamately run up, it means those specific creditors have lost big time. When the dust clears, WOZ buyers who paid will probably find this money was not put into a trust account. Each buyer was actually a creditor but on a small scale. They gave money to Bumper and have a credit against a future asset. There is little doubt in my mind that this money has been sucked out of that company by its Owner. That the company is accused of destroying the books indicates they did not provide the accounting books to its new administrator.
Fancy legal jumbo aside, I feel bad for these buyers.

Nobody said the books were destroyed.

That was just one of several options on a published standard schedule of what any Administrator could do. I don't know why any administrator would do so unless they decided to rebuild the accounts and discard the old reports.

#68 10 years ago
Quoted from lukex:

Noodle,
Also, when you say you "like supporting the underdog" you seriously aren't suggesting that Bumper are the underdogs?

Ballypinball would have you think so. With so much idle speculation, misunderstanding of business liquidation and Administrator processes, and just outright dirty pool from competitors, how could Bumper not be an underdog? Can you name other pinball businesses in Australia who have had to endure this type of public attack recently?

#72 10 years ago
Quoted from lukex:

» YouTube video
Is this you Noodle???

Sprung! Not.

#74 10 years ago
Quoted from Ballypinball:

I know the owner of the new building and if you think Del was pesky, miss one day of rent and they will be out on their arse or fanny for our american friends.
Also they only leased part of that floor, although they have their crap spread out the entire floor. and the sq feet is smaller in size than Dels site.
My experience in being both property owners and leasing, you never hear from the landlord unless you fall behind in rent.
As the previous Landlord is owed $71k i would be pesky if it was my building.
I have to ask, if it was only to get rid of del why is Farrell the only Director of the new Company.
What happened to the 2 original directors? Even if they wanted rid of poor Howard the new Company would still have at least one of the original Directors.
As i pay my tax and on time, I sleep just fine.
Forget Paulboz being David M, I know Paul and happy to put you two in touch he has nothing to hide and is a successful businessman I wouldn't want you to accuse someone having wrong information.
I am sure you can check with admins

Seems like you have read their lease, or are you again relying on Del's word? Fatal.

And my experience with landlords, both for my clients' and my own business premises, the b****** never spend anything more unless they absolutely have to (read, threatened with withholding rent), they rate their own shabby buildings the equal of the best in the area and price accordingly, and they increase rent where property values increased as a result of your own improvements - unless you are a good negotiator.

Hey it's all just business, everyone likes to push the boundaries.

#78 10 years ago

????

The creditors' situation, again, will be resolved by the Administrator in due course. And again, if the WOZ records are not with the Administrator then they sit somewhere else, in this case the new Bumper have already put their hand up and said come and talk.

I'm surprised you do care about creditors not related to your own business, and are interested in machines you did not sell.

What did you do with creditors for your own projects that never eventuated? Should anyone else be taking you to task about that? Would you have a double standard and insist it is no-one else's business?

#79 10 years ago
Quoted from Ballypinball:

Or maybe he will except my offer to buy the building I made a week ago.

It becomes clear why you have been so derogatory of Bumper - you just wanted what they had. The disguise was yours, sir, and it has slipped.

#88 10 years ago
Quoted from kaplan:

Hey Noodlebox,
I am really impressed with your understanding on a set up on a new business. Could you please provide me your contact details because when bumper liquidate their company soon(again) I would like to use you to buy it for a dollar.

Sure kaplan, only my fees are to be paid in advance as there are no guarantees you can make it work any better.

Quoted from Ballypinball:

well commercial leases in Victoria
Tenant must pay
The cost of drawing up the lease & stamp duty on the lease
Rates and water
all Utilities
Outgoings like bodycorporate and all repairs and mantainance.
Even the Building Insurance
You are renting the property where is as is,
Sure if the roof leaks the owner must fix, but ac toilets electrical etc
you are on your own.
As del wants 3k a week rent now and was charging them $2500 sound like he was being more than reasonable to me. Below market
Andrew from the tramcar is more than happy to lease the buiding, and many others, so doubt del will have any problems leasing it.
Or maybe he will except my offer to buy the building I made a week ago.

