Bye Bye Learnology
Being the incredibly stupid person that I am, I told the boys in Learnology about the ‘oops’ email and the potential joining together of Sean & Co. and Ashfield in holy matrimony. I thought I was doing the right thing by telling them. Despite my being wired to the moon and sometimes (often) a complete fuckin eejit, I’m an honest chap I am. In hindsight, I wish I had kept my gob-shite gob shut.
When I showed MBB the second love letter from Everyone Shites, he became very worried. I was showing it to him against a backdrop of pride, in a kind of “ha ha look what I received!” way. Unfortunately, MBB didn’t receive it with such joviality and rebelliousness. Why are some people so fucking square? We only live once. Life shouldn’t be about negativity and worry. It should be about adventure and excitement. MBB fell into the trap of believing that Sean & Co. could actually have a case against Learnology (I guess intuition isn’t a gift with which we are all blessed). This couldn’t have been further from the truth. There was no possible way that Sean could attach Learnology to any legal action they would take against me, nor was there any way they were going to take any action in the first place.
As you have read before, Sean’s rationale for harping on about their potential pursuit of Learnology profits was a bid to try to get us to ‘let them in’ to the company. No judge would buy into this bullshit if it ever went to court (which it wouldn’t). Later on in this chapter I will use the Jack & Jill Lollipop story to describe just why this case would have never been admitted into the wig and wing collar club.
Regrettably, some of us fell for Sean’s bullshit more than others, namely MBB. On Thursday 9th December 2013, MBB wrote me an official email stating that he ‘elected to cease all involvement with Learnology Limited’ on account of ‘Learnology’s unnecessary risk of legal challenge’. I know what you’re thinking; why use the word ‘elected’? Why not just say ‘decided’, for fuck sake. In any case, regardless of his choice of words, what a gullible gob shite. In fact, he was so gullible that I no longer believe he is worthy of the title MBB (Mr Brain Box). I have therefore ‘elected’ to remove this esteemed title, and rename him the cunning, underhand, nasty, tosser (CUNT).
Why did Learnology collapse?
When CUNT ‘elected’ to withdraw from Learnology, he also ‘elected’ to withdraw the total amount of funds he had originally invested back in September. Bear in mind that 3 months had passed since he came on board, and we would have obviously used a portion of these investment funds to cover expenses thus far. But no no, this does not mean that he took back the remaining portion of his funds. For some reason he thought he could take back the full shebang. I often thank my lucky stars that he left when he did, because someone who carries on like this is not the type of person you want to work with on a long time basis. I just wish I hadn’t trusted him as much as I did, and I hadn’t let him be the only partner with access to online banking (who’s gullible now, says you).
Learnology was capitalised with a debt to equity ratio of 1:1, 50% bank debt (from BOI) and 50% investment funds (from CUNT). CUNT’s withdrawal of monies over and above what he was entitled, exposed us to the point that we were like Nigerian nationals in Antarctica, with no igloo or parka. His over withdrawal ate into our bank debt unnecessarily. He had fucked us (and the company) up no end. Luckily however, CUNT had signed a personal guarantee on the bank loan, making him joint and severally liable for that debt. Nevertheless, as we were now only capitalised by debt, no equity, we had to fold the company and wave goodbye to Learnology.
For anyone reading who had a child or relation in Learnology, I apologise. I apologise for the behaviour of CUNT (who robbed us), I apologise for the behaviour of Sean & Co. (who made the idle threat that led to us being robbed). Learnology looked like it was going places; we were the only low cost grind school in Ireland, meaning we had opened the doors to students for whom grinds had never before been an option. Finally, I apologise for my behaviour. I would love to sit hear and write that the whole situation was outside of my control, and that I was not at fault. The truth is I was at fault; I should have never been honest with CUNT about the ‘oops’ email, and I should have never taken on someone like him in the first place.
The Jack & Jill Lollipop Story
The reason why CUNT was wrong to assume that Sean would have taken us to court can easily be explained using my Jack & Jill Lollipop Story:
Cast (in order of appearance)
Jack = played by Paul
Jill = played by Sean & Co. (nominated for an Oscar)
Mary = played by CUNT
Mommy & Daddy = played by the High Court Judge
Props (again in order of appearance)
Yellow Lollipop = OnlineGrinds.ie
Red Lollipop = Learnology
One day, Jack and Jill are headed up the hill to fetch a pale of water. On the way to fetch the pale, Jack says to Jill “Hey Jill, will we go and get a lollipop?” Jill replies by saying “sure Jack, I would really like a lollipop right now”. Jack then advises that he has no money to buy said lollipop, so Jill agrees to buy the lollipop, subject to her being able to share it with Jack and benefit from the nutrition and nice taste it provides. Jack consents. They buy a yellow lollipop.
Having licked the top of the yellow lollipop, Jack says to Jill, “hmmmmmm, this lollipop doesn’t taste too good; it’s not really fulfilling our appetite, is it Jill?”. Jill doesn’t know any better, as she hasn’t been actively involved in the licking process.
Jack says to Jill, “let’s go and get a red lollipop instead, I believe they are much tastier and much more popular among kids”. Jill says she is “happy with this one, maybe if we keep licking it we will come to a tasty bit”. Jack says “no matter how much you lick, it will always taste the same”.
Jill is happy to stay with the yellow lollipop, and Jack gets a new red one. But Jack cannot possibly manage the new, big, red lollipop on his own. He needs help. So he asks Mary to help him.
When Jill sees how much Jack and Mary are enjoying the red lollipop, and how it has serious potential to fulfill their appetite, Jill wants to have some of it.
When Jill asks Jack and Mary if she could have some, Jack isn’t entirely against it, as he has always gotten along with Jill. However, Mary doesn’t want Jill to be part of the licking process.
Jill threatens to tell mommy and daddy and claims that both Jack AND Mary will get in trouble if they don’t let Jill in on the action. But if Jack and Mary let Jill share the red lollipop with them, Jill won’t say a word to mommy and daddy. But what will mommy and daddy think if Jill tells them but then Jack explains that Jill wouldn’t have said a word if she had been allowed in? Would this damage the entire credibility of Jill’s argument?
Would mommy and daddy tell Jill to stop acting like a spoiled child and ask her why she didn’t accept Jack’s offer in the first place? Whether Jack gets a slap on the wrist or not from mommy and daddy, how could they possibly find Mary to be deserving of a slap?
Despite the fact that mommy and daddy couldn’t touch Mary, she still gets scared shitless and spontaneously ‘elects’ to leave Jack to lick the lollipop alone. Such was the credibility of Jill’s threats (in her eyes). But when Mary leaves, the task of licking the lollipop is virtually impossible for Jack to do on his own, so he has to throw it away.
I know this lovely little story may seem a tad oversimplified, but the principle of the matter remains the same. There was no way Sean & Co. could go after Learnology, but as CUNT didn’t see this, we lost Learnology.
Thanks Sean & Co. Thanks CUNT. You guys are the best.
Quick Poll (it takes a nanosecond)
Please answer the following question. Complete anonymity is assured.
Results will be announced in tomorrow’s installment.