[dtp]

60s 70s Spireite, on 17 March 2017 - 08:21 PM, said:

How can the Academy stop losing money, when it's not there to make a profit, its there as an investment for the future. It's a cost centre, not a revenue stream.

Any "cost centre" can "cost" more than it should if it's expenditure is out of control. This is true within any organisation not just at CFC.

Clearly "costs" are out of control at CFC and it is correct to look at every single avenue of expenditure to try to eliminate that which is wasteful and/or unnecessary with a view to getting back onto a sustainable basis going forward.

I am not sure why there is this obsession that it needs an accountant to do this. Certainly an accountant can examine the records and make appropriate comparisons as to where costs have risen but other managers should be able to see where overspend is going on as well. If an overhead that walks in on two legs is removed it has to be agreed as to how that individual's work is covered by those that remain,for instance, and such decisions will often be taken by "non-accountants".

It should be a team effort and is a necessity in the case of CFC so why, when we have been so critical in asking as to where the money is going, are we so up in arms when someone is trying to do something about it? I am not taking sides on this one, AC has been dealt a difficult hand but he is where he is whether he should be or not, and SC, I feel, will do his best. We have to start somewhere - certainly, any new owners would and they would not necessarily try and explain themselves if they were to take unpopular decisions.

[Mr Mercury]

Les Ashmore, on 18 March 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

Let's see what happens

Given the clubs recent history there's a lot in there that's laughable....no positions created, jobs advertised etc!

[clarevoyant.]

dtp, on 18 March 2017 - 09:34 AM, said:

Any "cost centre" can "cost" more than it should if it's expenditure is out of control. This is true within any organisation not just at CFC.

Clearly "costs" are out of control at CFC and it is correct to look at every single avenue of expenditure to try to eliminate that which is wasteful and/or unnecessary with a view to getting back onto a sustainable basis going forward.

I am not sure why there is this obsession that it needs an accountant to do this. Certainly an accountant can examine the records and make appropriate comparisons as to where costs have risen but other managers should be able to see where overspend is going on as well. If an overhead that walks in on two legs is removed it has to be agreed as to how that individual's work is covered by those that remain,for instance, and such decisions will often be taken by "non-accountants".

It should be a team effort and is a necessity in the case of CFC so why, when we have been so critical in asking as to where the money is going, are we so up in arms when someone is trying to do something about it? I am not taking sides on this one, AC has been dealt a difficult hand but he is where he is whether he should be or not, and SC, I feel, will do his best. We have to start somewhere - certainly, any new owners would and they would not necessarily try and explain themselves if they were to take unpopular decisions.

Are the costs out of control?
Could it be, shall we say "abuse".

[Westbars Spireite]

Les Ashmore, on 18 March 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

Let's see what happens

What's Chris' view on things now he's on the outside? Angry he's realised he was made to look an idiot for years?

[60s 70s Spireite]

dtp, on 18 March 2017 - 09:34 AM, said:

Any "cost centre" can "cost" more than it should if it's expenditure is out of control. This is true within any organisation not just at CFC.

Clearly "costs" are out of control at CFC and it is correct to look at every single avenue of expenditure to try to eliminate that which is wasteful and/or unnecessary with a view to getting back onto a sustainable basis going forward.

I am not sure why there is this obsession that it needs an accountant to do this. Certainly an accountant can examine the records and make appropriate comparisons as to where costs have risen but other managers should be able to see where overspend is going on as well. If an overhead that walks in on two legs is removed it has to be agreed as to how that individual's work is covered by those that remain,for instance, and such decisions will often be taken by "non-accountants".

It should be a team effort and is a necessity in the case of CFC so why, when we have been so critical in asking as to where the money is going, are we so up in arms when someone is trying to do something about it? I am not taking sides on this one, AC has been dealt a difficult hand but he is where he is whether he should be or not, and SC, I feel, will do his best. We have to start somewhere - certainly, any new owners would and they would not necessarily try and explain themselves if they were to take unpopular decisions.

Of course it doesn't necessarily need an accountant to make the right decision, but an accountant can provide comfort that figures are not being manipulated, which is a suspicion in that the Academy is the only area that keeps being mentioned as an area to be reviewed by the hierarchy.
Thing is, expenditure on the Academy is prescriptive, I have found three newspaper reports that state the minimum recommended spend on a Category 3 Academy Is £500k pa. As well, the qualifications of staff are prescriptive, the rules setting out the number of full time qualified coaches required and the need for a full time Chartered Physiotherapist. Against this expenditure, a decent chunk is funded by grants (£375k?) leaving a cost to be funded by the club, which in the past has been partly funded by local sponsors.
Thus cut costs in the wrong area and the FA will be quick to withdraw Cat 3 status.
Yes, they may have been poor cost control in some areas of the Academy, but be careful what we wish for.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

60s 70s Spireite, on 18 March 2017 - 10:58 AM, said:

Of course it doesn't necessarily need an accountant to make the right decision, but an accountant can provide comfort that figures are not being manipulated, which is a suspicion in that the Academy is the only area that keeps being mentioned as an area to be reviewed by the hierarchy.
Thing is, expenditure on the Academy is prescriptive, I have found three newspaper reports that state the minimum recommended spend on a Category 3 Academy Is £500k pa. As well, the qualifications of staff are prescriptive, the rules setting out the number of full time qualified coaches required and the need for a full time Chartered Physiotherapist. Against this expenditure, a decent chunk is funded by grants (£375k?) leaving a cost to be funded by the club, which in the past has been partly funded by local sponsors.
Thus cut costs in the wrong area and the FA will be quick to withdraw Cat 3 status.
Yes, they may have been poor cost control in some areas of the Academy, but be careful what we wish for.

A good friend of mine worked at Huddersfield's academy during the late 90s until about 2006/07 and they were spending in excess of £400K pa back then.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dtp, on 18 March 2017 - 09:34 AM, said:

Any "cost centre" can "cost" more than it should if it's expenditure is out of control. This is true within any organisation not just at CFC.

Clearly "costs" are out of control at CFC and it is correct to look at every single avenue of expenditure to try to eliminate that which is wasteful and/or unnecessary with a view to getting back onto a sustainable basis going forward.

I am not sure why there is this obsession that it needs an accountant to do this. Certainly an accountant can examine the records and make appropriate comparisons as to where costs have risen but other managers should be able to see where overspend is going on as well. If an overhead that walks in on two legs is removed it has to be agreed as to how that individual's work is covered by those that remain,for instance, and such decisions will often be taken by "non-accountants".

It should be a team effort and is a necessity in the case of CFC so why, when we have been so critical in asking as to where the money is going, are we so up in arms when someone is trying to do something about it? I am not taking sides on this one, AC has been dealt a difficult hand but he is where he is whether he should be or not, and SC, I feel, will do his best. We have to start somewhere - certainly, any new owners would and they would not necessarily try and explain themselves if they were to take unpopular decisions.

First of all, my friend, the hand dealt AC is one he's dealt himself.

As DA's right hand man, joining the CFC Board pretty much on day one of the current owner's tenure, he's been an integral part of events over the last seven or more years.

The idea he's now clearing up others' mess is laughable.

Then the questions Steve's so unwilling to answer still remain.

Why such focus upon Mark's academy when AC says other areas are off limits? When Sutcliffe's disaster was not only tolerated but supported? When DA's son in law enjoys a salary for, well, what?

Why is someone whose only real qualification is running a local junior outfit being handed so much licence? Is it just another example of cronyism, a huge ego trip on SC's part or something more insidious?

Why not simply place all grants, subsidies and sponsorship into a designated account and deem that Mark Smith's budget?

The last year or so has proven lies have a habit of being exposed on 'Bob's Board'.

Let's see if any such lies are featured on this thread.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Les Ashmore, on 18 March 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

Let's see what happens

Hmmm...

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, there's proof that Steve Coe really did ask Mark Smith to find a position for Andy Morris.

Let's say, again just for the sake of argument, that proof entered the public domain.

So, Les; d'y'think Ashley would admit sanctioning that or just hang him out to dry saying he knew nowt about it and Coe had totally overstepped his role?

Just for the sake of argument, you understand...

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 18 March 2017 - 01:21 PM

[dtp]

clarevoyant., on 18 March 2017 - 09:45 AM, said:

Are the costs out of control?
Could it be, shall we say "abuse".

Do you know? Do I know? Does anybody know?

Will we, or more importantly the Club, have a better understanding of matters afterwards? I certainly hope so.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dtp, on 18 March 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

Do you know? Do I know? Does anybody know?

Will we, or more importantly the Club, have a better understanding of matters afterwards? I certainly hope so.

Come on mate, the suggestion no one at CFC has or had a handle on Academy finances is just daft.

I'll make another daft suggestion: designated funding was systematically sidelined into other areas, perhaps even finding it's way 'over the road', leaving Mark Smith, a football rather than finance kinda bloke, looking very vulnerable.

Would it also be daft to suggest he complained yet couldn't push things too far for fear of losing his job?

[dtp]

MDCCCLXVI, on 18 March 2017 - 01:02 PM, said:

First of all, my friend, the hand dealt AC is one he's dealt himself.

As DA's right hand man, joining the CFC Board pretty much on day one of the current owner's tenure, he's been an integral part of events over the last seven or more years.

The idea he's now clearing up others' mess is laughable.

Then the questions Steve's so unwilling to answer still remain.

Why such focus upon Mark's academy when AC says other areas are off limits? When Sutcliffe's disaster was not only tolerated but supported? When DA's son in law enjoys a salary for, well, what?

Why is someone whose only real qualification is running a local junior outfit being handed so much licence? Is it just another example of cronyism, a huge ego trip on SC's part or something more insidious?