Wayne, Del wants to stiff you with a 20% rent increase and you think it's reasonable? Guys like Del only prosper because you let them get away with it. With Del's record, you still think a 20% lift is reasonable? Have you looked at other properties and compared the rates? Maybe you should.

Your items are not always the tenant's responsibility.

R&M in particular is not.

(The following is not legal advice.)

Retail Leases Act 2003 - SECT 52
Landlord's liability for repairs
52. Landlord's liability for repairs
(1) A retail premises lease is taken to provide as set out in this section.
(2) The landlord is responsible for maintaining in a condition consistent with
the condition of the premises when the retail premises lease was entered into-
(a) the structure of, ***and fixtures in***, the retail premises; and
(b) ***plant and equipment at the retail premises***; and
(c) the appliances, fittings and fixtures provided under the lease by the
landlord relating to the gas, electricity, water, drainage ***or other
services***.
(3) However, the landlord is not responsible for maintaining those things if-
(a) the need for the repair arises out of misuse by the tenant; or
(b) the tenant is entitled or required to remove the thing at the end of
the lease.

Repair (section 52)
• The landlord is under a specific obligation to repair. Urgent repairs are no longer capped at $5,000.

Retail Leases Act 2003 - SECT 50
Recovery of land tax

50. Recovery of land tax
(1) A provision of a retail premises lease is void to the extent that it makes
the tenant liable to pay an amount for tax for which the landlord or head
landlord is liable under the Land Tax Act 2005.

And so forth. As ac toilets electrical are not mandated to be paid by the tenant in the Act, then they are just more areas where the landlord will try to transfer costs to the tenant.

Negotiate them!

#90 10 years ago
Quoted from MTPPC:

I don't know how it works down under, but noodlebox's theory that a business can sell the assets and ditch the liabilities is definitely not how it works in the US. I certainly can't speak as to an Australian company bankruptcy, but I can state unequivocally that no company can incur debts (and take deposits) and see the any government make those creditors whole. In order to transfer the assets and ditch the liabilities, BK fraud must occur (at least in the US). Ethics mean jack shit. We are talking about law.
Clawbacks are common in the US when people try to pull this. Sell the company car for a dollar to a friend and the BK trustee can demand fair market value or take the car. All of these transactions must be detailed 18 months back in the US.

I agree with you, laws and ethics should be more closely aligned, but in company law in Australia they are not.

#91 10 years ago
Quoted from Ballypinball:

As the new Company was set up 2 week before that, they must have known what was taking place.

Smart managers would stay ahead of problems.

I would sell my body to science before I would wind up any of my companies owing creditors.

Smart thinking, you have created an option where you can let someone else do it for you and say "it wasn't me, I wouldn't do that". You would have NO control over creditor payouts if someone puts you through.

Sounds like Del has a dispute on his hands.

#94 10 years ago
Quoted from MTPPC:

I guess noodle's purpose is to confuse WOZ depositors into not taking their deposits out of Bumper's directors' hides. By introducing nonsense confusion, it diffuses the anger and potential recourse/revenge activities. Nice move, noodlebox.

Buyers can do what they want. It is not me that has posted misleading innuendo. All of my comments are drawn from public record.

#95 10 years ago
Quoted from Ballypinball:

Pitty they didn't sign a retail lease but a commercial lease
all what you posted is wrong
The premises is zoned commercial, not retail, meaning occasional retail unlike retail IE a coffee shop.
so the tenant pays everything
But keep up the good work, sort of like a 10 year old trying to educate a teacher
Keep trying, I'm here all week!!

I think you overstate your age.

In commercial leases everything is negotiable. Retail lease law is there to protect the inexperienced Mums and Dads who often lease retail premises.

