[Wooden Spoon]

dim view said:

1524683116[/url]' post='1385595']
The CFCFDS accounts must be on Carson's computer. I think he could tell us tonight whether all the allegations are true. There is at least one which is more serious than the player payments but which has never been aired.

Email the fa

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dim view, on 25 April 2018 - 07:29 PM, said:

Evening
I may need help from fellow shareholders.
I think the Chairman said that as there is an ongoing investigation then it was right that there should be no mention in the accounts.

I'm just reading the bit about grants to the CFC Academy. The report says that in spite of grants being received, Academy employees were paid by the DS. No wonder Ashley has put an expert onto running it.

Oh what a tangled web's been woven.

But anyway, the Academy could be the first and biggest victim of relegation as I understand funding cliff-edges.

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on 25 April 2018 - 07:34 PM, said:

Oh what a tangled web's been woven.

Ok, my thoughts. The report says ...
1. Booth's objective is to liaise with the EFL and FA. The report contains no information about progress.
2. Somebody has put up £7.5k to allow this investigation to proceed.
3. CFC accountants have failed to provide information when asked so Booth has set a solicitor on to them.
4. Sutcliffe failed to provide Booth with electronic company records.
5. CFC may have unduly benefitted from the actions of the DS.
6. CFC could owe the DS £110k because the DS may have paid the wages and tax of CFC players and employees, training pitches, accommodation, and scouting.
7. CFC does not believe they are indebted but have failed to assist in the process of sorting it out.
8. Sutcliffe says that the DS was essentially subordinate to CFC and it's hierarchy - that presumably includes the CFC Board.
9. It is claimed that a minibus now at CFC belonged to the DS.
10. The DS paid the rent on Paul Cook's old apartment at Holymoorside after he had moved out.
11. Sutcliffe denies that any cash payments were made to CFC employees.
12. Money from a CFC sponsor ended up in the DS account.
13. Sutcliffe has been unable to provide Booth with any records of cash received by the DS - that's presumably money paid out by parents of DS kids.

Graham at the DT has my permission to cut and paste these ready for his interview with Carson.

[Blue5]

dim view, on 25 April 2018 - 08:52 PM, said:

Ok, my thoughts. The report says ...
1. Booth's objective is to liaise with the EFL and FA. The report contains no information about progress.
2. Somebody has put up £7.5k to allow this investigation to proceed.
3. CFC accountants have failed to provide information when asked so Booth has set a solicitor on to them.
4. Sutcliffe failed to provide Booth with electronic company records.
5. CFC may have unduly benefitted from the actions of the DS.
6. CFC could owe the DS £110k because the DS may have paid the wages and tax of CFC players and employees, training pitches, accommodation, and scouting.
7. CFC does not believe they are indebted but have failed to assist in the process of sorting it out.
8. Sutcliffe says that the DS was essentially subordinate to CFC and it's hierarchy - that presumably includes the CFC Board.
9. It is claimed that a minibus now at CFC belonged to the DS.
10. The DS paid the rent on Paul Cook's old apartment at Holymoorside after he had moved out.
11. Sutcliffe denies that any cash payments were made to CFC employees.
12. Money from a CFC sponsor ended up in the DS account.
13. Sutcliffe has been unable to provide Booth with any records of cash received by the DS - that's presumably money paid out by parents of DS kids.

Graham at the DT has my permission to cut and paste these ready for his interview with Carson.

Concerning cash payments, I thought an individual who at the time could have been described as a prominent figure in football had conceded to you guys privately that he was in receipt of payments from the DC?

[dim view]

Blue5, on 25 April 2018 - 09:38 PM, said:

Concerning cash payments, I thought an individual who at the time could have been described as a prominent figure in football had conceded to you guys privately that he was in receipt of payments from the DC?

From memory, this also became clear when the DT interviewed one of the players.

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on 25 April 2018 - 07:34 PM, said:

Oh what a tangled web's been woven.

I've just begun the mammoth task of rereading the whole of this thread looking for key milestones. Two early posts are of interest.....


1. Mr Mercury
Posted 08 February 2016 - 02:33 PM

Just looking at the initial link posted it states that the young lad was on the Player Progression Pathway. Then looking at last years abridged accounts P1 is the chairmans, Dave Allen, report. The fourth paragraph from the bottom reads...
Our Player Progression Pathway, under the direction of Liam Sutcliffe, continues to recruit and develop players for the academy and there are currently 600 youngsters associated with the club as a result of this scheme....

Dave Allen's early view on the independence of the PPP.


2. dalekpete
Posted 10 February 2016 - 04:20 PM
Can I just clarify the position as I see it?

The Development School is separate to the football club. It is a not for profit company. As well as the junior ranks a lot of funding is through the education system and the level 3 BTEC courses, like many colleges greater fees can be generated by overseas students. This also allows a bigger catchment of talented footballers of course.

