[DIFH]

MDCCCLXVI, on 16 January 2017 - 06:48 PM, said:

Well clearly there's still work to do.

But then if Sutcliffe's paying for the privilege of using the badge, just as if he's paying the same, some might argue extortionate price charged to fans for hourly use of the stadium, I've no problem.

Maybe Ashley can supply evidence that's the case whilst we're waiting for the trip booking evidence promised last November.

Then we can only hope bills accumulated by Sutcliffe don't result in the Club issuing a CCJ...

From what has been posted recently why on earth would we want to be associated with this failing enterprise. With the debt increasing would it not be reasonable to assume they are getting their association for peanuts if they are upto date with their payments.

Why does the club still continue with this project all be it in a limited capacity, where are the positives ?

[Guest_freelander2_*]

dim view, on 15 January 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

In my opinion the disaster of the management of the Development Centre is the major stumbling block to Ashley's desire for a new start. Amongst many other unanswered questions, the simple timeline example described above suggests we have been misled. Ashley's plan to wash his hands of the issues as it is now under new management won't wash.

If Ashley were to offer me and my BB colleagues a meeting to thrash this out, I for one would agree to it with a promise of support and a clean sheet if I feel that honesty has prevailed.

Been a busy boy today, so just catching up. Following on from your post, has AC been in touch with Moondog about a meeting?

[moondog]

freelander2, on 16 January 2017 - 10:50 PM, said:

Been a busy boy today, so just catching up. Following on from your post, has AC been in touch with Moondog about a meeting?

Not yet

[dim view]

freelander2, on 16 January 2017 - 10:50 PM, said:

Been a busy boy today, so just catching up. Following on from your post, has AC been in touch with Moondog about a meeting?

the offer has either passed him by or he's not interested. To be fair, he's been busy.

I genuinely don't want the AGM to be about the activities of the Directors of the DC. Mike Warner is going to have enough on fielding criticisms of CT's running of CFC without me or anybody else raising DC matters. The new manager's first impression of his Director of Football is going to be soured from the start.

[Spireite-Karl]

dim view, on 17 January 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

the offer has either passed him by or he's not interested. To be fair, he's been busy.

I genuinely don't want the AGM to be about the activities of the Directors of the DC. Mike Warner is going to have enough on fielding criticisms of CT's running of CFC without me or anybody else raising DC matters. The new manager's first impression of his Director of Football is going to be soured from the start.

Unless the new manager is our director of football... Now there's one nobody's though of, Der Der Der Der Der Der Der Der

[Guest_freelander2_*]

MDCCCLXVI, on 16 January 2017 - 06:48 PM, said:

Well clearly there's still work to do.

But then if Sutcliffe's paying for the privilege of using the badge, just as if he's paying the same, some might argue extortionate price charged to fans for hourly use of the stadium, I've no problem.

Maybe Ashley can supply evidence that's the case whilst we're waiting for the trip booking evidence promised last November.

Then we can only hope bills accumulated by Sutcliffe don't result in the Club issuing a CCJ...

Chris,

As I see this, there are two issues. Firstly, what financial relationship exists/existed between the football club and the companies under the control of LS & CT and secondly, the allegations made by the former members of staff, which a small number of us had been made aware of.

With regards to the first point, I am hoping this will be cleared up very shortly by Howard Freeman at Shorts as prior to the original AGM, I did email Howard (copied AC in) and requested the following information :

1) Other debtors, a full list of debtor details and outstanding balances relating to the same for year ends 30/06/13 (£280,071), 30/06/14 (£641,200), 30/06/15 (£228,557) and 30/06/16 (£219,818).

2) Total value of expenditure charged to CFC 2001 Ltd by CFC Football Development School Ltd for year ends 30/06/13, 30/06/14, 30/06/15 and 30/06/16.

3) Total value of expenditure charged to CFC 2001 Ltd by CFC International Football Academy Ltd for year end 30/06/16.

There was an acknowledgment by AC that it would be a good idea to release the information and for it to come directly from Howard. In hindsight, perhaps I should have also asked HF to confirm the following too:

1) Total value of expenditure charged to CFC Football Development School Ltd by CFC 2001 Ltd for year ends 30/06/13, 30/06/14, 30/06/15 and 30/06/16.

2) Total value of expenditure charged to CFC International Football Academy Ltd by CFC 2001 Ltd for year end 30/06/16.