#98 10 years ago
Quoted from MTPPC:

Noodlebox, let me ask a couple of simple questions:
Are you claiming that the WOZ liabilities are transferred to this phoenix company?
Are you claiming that the new phoenix company is obligated to make depositors whole?
Are you claiming that the government will make depositors whole?
Are you claiming that the new company will do anything for depositors (defacto creditors) in the old company?
What is your horse in this race? Please disclose your exact relationship to the parties we are discussing.

There is no phoenix company. A phoenix would have the same directors etc and the new Bumper does not. Bumper say they have taken over the WOZ agreements of the old Bumper. That should include liabilities, cash and various obligations and agreements otherwise why do it?

The new company should have no relationship with or obligations to other non-WOZ creditors that are still resting with the old Bumper.

I have already disclosed my position. I am not a salaried employee of old or new Bumper. The fact that I can reason and clarify various statements seems to make me different to many members here and therefore a target. Go ahead.

#99 10 years ago

G'night all.

#142 10 years ago
Quoted from lukex:

As noodle is unwilling to identify himself, I have taken the liberty of collecting his pinside history for your viewing pleasure.
A member of this site for just over two weeks, he has made a total of 42 posts and 40 of these have been defending the indefensible company that was Bumper Action.
Welcome to pinside.

You're kidding, right? I jump on the forum to find some stuff and see a thread related to business in Australia and find many people getting upset or speculating about stuff that is plain incorrect. So I post some messages to help clear the air and have to repeat myself a few times for some people. And I had to start somewhere so of course I have not built a wider history, although there are many other threads I have visited without posting, but you wouldn't know that.

And you think it important to count my messages and topics of interest??? What are ya, the internet police?

#143 10 years ago

People here are still thinking that all of Bumper closed down. It did not. A defunct company Bumper **Action** Amusements Pty Ltd was shut down after selling it's assets. Those assets included WOZ, its moneys and other stuff, now rest with the new company, Bumper Amusements Pty Ltd. WOZ buyers have not lost a thing. Laws in regard to closing a defunct company that has no income or assets are to be been followed, and from what I can see are being followed.

US laws have no bearing in Australia, neither do US opinions about Australian laws. The Australian laws are what we have to deal with here.

Anyone who continues to say otherwise when they have not been a WOZ buyer or received their news updates is just making speculation, all of it wrong. The word "troll" is relevant here.

Anyway, I have said my piece FWIW. Feel free to ignore my opinions. Those who missed me (?) these last few hours, thanks for your interest but I have a life outside forums and pinball.

#156 10 years ago
Quoted from Sunfox:

If you are affected and worried, contact JJP

No, contact the liquidator to confirm the old Bumper sold that interest to the new company, then contact the new Bumper to confirm they hold your funds and order in the queue.

THEN contact JJ and ask him why more machines have not been shipped to OZ when Bumper already met and exceeded the payment terms.

#159 10 years ago
Quoted from MTPPC:

I really don't have any dog in the hunt, but the idea that a company is discharging half a million in debt and no one is going to pay the price is simply ridiculous.

Under American law you are right. But the sales agreements are not in America.

What you can try to wrap your head round is that the amount of debt in the old shell is still just speculation until the administrator has had contact with all claimants and examined the books, which by the way can no longer be destroyed until the administrator says so.

Until then, all you have to go off is a rumour of the amount as stated by a competitor to Bumper. Trust that at your peril.

#160 10 years ago
Quoted from lukex:

I have the reply from Jack to my concerns but it is not fair for me to post it here and as I was speculating at the time, he may have chosen to ignore the warning. That was up to him.

Or he may have decided that your info was bogus and proved you wrong, deciding that you were just stirring the pot. I think WOZ owners would want you to leave the guy alone, just let him make the machines.

-2
#163 10 years ago
Quoted from lukex:

felt at the time I was doing my duty as a decent human being

Absolute rubbish. You gave no thought to the poor blighters that work at Bumper who have to put up with all this rumour and innuendo. A knight on a white horse you are not.