I have been told that all the families that cannot make the re-arrange trip have had their money returned. The case in the press had been sorted before the article came out.

There are enough going on the April trip that this is now confirmed.

The extent to which funds were extracted from the education system has never been explored.


This is rate good fun but I could do with some help.

[dim view]

sorry, poor editing

This post has been edited by dim view: 26 April 2018 - 05:06 PM

[moondog]

MDCCCLXVI, on 25 April 2018 - 06:45 PM, said:

So after an initial viewing.

1. The accounts kept by Turner and Sutcliffe were so incomplete it's impossible to discern who had what, from who, and when. Perhaps that was the intention all along. As for the electronic records, has the Liquidator spoken to Steve Coe? A self confessed 'partner' to Sutcliffe who donated computers and, unless I'm mistaken, said he 'helped out' with accounting software?

2. These documents confirm, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that CFCFDS and CFC were inextricably linked on many levels. Which totally contradicts what supporters were repeatedly told by Club representatives and those associated with this enterprise.

3. The Chesterfield FC with 'nothing to hide' appear reluctant to assist the Liquidator. To the point he's been forced to appoint a solicitor to pursue various issues.

4. 'There is evidence of payments for a flat in Holymoorside' - could this be the same flat that Paul Cook occupied or is that merely coincidence?

5. Virtually every allegation made by former employees is validated in one way or another.

6. It would look like madness for Ashley Carson to offer tens of thousands of pounds in loans to such a chaotic and, by that juncture disreputable operation.

Okay, I'm not too well versed in legalese so maybe I've leapt to some wrong conclusions. So could those better versed point out where I'm mistaken?

I have received a complaint about this posting from Steve Coe

He informs me it is untrue that he helped out with accounting software.

He makes the valid point that this statement could cause harm or reputational damage to himself or his company as one of the aspects of his business is selling, supporting and maintaining accounting software.

Whilst the poster has stated he could have been mistaken this may not be considered an adequate defence under the Defamation Act 2013.

I ask all members when posting about individuals or companies to consider the terms of the Defamation Act a link to which is provided below

http://www.legislati...ction/1/enacted

[Mr_Pleasant]

moondog, on 27 April 2018 - 09:32 AM, said:

I have received a complaint about this posting from Steve Coe

He informs me it is untrue that he helped out with accounting software.

He makes the valid point that this statement could cause harm or reputational damage to himself or his company as one of the aspects of his business is selling, supporting and maintaining accounting software.

Whilst the poster has stated he could have been mistaken this may not be considered an adequate defence under the Defamation Act 2013.

I ask all members when posting about individuals or companies to consider the terms of the Defamation Act a link to which is provided below

http://www.legislati...ction/1/enacted

The key word in sections 1(1) and 1(2) is 'serious', in respect of harm and financial loss. How that is interpreted is always going to be open to question but I think that is worth pointing out.

[isleaiw1]

moondog, on 27 April 2018 - 09:32 AM, said:

I have received a complaint about this posting from Steve Coe

He informs me it is untrue that he helped out with accounting software.

He makes the valid point that this statement could cause harm or reputational damage to himself or his company as one of the aspects of his business is selling, supporting and maintaining accounting software.

Whilst the poster has stated he could have been mistaken this may not be considered an adequate defence under the Defamation Act 2013.

I ask all members when posting about individuals or companies to consider the terms of the Defamation Act a link to which is provided below

http://www.legislati...ction/1/enacted

I think he is taking a punt there as my interpretation is that he may be able to help extract information from the software he may have provided. We all know that responsibility for maintaining accurate accounting records lies with the directors of the company. You wouldn't blame the butcher for being served undercooked chicken that gave you food poisoning, you would blame the chef.

[Looker-on]

Interesting. My interpretation of "helping out" is that he may merely have supplied said software, in line with one of the stated aspects of his business. As is suggested above, the supplier cannot be held responsible if the buyer is unable or unwilling to use the product properly.

[azul]

moondog, on 27 April 2018 - 09:32 AM, said:

I have received a complaint about this posting from Steve Coe

He informs me it is untrue that he helped out with accounting software.

He makes the valid point that this statement could cause harm or reputational damage to himself or his company as one of the aspects of his business is selling, supporting and maintaining accounting software.

Whilst the poster has stated he could have been mistaken this may not be considered an adequate defence under the Defamation Act 2013.

I ask all members when posting about individuals or companies to consider the terms of the Defamation Act a link to which is provided below

http://www.legislati...ction/1/enacted

How he thinks being so closely linked to the internal workings of CFC is helping his or his companies reputation?

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

moondog, on 27 April 2018 - 09:32 AM, said:

I have received a complaint about this posting from Steve Coe

He informs me it is untrue that he helped out with accounting software.

He makes the valid point that this statement could cause harm or reputational damage to himself or his company as one of the aspects of his business is selling, supporting and maintaining accounting software.

