[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dim view, on 13 April 2016 - 04:57 PM, said:

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.

Heh-heh-heh.

Oh, sorry Dave; were you being serious....?

[Westbars Spireite]

You seek to credit CT for selling players?

[brockwell-spireite]

MDCCCLXVI, on 13 April 2016 - 04:36 PM, said:

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...

what i find interesting is how you interpret questioning posts on here to be defending DB.... i also find it interesting given statements like "theres more about Bingham to be revealed" that people can't believe that anybody was trying to access his email and his phone... it looks highly likely given the lengths some people have gone to...

This post has been edited by brockwell-spireite: 13 April 2016 - 05:18 PM

[brockwell-spireite]

MDCCCLXVI, on 13 April 2016 - 04:36 PM, said:

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...

exactly how did the police become involved and what was their intervention?

[dim view]

Westbars Spireite, on 13 April 2016 - 05:04 PM, said:

You seek to credit CT for selling players?

I think we are likely to hear CT credited in the not too distant future with negotiating excellent transfer deals and securing first division safety during the turbulence. On the very narrow subject of carrying out DA's instructions to get maximum income from transfers, I think DA will say he's done a great job, the end justifying the means. These are the thoughts of at least one Director, which I reproduce.

[Westbars Spireite]

BS; How many years did you two go back squire?

This post has been edited by Westbars Spireite: 13 April 2016 - 05:17 PM

[Westbars Spireite]

dim view, on 13 April 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

I think we are likely to hear CT credited in the not too distant future with negotiating excellent transfer deals and securing first division safety during the turbulence. On the very narrow subject of carrying out DA's instructions to get maximum income from transfers, I think DA will say he's done a great job, the end justifying the means. These are the thoughts of at least one Director, which I reproduce.

They surely aren't that stupid.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dim view, on 13 April 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

I think we are likely to hear CT credited in the not too distant future with negotiating excellent transfer deals and securing first division safety during the turbulence. On the very narrow subject of carrying out DA's instructions to get maximum income from transfers, I think DA will say he's done a great job, the end justifying the means. These are the thoughts of at least one Director, which I reproduce.

But what do you think, Dave.

I'm sure a bloke renown for his refusal to admit error will trot out spin just as a Board apparently subdued despite significant involvements will echo the 'party line'.

We need look no further than your mate's treatment to realise that.

However knowing what you do what's your real opinion of our CEO?

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 13 April 2016 - 05:40 PM

[RGS]

Be the boss - pick the team you'd send out to face the Blades

http://www.derbyshir...clash-1-7851477

[Forever a Spireite]

RGS, on 13 April 2016 - 05:39 PM, said:

Be the boss - pick the team you'd send out to face the Blades

http://www.derbyshir...clash-1-7851477

Wot about getting your boss to print answers to the questions about Bungham turnipe and co!

[Wooden Spoon]

brockwell-spireite said:

1460555637[/url]' post='1201607']
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"

If Bjngham had really been hacked, why hasn't anyone had their collars felt?

[Somerset Spireite]

brockwell-spireite, on 13 April 2016 - 05:11 PM, said:

what i find interesting is how you interpret questioning posts on here to be defending DB.... i also find it interesting given statements like "theres more about Bingham to be revealed" that people can't believe that anybody was trying to access his email and his phone... it looks highly likely given the lengths some people have gone to...

Sorry, but that's way over the top. Highly likely?

[Stoptalkingbol]

a kick in the balls, on 13 April 2016 - 05:46 PM, said:

If Bjngham had really been hacked, why hasn't anyone had their collars felt?

Would anyone on here really have the nouse to be able to hack someone? Aren't these specialist intelligence skills? What a load of crap.

[Westbars Spireite]

The claims were preposterous from the outset. The last word of a sinking man. If there was any truth in it rest assured collars would have been felt already.

[Wooden Spoon]

dim view said:

1460566638[/url]' post='1201654']
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.

Shame the day to,running of the club is such a shambles, because were that not so, those debts could have been greatly reduced by the player sales instead of papering over cracks and covering losses.

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on 13 April 2016 - 05:33 PM, said:

But what do you think, Dave.

I'm sure a bloke renown for his refusal to admit error will trot out spin just as a Board apparently subdued despite significant involvements will echo the 'party line'.

We need look no further than your mate's treatment to realise that.

However knowing what you do what's your real opinion of our CEO?

knowing what I know.......
chancer; poor manager; untrustworthy; in depth knowledge of negotiating with players and agents.

[brockwell-spireite]

a kick in the balls, on 13 April 2016 - 05:46 PM, said:

If Bjngham had really been hacked, why hasn't anyone had their collars felt?

I have no idea... Maybe they failed... I am sure a complaint to the police about someone hacking your emails is way down their priority list...

You don't exactly have to work for Mi5 to try and enter someone's password multiple times...

If people have spent as much time as they clearly have and uncovered basically nothing concrete but enough to arouse their suspicions I don't think it illogical to think someone would try and have a look at his emails???

Given some of the leaps people have made over the course of these threads that is not a huge leap...

This post has been edited by brockwell-spireite: 13 April 2016 - 06:25 PM

[Benno Spire]

brockwell-spireite, on 13 April 2016 - 06:22 PM, said:

I have no idea... Maybe they failed... I am sure a complaint to the police about someone hacking your emails is way down their priority list...

You don't exactly have to work for Mi5 to try and enter someone's password multiple times...

If people have spent as much time as they clearly have and uncovered basically nothing concrete but enough to arouse their suspicions I don't think it illogical to think someone would try and have a look at his emails???

Given some of the leaps people have made over the course of these threads that is not a huge leap...

I'm looking for some clothes for a charity jumble sale, do you know anyone who might be looking to get rid of any?

[brockwell-spireite]

Benno Spire, on 13 April 2016 - 06:44 PM, said:

I'm looking for some clothes for a charity jumble sale, do you know anyone who might be looking to get rid of any?

I have absolutely no idea what that means...

[spireitenag]

Benno Spire, on 13 April 2016 - 06:44 PM, said:

I'm looking for some clothes for a charity jumble sale, do you know anyone who might be looking to get rid of any?

PMSL

brockwell-spireite, on 13 April 2016 - 06:22 PM, said:

I have no idea... Maybe they failed... I am sure a complaint to the police about someone hacking your emails is way down their priority list...

You don't exactly have to work for Mi5 to try and enter someone's password multiple times...

If people have spent as much time as they clearly have and uncovered basically nothing concrete but enough to arouse their suspicions I don't think it illogical to think someone would try and have a look at his emails???

Given some of the leaps people have made over the course of these threads that is not a huge leap...

Believe me there's enough concrete to redo my drive.