-1
#172 10 years ago
Quoted from Squizz:

I heard that if you cancelled your order with BAA, you lost $1200 from your deposit.
But they would refund the rest. (Shrugs)

Another business law question, keep 'em coming! CAV say the law allows a business to keep a fair portion of the whole price if the customer just changes their mind, as the business has incurred costs dealing with the customer and handling suppliers. Bear in mind these were not laybys which also allow for an amount to be retained on cancellation. Laybys are only possible on goods already sitting in the shop or in delivery. Most people's purchases might not have been made yet thanks to delays at the factory.

Surely the idea of a limited edition anything should make it a collectors' item and hence have higher resale after purchase?

-1
#216 10 years ago
Quoted from absocountry2:

Noodle, you ignored some direct questions from myself and others that would end this debate. I know you see them because you keep deflecting other post all around the questions. At this point I have a hard time lending any credibility to your posts. You can change that by answering questions asked.

Absocountry2 and the paranoid who see a conspiracy, it doesn't matter if I called myself a duck or anything else, people here will think whatever they want. They have already formed their opinions. There is no reason why I cannot enjoy the same anonymity as the more spiteful posters here who should be moderated.

For example, Ballypinball's latest message is obnoxious, implying that I should have had sex with someone against my wishes. Is that the standard you want all for this forum?

Let's do have our debates with a bit more class. I'll start off by calling Ballypinball "pinto", a Portuguese term of endearment between friends - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3208501.stm

#217 10 years ago
Quoted from absocountry2:

Noodle, you ignored some direct questions from myself and others that would end this debate. I know you see them because you keep deflecting other post all around the questions. At this point I have a hard time lending any credibility to your posts. You can change that by answering questions asked.

What would end this debate would be if those who post false, malicious and patently untrue statements were held to account. I have tried to assist people to understand the process of this liquidation, and my statements agree with what has been published by the business owner and available for download from government websites. Yet the same inaccuracies are published again and again, by those who compete with and wish harm on a competitor. Nobody minds competition, except those who are spreading the mistruths.

Why don't you ask Wayne Gee I Lost Bally Pinball why he has gone to the effort of finding and publishing information and half truths in a way that that can only upset people who worry about their investment in WOZ.

Their funds are held by a new company, not the old company or the liquidator. They have had communication from Bumper about this, and none of them are in this forum saying how worried they are. Yet Wayne aka "pinto" continues to lie about this process. And he is lying. He's been in business for a while and should know how company shutdowns work, that a business can continue to trade after it is sold to another company.

Yet he continues to encourage others to do his dirty work. That some believe this nonsense rather than published fact is a wonder of the internet.

Hence the need for moderators to edit out libellous statements and close the accounts of those who show such malicious behaviour.

-2
#231 10 years ago

Yes lukex.

Ask a JJ customer to explain the deal as it was explained to them when they signed up, about how their funds would be held in Australia until JJ had machines ready to ship.

That way, JJ has to provide something for the money. Your way, and Wayne's way, the customers money would have all gone overseas by now. And been spent. And gone with it any leverage that the Aussie agent Bumper would have over Jack and his schedule.

And if a customer wanted to get a refund, well JJ doesn't seem to provide those based on other forum comments. And what odds will you give that a frustrated customer would have to wait maybe a few more years to get their dough back???

Try not to be naive. When you deal with any overseas suppliers, you don't pay in full up front for anything. It's like providing a free loan or gift to an anonymous stranger in an overseas country.
Or would you have it that all money went offshore to Jack, who then took 2 and half years to send ANYTHING, many years later than promised. Where would customers be now?

Despite the issues and representations made by Bumper in good faith as given to them by Jack, and since broken by Jack on many occasions, the customers are better off with their funds held in Australia - and held not by Wayne's mate Del.

Think it through. All money overseas = no leverage with the manufacturer. JJ is under pressure to supply all around the place and he's taking machines from "X" to satisfy the noisier "Y".

If any O/seas manufacturer had all your money and you were overseas to them, do you think they would give you priority ahead of bigger and noisier customers who could just walk in their front door any day? This is business, this is international trade.

If I was a WOZ customer ("was a WOZ", oops), I would want my vendor to be smart about things like this.