With regards to the second point concerning the allegations which we have been made aware of, at what point is someone going to address them as there appears a total reluctance to touch the subject?

This post has been edited by freelander2: 19 January 2017 - 09:24 AM

[dim view]

freelander2, on 19 January 2017 - 09:23 AM, said:

With regards to the second point concerning the allegations which we have been made aware of, at what point is someone going to address them as there appears a total reluctance to touch the subject?

Morning
How do you think the subject should be addressed?

[Guest_freelander2_*]

dim view, on 19 January 2017 - 09:51 AM, said:

Morning
How do you think the subject should be addressed?

In the first instance, a meeting consisting of the ex members of staff, the supporters who met with them and the board of CFC 2001.

Your thoughts?

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

freelander2, on 19 January 2017 - 09:23 AM, said:

Chris,

As I see this, there are two issues. Firstly, what financial relationship exists/existed between the football club and the companies under the control of LS & CT and secondly, the allegations made by the former members of staff, which a small number of us had been made aware of.

With regards to the first point, I am hoping this will be cleared up very shortly by Howard Freeman at Shorts as prior to the original AGM, I did email Howard (copied AC in) and requested the following information :

1) Other debtors, a full list of debtor details and outstanding balances relating to the same for year ends 30/06/13 (£280,071), 30/06/14 (£641,200), 30/06/15 (£228,557) and 30/06/16 (£219,818).

2) Total value of expenditure charged to CFC 2001 Ltd by CFC Football Development School Ltd for year ends 30/06/13, 30/06/14, 30/06/15 and 30/06/16.

3) Total value of expenditure charged to CFC 2001 Ltd by CFC International Football Academy Ltd for year end 30/06/16.

There was an acknowledgment by AC that it would be a good idea to release the information and for it to come directly from Howard. In hindsight, perhaps I should have also asked HF to confirm the following too:

1) Total value of expenditure charged to CFC Football Development School Ltd by CFC 2001 Ltd for year ends 30/06/13, 30/06/14, 30/06/15 and 30/06/16.

2) Total value of expenditure charged to CFC International Football Academy Ltd by CFC 2001 Ltd for year end 30/06/16.


With regards to the second point concerning the allegations which we have been made aware of, at what point is someone going to address them as there appears a total reluctance to touch the subject?

Is it too late to include the additional requests?

Then at the risk of sounding self congratulatory, I did suggest at November's fans forum that CFC embrace full disclosure and insist those responsible pay the price for any misconduct revealed. It'd probably mean a PR sh*t storm in the short term but would pay dividends in the longer term.

It's a credit to AC that he now seems to be endorsing this.

One other point, too.

The 'I was in the dark' excuse cannot and should not be accepted if it's established previous assurances over the financial relationship between CFC and Turner and Sutcliffe's academy were false.

Similarly it appears we've established that Turner knew of, yet ignored employee allegations long before they entered the public domain. That in itself requires a thorough investigation.

Someone once used the term 'zero tolerance policy' when referring to wrongdoing on Sheff Road: I hope AC implements such a policy to the letter.

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 19 January 2017 - 02:49 PM

[Mrhappy]

MDCCCLXVI, on 19 January 2017 - 02:43 PM, said:

Is it too late to include the additional requests?

Then at the risk of sounding self congratulatory, I did suggest at November's fans forum that CFC embrace full disclosure and insist those responsible pay the price for any misconduct revealed. It'd probably mean a PR sh*t storm in the short term but would pay dividends in the longer term.

It's a credit to AC that he now seems to be endorsing this.

One other point, too.

The 'I was in the dark' excuse cannot and should not be accepted if it's established previous assurances over the financial relationship between CFC and Turner and Sutcliffe's academy were false.

Similarly it appears we've established that Turner knew of, yet ignored employee allegations long before they entered the public domain. That in itself requires a thorough investigation.

Someone once used the term 'zero tolerance policy' when referring to wrongdoing on Sheff Road: I hope AC implements such a policy to the letter.

ah well, it seems Zero tolerance doesn't apply to Turner.

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on 19 January 2017 - 02:43 PM, said:

Is it too late to include the additional requests?

The 'I was in the dark' excuse cannot and should not be accepted if it's established previous assurances over the financial relationship between CFC and Turner and Sutcliffe's academy were false.