Whilst the poster has stated he could have been mistaken this may not be considered an adequate defence under the Defamation Act 2013.

I ask all members when posting about individuals or companies to consider the terms of the Defamation Act a link to which is provided below

http://www.legislati...ction/1/enacted

Well good to know Steve Coe's still reading this forum. Unless someone screenshotted it for him, of course.

But hey, if he says he didn't help out CFCFDS with accounting software then I offer a full retraction and apology for suggesting it.

Okay Steve? Fair enough? Though you've gotta admit it seems a bit strange to now complain about a link to an enterprise with which you were happy to associate your logo, call yourself a 'partner' and donate computers that by your own admission went a.w.o.l.

One other thing, too.

It's a good thing I don't start talking about defamation of character when someone pompously smears my contribution to a junior football team...


PS: after double checking my confusion was based upon this thread: http://www.thecfss.c...18&hl=itsc&st=0

My mistake.

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 27 April 2018 - 01:42 PM

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on 27 April 2018 - 01:08 PM, said:

Well good to know Steve Coe's still reading this forum. Unless someone screenshotted it for him, of course.

But hey, if he says he didn't help out CFCFDS with accounting software then I offer a full retraction and apology for suggesting it.

Okay Steve? Fair enough? Though you've gotta admit it seems a bit strange to now complain about a link to an enterprise with which you were happy to associate your logo, call yourself a 'partner' and donate computers that by your own admission went a.w.o.l.

One other thing, too.

It's a good thing I don't start talking about defamation of character when someone pompously smears my contribution to a junior football team...


PS: after double checking my confusion was based upon this thread: http://www.thecfss.c...18&hl=itsc&st=0

My mistake.

I wonder whether Steve's contract with CFC includes the provision of regular structured backups of CFC laptops, stored offsite for additional security. Let's hope so, 'cos it looks like The Liquidator's pet solicitor might call on him to provide them so he can take a butchers, just to confirm that Ashley, Sally, and Turner had no knowledge, never mind control, of DS accounts. I have every confidence in him. If not, perhaps Highlander have still got theirs.

[Bankrobber]

MDCCCLXVI, on 27 April 2018 - 01:08 PM, said:

Well good to know Steve Coe's still reading this forum.


PS: after double checking my confusion was based upon this thread: http://www.thecfss.c...18&hl=itsc&st=0

My mistake.

The post on that thread by Zorro is an absolute pearler

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on 27 April 2018 - 01:08 PM, said:

Well good to know Steve Coe's still reading this forum. Unless someone screenshotted it for him, of course.

But hey, if he says he didn't help out CFCFDS with accounting software then I offer a full retraction and apology for suggesting it.

Okay Steve? Fair enough? Though you've gotta admit it seems a bit strange to now complain about a link to an enterprise with which you were happy to associate your logo, call yourself a 'partner' and donate computers that by your own admission went a.w.o.l.

SBK was a creditor of CFCFDS to the value of £2,742.00. He must have helped them out with summat.

[isleaiw1]

dim view, on 27 April 2018 - 05:39 PM, said:

I wonder whether Steve's contract with CFC includes the provision of regular structured backups of CFC laptops, stored offsite for additional security. Let's hope so, 'cos it looks like The Liquidator's pet solicitor might call on him to provide them so he can take a butchers, just to confirm that Ashley, Sally, and Turner had no knowledge, never mind control, of DS accounts. I have every confidence in him. If not, perhaps Highlander have still got theirs.

I am no tech whizz but would imagine that:

- if the club use something like google and cloud based storage, nothing should be saved on laptops and so not backed up..

- if they use more traditional server based storage then it is likely that what looks like storage on the hard drive is in fact stored to the server in your own little area and backed up...

Or it could be that loads of important docs are just stored on laptops, could be easily lost or fall into the wrong hands. Surely a computer storage expert advising the club wouldn't allow that?

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dim view, on 28 April 2018 - 05:01 PM, said:

SBK was a creditor of CFCFDS to the value of £2,742.00. He must have helped them out with summat.

Hmmm, interesting.

So can Steve Coe tell us, perhaps via the Mods to whom he was happy to complain about my post, what that debt relates to (or to put it another way how he helped Sutcliffe out)?

And if he's to be Carson's supposedly independent and objective supporter-on-the-Board what he did to expose events at CFCFDS?

[meowdmucker]

I think there might be a guy in Scunthorpe who may be able to sort out a few computer issues for us. I bet he would know where the lost computers went.

[DIFH]

hewittfan, on 25 April 2018 - 04:45 PM, said:

Sutcliffe seems to be showing more cooperation to the liquidator than the club is, which would be a sorry state of affairs.

Well he would now stick comes to lift, it's his head on the chopping block. Eventually cracks will appear and Ashley will have questions to answer.