As it has turned out, it is good news for WOZ clients that Bumper have held the line and held Jack to whatever arrangement he made earlier.

Or you can follow Wayne's suggestion and give away any leverage Bumper have to get JJ to ship more boxes. If you followed Wayne's suggestions, then you'd be an easy touch for future deals that Wayne would put together, all funded on your money. But wait, making money is supposedly not Wayne's goal. He's already wealthy, so he likes to tell me.

Actually, he just wants a competitor to fold.

"Gecko" Gillard, gotcha!

#234 10 years ago
Quoted from absocountry2:

You say the info is there, direct us to it.

It's all there for you, I'm not going to do all the work.

Refer to earlier parts of this thread with images and links to company registration details, liquidator details, ASIC government requirements of liquidators.

Read the newsletters Bumper put out to WOZ and all standard customers (your members here can oblige, but wait very few if any WOZ buyers are in this thread because they have had things explained to them already.)

Google Del Reiss and Bumper especially with the tag "auction".

Read posts from the banned and reincarnated ShowMeTheMoney written in his own strange way of expressing himself. Read other threads relating to Bumper at AussieArcade forum.

Ask Pinball Faith party goers about what went on with staff that "had to leave in a hurry".

Google and read up on Wayne Gillard's speculation in and failure to deliver Ballypinball, some say 200+ customer grievances and others say 600+. Read how he lost control of pinball.com as a domain name, and start to form the opinion that WG is angry and bitter.

Google WG with muscle car tag lines and read up on the type of person he is in that industry too. Form the opinion that W Gillard esq is not respected in any of these forums and hates to see others do what he believes he should be doing himself. Form the opinion that sour grapes and pinto-esque proportions control his thoughts.

Post some messages in public and via PM and in his replies have your suspicions confirmed about WG's business personality and ethics or lack thereof.

I thought names were not being used?

What, and being told someone should have screwed you with all the sexual innuendo intact IS acceptable???????

If you show me the truth, not jsut say it is so, I will gladly set others straight.

Please.

Robin is the only person who can close accounts. If you think something is libelous, direct him to the spot and he has the final say.

I have.

Feel free to direct me to statements that are wrong.

It's there in front of you, much of it is within this thread and the ones closed in ShowMeTheMoney name on Pinside.

If you think my conclusions and earlier posts are reasonable, you should then ban BallyPinball from your forum. Forever.

#236 10 years ago
Quoted from Ballypinball:

Last time i looked they had already Folded, your wearing Blinders.
Now where is that Forum Moderator when you need him about mentioning peoples surnames.
Yes pay Jack that's what i would do, even have the customer pay Jack direct if they have a problem,
The problem here is Jack is holding a deposit but why is Bumper holding the Balance, no need for the customers to pay the balance unless the games are ready according to your scheme of things.
So Ha customer please pay a deposit, then hay customer you are one of 4 games ready and shipped by mussonfreight so please pay your balance and your game will be here ie Aug 27th.
Otherwise ha customers because your game is delayed we will refund all your money and then request it back when your game is ready.
But we all know that ain't going to happen now don't we.
As i am sure the profit on the games is long gone with BAA 1 or BAA2 or whatever now

Wayne you already said everyone here knows who you are, so using your surname is not an issue.

As the deal was set up under Del Reiss's time, why don't you ask Del why he wanted to structure the deal that way. The guys at Bumper today just inherited it.

In your business WG, would you really provide a refund and then ask for it again? Is that what you did with the failed Bally customers, you gave them all their deposits back until you actually had something to sell????

Didn't think so.

#239 10 years ago

Total and complete bullshit. So utterly untrue it makes everything you say suspect. JJP has refunded tons of people that could not wait any longer. Your credibility just took a huge nosedive.

JJP refunds were made only after the selling price increased. JJP now pays out less then resells for more. Who wouldn't?

Where would they be now? I will tell you where they would be now. They would be frustruated about having to wait this long like all of the rest of JJP customers BUT they wouldn't be worried that they may have been ripped off completely by a distributor that has effectively stolen their money.

