[moondog]

What was said in the programme ?

[Eastander]

a kick in the balls, on 02 April 2016 - 03:01 PM, said:

The take over issue wasn't the question I asked.

Is Dennis Bingham someone CFC ought to be wary of?

Wonder if anyone asked that pertinent question re: 'the other DB' - I was reading a report from The Guardian in 2005 and thought that you might find this snippet from it, of interest, as you asked a couple of days ago- where was PT and where did he stand in relation to the present situation. I know the situation is not the same today but this gives an idea of PT's thoughts back then.

September 2005

At Chesterfield the fans look back in anger and with frustration. The League described the Chesterfield affair as a watershed, which led the League to overhaul its disciplinary procedures, appoint an in-house lawyer and finally establish the fit-and-proper-person test for club directors, which they had previously and repeatedly said would be impossible to implement.

However, as Phil Tooley of the CFSS pointed out, the fit-and-proper-person test would still not stop a figure similar to Brown, who had no previous criminal or serious insolvency record, being allowed to take over a football club:

"We need some further protection," he said, "to prevent chancers getting their hands on our much loved clubs. The lessons have to be learned."

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Eastander, on 03 April 2016 - 06:53 PM, said:

However, as Phil Tooley of the CFSS pointed out, the fit-and-proper-person test would still not stop a figure similar to Brown, who had no previous criminal or serious insolvency record, being allowed to take over a football club:

I'm led to believe these words might not necessarily apply to Sutcliffe and Turner's ex partner.

[dim view]

a kick in the balls, on 13 April 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

It slap needs to mention the employment of someone as international recruitment consultant, rather than just s sponsor,ie, Royal Pearl.

If it covers just sponsorship side, then why would the club carry out due diligence?

I'm not sure 'employment' is right. I doubt very much whether the relationship cost CFC a penny, so the due diligence argument can still paraded out. My guess is that it's the parents who pay, with our mate getting a rake off for introduction. If that's the case and DA knew all about it, the whole thing might be dismissed as a non story.

[brockwell-spireite]

Sammy Spireite, on 13 April 2016 - 08:41 AM, said:

Anyone would think the DT been served with some kind of Premier League-style super-injunction

In all seriousness, presumably when (if) it does go to print, the story will not only cover The Club and The DC official take on things but also will include some of the facts uncovered by members of this very board, regarding DB's (WB et al) past.

Without that, its gonna just look like a bunch of "keyboard warriors" have hounded someone out of the club, for seemingly no apparent reason. Also, it would be worth mentioning the alleged email and phone hacking has absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

I'm sure there are people who would willingly pass on facts to anyone publicising what's happened.

RGS - Presumably, your piers realise this would be a great way to restore some faith amongst the Chesterfield FC-supporting public in your publication, particularly amidst the great work you've personally done on here recently.

because you haven't seen any evidence of email and phone hacking doesn't mean it didn't take place does it? Why and it what format would that evidence have been presented?

restore faith amongst the Chesterfield Fc supporting public??? i think the interest in this "story" i far greater on this board than with the majority of our 6,500 fans..

when did DB issue the statement about leaving? When/if the story is published it is literally the definition of "old news"

[Goku]

brockwell-spireite, on 13 April 2016 - 01:53 PM, said:

because you haven't seen any evidence of email and phone hacking doesn't mean it didn't take place does it? Why and it what format would that evidence have been presented?

Your friend made the claim, the onus is on him to provide the evidence. Until then, it's a baseless accusation.

[brockwell-spireite]

Goku, on 13 April 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:

Your friend made the claim, the onus is on him to provide the evidence. Until then, it's a baseless accusation.

my friend???

he doesn't really have to provide evidence to anyone on here does he?... he obviously made a decision and that was that.

This post has been edited by brockwell-spireite: 13 April 2016 - 02:28 PM

[Goku]

brockwell-spireite, on 13 April 2016 - 02:26 PM, said:

my friend???

he doesn't really have to provide evidence to anyone on here does he?... he obviously made a decision and that was that.

If you make a claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence or it can be dismissed as a load of drivel. This is not a particularly intellectually challenging concept. I suspect he's provided evidence to the police?

Your apologetic defence of him is very interesting. I wish I knew the full story.

This post has been edited by Goku: 13 April 2016 - 02:45 PM

[azul]

brockwell-spireite, on 13 April 2016 - 02:26 PM, said:

my friend???

he doesn't really have to provide evidence to anyone on here does he?... he obviously made a decision and that was that.

As long as he has provided the evidence to the police investigation that should suffice

[Sammy Spireite]

azul, on 13 April 2016 - 02:45 PM, said:

As long as he has provided the evidence to the police investigation that should suffice

I wonder how many Bobs Board members have already had knocks on the door already, not that DB had any evidence whatsoever that any who did harass him or his family (if anyone even did??) belong to this board.

Unless, of course, he's hacked the boards membership email system...........

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

I'm led to believe the Club's standard response to any talk of Bingham is a 'Ah well, he's gone now so let's all just move on'.

Just like the 'fake sheikh' and so many other embarrassing episodes related to 'Teflon' it's being brushed under a carpet which is increasingly resembling the Himalayas.

[Sammy Spireite]

brockwell-spireite, on 13 April 2016 - 01:53 PM, said:

because you haven't seen any evidence of email and phone hacking doesn't mean it didn't take place does it? Why and it what format would that evidence have been presented?

restore faith amongst the Chesterfield Fc supporting public??? i think the interest in this "story" i far greater on this board than with the majority of our 6,500 fans..

when did DB issue the statement about leaving? When/if the story is published it is literally the definition of "old news"

give me one valid argument as to how he would know it was members of this board (assuming ANY such hacking has even took place? - which I doubt)

DB issued his 'statement' through an intermediary to this board only, not publically and the club have thus far made zero (official) comment on the whole saga anyway so not sure why you think it wouldn't be bigger on this board than with the majority of out 6,500 fans.