Why not simply place all grants, subsidies and sponsorship into a designated account and deem that Mark Smith's budget?

The last year or so has proven lies have a habit of being exposed on 'Bob's Board'.

Let's see if any such lies are featured on this thread.

First of all, my friend, I agree with you about AC but his role at the Club has changed and it is that role change I was referring to. I am with the next man when it comes to arguing that there has been a mishandling of finances at CFC but changes do have to be made. Changes which save money. And normally, in my experience, this cannot be done without upsetting someone or without investigating every area of cost. AC must be fully aware that he cannot save the money which is deemed necessary without looking at the costs involved in every area of the business. Let's be honest - he couldn't save the amount required if the Academy was scrapped altogether. One additional cost, however, I have noticed in this area recently is that Dylan Kerr has appeared on the scene. I don't really know how this affects your mate, Mark Smith, but Mark does not appear to have given an interview recently regarding the youngsters whereas Dylan has. Is DC an additional cost to the Academy and, if so, is he an essential cost, for instance?

I believe I have read on these boards that even at other Clubs grants for the Academy are not necessarily isolated from other funds. I haven't got enough inside knowledge to comment on this though.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

dtp, on 18 March 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

First of all, my friend, I agree with you about AC but his role at the Club has changed and it is that role change I was referring to.

Just a few observations:

1) What do you think has changed concerning AC's role at the club?

2) Out of the former directors at SWFC, why was AC the only one selected to join Dave Allen at CFC?

3) See page 15, paragraph 6 of this document, https://www.scribd.c...-Chapter-Closes, it reads as follows:

Bob had been supportive in the early part of the year and had turned into what we thought was just a miserable sod from spring on wards. His real agenda would unfold after that years AGM and after I had had my surgery. Bob had regularly let Nick down by being destructive in board meetings despite discussing matters at length with Nick in advance of the board meetings and he had finally confirmed that part of his agenda revolved around a long standing commitment made to Mick Wright about returning him to the board as chairman after they had gotten rid of Dave Allen and Kaven Walker (hello Dave – that’s your friends real position dude).

To be clear, Kaven Walker was SWFC's former CEO. I wonder what Lee Strafford means by, "hello Dave – that’s your friends real position dude"? Who do you think Strafford was referring to?

This post has been edited by freelander2: 18 March 2017 - 02:01 PM

[The Black Triangle]

freelander2, on 18 March 2017 - 01:59 PM, said:

To be clear, Kaven Walker was SWFC's former CEO. I wonder what Lee Strafford means by, "hello Dave – that’s your friends real position dude"? Who do you think Strafford was referring to?

Freelander I have seen this line from you 4 or 5 times. What do you mean by this?

[Les Ashmore]

MDCCCLXVI, on 18 March 2017 - 01:20 PM, said:

Hmmm...

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, there's proof that Steve Coe really did ask Mark Smith to find a position for Andy Morris.

Let's say, again just for the sake of argument, that proof entered the public domain.

So, Les; d'y'think Ashley would admit sanctioning that or just hang him out to dry saying he knew nowt about it and Coe had totally overstepped his role?

Just for the sake of argument, you understand...

Chris, Was that to happen, I am sure someone would be to blame and obviously be blamed, But it would be even better if there "Could also" be evidence that others knew about it and sanctioned it

[dim view]

Les Ashmore, on 18 March 2017 - 02:57 PM, said:

Chris, Was that to happen, I am sure someone would be to blame and obviously be blamed, But it would be even better if there "Could also" be evidence that others knew about it and sanctioned it

Heyup Les.
Why can't the evidence be made public? What are you waiting for?

[Guest_freelander2_*]

The Black Triangle, on 18 March 2017 - 02:35 PM, said:

Freelander I have seen this line from you 4 or 5 times. What do you mean by this?

My interpretation of Strafford's comment is that Kaven Walker may well have been SWFC's CEO in title, but Dave's mate (who he was, ha ha) was actually doing the CEO's job.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

All we want is a football club that 'does what it says on the tin', so to speak.

[The Black Triangle]

freelander2, on 18 March 2017 - 03:14 PM, said:

My interpretation of Strafford's comment is that Kaven Walker may well have been SWFC's CEO in title, but Dave's mate (who he was, ha ha) was actually doing the CEO's job.

Dave Allen or Dave Richards? Is Carson his mate or someone else? And I'm reading that link and to me it seems that "his mate" was stitching Allen up, rather than acting on his behalf.

[Les Ashmore]

dim view, on 18 March 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

Heyup Les.
Why can't the evidence be made public? What are you waiting for?

Oh I am sure that eventually someone may or may not eventually make any evidence public I am also sure that it may or may not create Havoc when and if it does

[Mrhappy]

MDCCCLXVI, on 18 March 2017 - 03:20 PM, said:

All we want is a football club that 'does what it says on the tin', so to speak.

Mmmm not sure about that, I bought some ronseal stain to do the decking this week.........patchy as fûck, ended up doin it with Cuprinol.