Garymartin were you referring to Del Reiss pocketing the JJ money? Yes that happened, and he was successfully sued to return it to Bumper's recent owners, who then sold the project and cash to today's owner.

Can you figure out what the only real proof is, something that will silence all the conspiracy theorists?

JJ makes pinballs and gets paid the balance owing by Bumper as each is completed. Eventually JJ makes all the machines and ships them as he promised to do so long ago, JJ gets paid all the funds.

All funds are then found to have been held on account and paid out as originally agreed with JJP.

So all these allegations and your accusations of stealing are baseless, as JJ is getting paid one machine at a time. There's your proof.

Bumper today are not saying oops got no cash, they are paying JJ as he ships machines.

Former Bumper have no cash or interest in WOZ, as per the administrator's alleged comments earlier in this thread.

Del Reiss no longer has it, the courts took it off him.

You're very transparent you know that?

I might be, but that does not prove you have 20/20 eyesight.

#243 10 years ago
Quoted from lukex:

If you have a look on the ASIC website, it appears that this process must have commenced well before the end of July.
?????

Nope, between Line 2 and 3.

#244 10 years ago
Quoted from Ballypinball:

Hay anyone asks me for a refund on anything and i Show Them The Money
But thats because i have it to give.
Yes i would only hold a deposit and ask for the balance when required.
Not Request more money
From:
Date: Thursday, August 1, 2013
Subject: WOZ account
Hello from
Our records indicate that your Wizard of Oz purchase has a balance of
$XXXX owing, how does that tally with your account?
If you have a different amount, please send an email with your schedule of
payments and dates. We will then reconcile the amounts and provide you
with an updated schedule.
You will also be getting a new Wizard of Oz update later today.
Kind regards,

Strange, reads OK to me, that's just making sure everyone agrees on the account, isn't it? I donlt see any demand for payment, so what's your point?????

Oh I get it, you managed to get a newsletter, well done.

#246 10 years ago
Quoted from Ballypinball:

Hay anyone asks me for a refund on anything and i Show Them The Money
But thats because i have it to give.

Fantastic! You're so worried about the WOZ customers you intend to pay out the balances of customers who have not paid in full with JJ or Bumper. You have a kind heart, not.

#251 10 years ago
Quoted from GaryMartin:

Wow Noodle, you're just dodging the truth left and right aren't you? YOU said this exact thing:
"And if a customer wanted to get a refund, well JJ doesn't seem to provide those based on other forum comments"
In that context you were talking about Jersey Jack, so I am assuming you mean JJ=Jersey Jack. Thus it's inferred that you're saying "Jersey Jack doesn't seem to provide refunds".
You're the one that posted that, just a little ways back in this banquet of BS...

And I was correct. JJ does not return deposits. JJ resells the machine and returns the dough because he just onsold it for more money.

That is NOT the same as paying out a full refund on a deposit when asked, without tying it to a machine resale.

JJ has provided competition to a stale industry, more power to him. He put his distributors in difficult positions all around the world by over-promising and under-delivering.

Your comments appear like blind defence of a countryman who has messed up forecasting his delivery times and the complexity of what he was trying to make. I don't have anything against Americans, only nongs who post without checking facts.

#252 10 years ago
Quoted from Ballypinball:

Its Funny how noodles is turning on everyone here

I'll turn 'em on, and you can turn them off.

-2
#253 10 years ago

Zinger score, Noodlebox 3, Ballypinball 0.

#255 10 years ago

That's me for the night, see y'all.

-2
#260 10 years ago

Not a refund as the law sees it, refunds are to be unencumbered, JJs are not.

#262 10 years ago

GaryMartin
You have no idea about Australian laws that govern deposits, lay-bys (lay-aways) and refunds, and it appears you don't know how JJ is dealing with things. All you have seen is the spin put on it.

Why would anyone care? Because it's the difference between being seen to be doing the right thing and not. JJ is a salesman.

Call me stoopid one more time and I'll have to apply for US citizenship.