It seems only a select few know the real truth, and they took it upon themselves to approach the club they love (and put money in to) so they must feel it worthy don't you think?

[Westbars Spireite]

brockwell-spireite, on 13 April 2016 - 02:26 PM, said:

my friend???

he doesn't really have to provide evidence to anyone on here does he?... he obviously made a decision and that was that.

Friend, associate, business partner? You choose the wording squire.

[Sammy Spireite]

MDCCCLXVI, on 13 April 2016 - 03:11 PM, said:

I'm led to believe the Club's standard response to any talk of Bingham is a 'Ah well, he's gone now so let's all just move on'.

Just like the 'fake sheikh' and so many other embarrassing episodes related to 'Teflon' it's being brushed under a carpet which is increasingly resembling the Himalayas.

I hope the far eastern business man Sutcliffe was showing around the ground yesterday won't be the subject of another monster thread in 6 months time..

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on 13 April 2016 - 03:11 PM, said:

I'm led to believe the Club's standard response to any talk of Bingham is a 'Ah well, he's gone now so let's all just move on'.

There's not much evidence that it's not a valid stance.

What exactly is the story?......
.....that PPP is so unscrupulous that it doesn't care who it takes money off?.

Everything else is speculation.

Does PPP owe money to CFC?. We don't know but even if it does, DA knows about it.
Is PPP run properly. No, but does DA care?.

This post has been edited by dim view: 13 April 2016 - 03:32 PM

[brockwell-spireite]

dim view, on 13 April 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

There's not much evidence that it's not a valid stance.

What exactly is the story?......
.....that PPP is so unscrupulous that it doesn't care who it takes money off?.

Everything else is speculation.

Does PPP owe money to CFC?. We don't know but even if it does, DA knows about it.
Is PPP run properly. No, but does DA care?.

Exactly this ^

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Sammy Spireite, on 13 April 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:

give me one valid argument as to how he would know it was members of this board (assuming ANY such hacking has even took place? - which I doubt)

DB issued his 'statement' through an intermediary to this board only, not publically and the club have thus far made zero (official) comment on the whole saga anyway so not sure why you think it wouldn't be bigger on this board than with the majority of out 6,500 fans.

It seems only a select few know the real truth, and they took it upon themselves to approach the club they love (and put money in to) so they must feel it worthy don't you think?

Well here're the facts.

Sutcliffe and Turner embraced Bingham without any kind of investigation into his suitability.

They even gave him an official position at the Club regardless.

However 'Bob's Board' members performed checks and discovered the use of false names, companies lacking credibility, addresses that led nowhere, an association with individuals accused of match fixing, an aborted takeover of Monza that let a trail of unanswered questions and reports of break in's at his wife's business that cynics might view as hugely convenient.

At which stage Bingham posted a statement divorcing himself from CFC containing allegations he's failed to provide one jot of evidence to support.

Since then 'Brockwell Spireite' has sought to defend Bingham and dismiss all the above whilst repeatedly refusing to confirm or deny a relationship with him.

And whilst I can't offer it as definitive fact I'm of the very strong opinion there's more about Bingham to be revealed if necessary, the Police became involved and it was their intervention that finally led to the Board ending his involvement at the Proact.

To the point they even snubbed his request to reproduce his exit statement on the Club website.

Of course folk can make up their own minds which version of events is more realistic, though...

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 13 April 2016 - 04:47 PM

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dim view, on 13 April 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

There's not much evidence that it's not a valid stance.

What exactly is the story?......
.....that PPP is so unscrupulous that it doesn't care who it takes money off?.

Everything else is speculation.

Does PPP owe money to CFC?. We don't know but even if it does, DA knows about it.
Is PPP run properly. No, but does DA care?.

The 'story' is that the CFC CEO has for the second time embraced an individual exposed as so questionable by supporters the Club has been forced to disassociate itself from them.

After similar episodes at both Hartlepool and Wednesday, of course.

That's not speculation, that's reality.

As are the negative reports in the national media, mounting debts, CCJ's and visits from bailiffs at the DC/PPP.

But you're right, Dave; for reasons we can only guess at the Chairman just doesn't seem to care...

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 13 April 2016 - 04:48 PM

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on 13 April 2016 - 04:43 PM, said:

The 'story' is that the CFC CEO has for the second time embraced an individual exposed as so questionable by supporters the Club has been forced to disassociate itself from them.

After similar episodes at both Hartlepool and Wednesday, of course.

That's not speculation, that's reality.

As is are the negative reports in the national media, mounting debts, CCJ's and visits from bailiffs at the DC/PPP.

But you're right, Dave; for reasons we can only guess at the Chairman just doesn't seem to care...

As we know from the current tax return debate, there's a very fine line between outright dubious, and unscrupulous but defensible practice. I suspect that DA turns a blind eye because the flow of cash on the projections is solely incoming. Many rich men would do exactly the same. Maybe the financial situation is encouraging him to look the wrong way. If it were better then maybe more due diligence might happen.

At the end of the day though, he's got a CEO who has brought in £3m transfer income and who might actually be better at that bit of the business than anybody else. Bottom line.

[RGS]

Meanwhile, on this day 19 years ago...

I remember watching this game on TV and feeling outraged.

http://www.derbyshir...rough-1-7851404

This post has been edited by RGS: 13 April 2016 - 05:38 PM