Similarly it appears we've established that Turner knew of, yet ignored employee allegations long before they entered the public domain. That in itself requires a thorough investigation.

Someone once used the term 'zero tolerance policy' when referring to wrongdoing on Sheff Road: I hope AC implements such a policy to the letter.

One thing I'd like to know is whether this situation using CFC loving Trustees instead of greedy selfish incompetents to run things is recoverable. It was a bludddy good idea. Could somebody please ask Ashley?

On your second allegation, which is indeed established, Ashley is in the tricky situation where he'll have to say not only that Sutcliffe but also Turner didn't tell him about problems so good luck with trying to get that resolved.

[spireitenag]

Another CCJ registered against CFC Football Development School Limited across the road on 17.01.2017 for £5,849.

That's the third since November.

The other two still remain unsatisfied.

How long until Sutcliffe goes down the road of dissolving this business or declaring himself bankrupt again leaving God knows how many out of pocket ?

This business of course has nothing to do with CFC,but unfortunately carries its name.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

spireitenag, on 20 January 2017 - 05:02 PM, said:

Another CCJ registered against CFC Football Development School Limited across the road on 17.01.2017 for £5,849.

That's the third since November.

The other two still remain unsatisfied.

How long until Sutcliffe goes down the road of dissolving this business or declaring himself bankrupt again leaving God knows how many out of pocket ?

This business of course has nothing to do with CFC,but unfortunately carries its name.

Nige,

What were we told about the funding allegedly provided by CT & AC, that it wouldn't touch the flipping sides.

Given that the business was incorporated in October 2012 and it's traded at a loss year on year, why has the brown stuff only hit the fan during the past 6 to 9 months? I repeatedly asked the question at the fans' forum, who has provided the funding to ensure the business continues trading, because in reality a cash injection would have been required long before CT & AC had supposedly stepped in. Answer, no one, he just doesn't pay people. If that was the case, why have creditors only started taking action now?

Stupid, we are not.

[spireitenag]

freelander2, on 20 January 2017 - 05:19 PM, said:

Nige,

What were we told about the funding allegedly provided by CT & AC, that it wouldn't touch the flipping sides.

Given that the business was incorporated in October 2012 and it's traded at a loss year on year, why has the brown stuff only hit the fan during the past 6 to 9 months? I repeatedly asked the question at the fans' forum, who has provided the funding to ensure the business continues trading, because in reality a cash injection would have been required long before CT & AC had supposedly stepped in. Answer, no one, he just doesn't pay people. If that was the case, why have creditors only started taking action now?

Stupid, we are not.

Perhaps a couple of people ought to be asking what was actually done with their £54k ?

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Even more reason why Chesterfield supporters need to know if any of their money, handed over in good faith for the benefit of their football club, has found it's way over the road.

No more evasion; no more excuses; just the straightforward facts and figures.

[moondog]

freelander2, on 20 January 2017 - 05:19 PM, said:

Nige,

What were we told about the funding allegedly provided by CT & AC, that it wouldn't touch the flipping sides.

Given that the business was incorporated in October 2012 and it's traded at a loss year on year, why has the brown stuff only hit the fan during the past 6 to 9 months? I repeatedly asked the question at the fans' forum, who has provided the funding to ensure the business continues trading, because in reality a cash injection would have been required long before CT & AC had supposedly stepped in. Answer, no one, he just doesn't pay people. If that was the case, why have creditors only started taking action now?

Stupid, we are not.

I expect Sutcliffe did just enough to keep the wolves from the door until the replacement business was established, then it was pay no one from the original business until it crashed.

Would getting a new business up and running first be a legal way of avoiding being disqualified as a Director?

[Mrhappy]

What is the total CCJ figure which remains outstanding?

[60s 70s Spireite]

moondog, on 20 January 2017 - 06:24 PM, said:

Would getting a new business up and running first be a legal way of avoiding being disqualified as a Director?

Absolutely not. In fact anyone setting up a new company whilst walking away from a failing one is more likely to come under enquiry.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

As we came to realise long ago, far from being 'in the dark' a number of 'BB' members are pretty clued-up on all this.

So, if it could be proven Sutcliffe obtained credit intending to fold the business, would that mean jail time?

Bearing in mind he started the parallel so called international academy, what; a year or more ago?

Then of course we have to wonder just how much of this his former fellow director Chris Turner knew...