#264 10 years ago
Quoted from GaryMartin:

Okay, no problem. "Stupid".
Question #1, who is making the Wizard of Oz Pinball Machine?
Question #2. *WHAT COUNTRY* is that company in?
Question #3. If you *purchase* something from that Company, what countries conventions and Laws apply to that purchase? IE, if someone in Australia buys something direct from said company.
Your statements were false, untrue, lies. JJP has refunded anyone that preordered directly with them and then requested a refund from said pre-order on any machine they make, WOZ or TH.
The acts of unscrupulous businesmen in Australia are their's and their's alone, not JJPs.
You know what, I'm tired of trying to have a battle of wits with an obviously unarmed opponent. I'm dropping you on the Ignore list.
I do feel really bad for any Aussies that got screwed over by this bunch of weasles involved with Bumper Amusements in any shape or form.

Hmmm, a baseball fan? Three strikes (your three empty posts) and you out yourself.

EDIT: Ban vote issued for attacking other Pinsiders to this point. Keep it civil.

Post edited by absocountry2 : Ban vote issued

3 weeks later
-1
#493 10 years ago

The money is important, but not to pinsiders who have no financial stake in this. Maybe the American based pinsiders should be asking 5 harder questions -

Where are the machines?
Why is Jersey Jack using parts bought with LE money to make standards to go to someone else?
Where are the machines?
Why are machines with LE plates sold to Bumper (and paid for) being sold again to someone else?
Where are the machines?

-2
#506 10 years ago
Quoted from phantomflip:

5 questions for you
Is your real name Jamie who works at bumper?
Why have you still been accepting WOZ deposits to unsuspecting buyers knowing you cant deliver?
Were you employed to help Rob get his VISA?
Why was the new Bumper showroom at 127 Whiteman St closed today?
Do you shop at target?
Bonus question
Where has my money gone thief?

No.
I can't if I don't work there.
No.
No idea, I don't work there and don't pass there for commute. Go talk to them, ducky.
Sorry, poor taste.
Bonus reply - post reported to moderators. Be polite.

My question - how come you only formulated this identity to post this one message.

-2
#510 10 years ago
Quoted from phantomflip:

http://au.linkedin.com/pub/jamie-smith/8/580/a94
You look nothing like your Avatar,and sorry, you got all answers wrong.
PS Be careful who you disclose your true identity to superman, someone always tells.
I only asked some basic questions,dont get pissed,after all.....I am the one who is owed a pinball machine. Is it a criminal offence to accept payment for machines that don't exist? ducky.

So you were shopping in Target and that means I am the person who works at Bumper? That's rather a long bow to draw.

A bit like saying that as YOUR only posts as "phantomflip" are about suggesting who else I might be mean that you don't want those posts under YOUR main pseudonym so YOU could be outed. But wait, that would be true.

Does it really matter who or what my source of info is?

Maybe time spent on identities could be spent uncovering why JJ chose a new WOZ distributor who is so disliked across the pinball community. I know why. Do you?

-1
#517 10 years ago
Quoted from kaplan:

Not sure if it has anything to do with sponsorship but as they keep pointing out their trying to stick with the facts. Even though bumper keep disappointing their customers by fabricating notices and trying to wipe their hands clean of the whole woz deal by handing it back to jack. The deal is between bumper and the customer and no one else. That is where the money was handed over and the invoice given.

Bumper say Jack cancelled the distributorship.

Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
$ 10.00
Lighting
Yoppsicle
Lighting
$ 22.50
Magazines/books
Pinball Magazine
Magazines/books

You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider noodlebox.
Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

Reply

Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.

Hey there! Welcome to Pinside!

Donate to Pinside

Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run without any 3rd-party banners or ads, thanks to the support from our visitors? Please consider a donation to Pinside and get anext to your username to show for it! Or better yet, subscribe to Pinside+!


This page was printed from https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/bumper-action-amusements-pty-ltd-in-liquidation?tu=noodlebox and we tried optimising it for printing. Some page elements may have been deliberately hidden.

Scan the QR code on the left to jump to the URL this document was printed from.