[Benno Spire]

freelander2, on 07 August 2016 - 03:47 PM, said:

Keep the suggestions coming.

What about a representative from Royal Pearl?

[Mr Mercury]

Certain members of the local constabulary, just to ensure everythings kept peaceful you understand.

[DIFH]

We could have a Barby on the pitch an all seeing as we are being daft

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Benno Spire, on 07 August 2016 - 04:56 PM, said:

What about a representative from Royal Pearl?

Y'mean like James Higgins?

[Benno Spire]

MDCCCLXVI, on 07 August 2016 - 05:44 PM, said:

Y'mean like James Higgins?

Thinking more like Brockwell Spireite

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Benno Spire, on 07 August 2016 - 05:54 PM, said:

Thinking more like Brockwell Spireite

Nah, mate.

I can personally confirm that 'BS', unlike James Higgins, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and, given the dead ends encountered by those seeking to contact it, Royal Pearl, really exists.

[dim view]

freelander2, on 07 August 2016 - 03:47 PM, said:

Keep the suggestions coming.

OFSTED

[Sammy Spireite]

moondog, on 07 August 2016 - 07:49 AM, said:

Not sure what it signifies but the PPP website has been taken down, "back online soon!" no mention as to why on PPP twitter feed, odd timing at the start of the new season


http://cfcfds.co.uk/

My guess;

The club, having seen some of the comments on here recently regarding the PPP website, have reviewed its contents and finally taken steps to have it filtered.

I'd expect it to appear again soon, heavily amended, without much if not all of the Chesterfield FC references removed.

I also think that the PPP will be left to fend for itself from now on, left "high n dry" if you will.

Of course, just my thoughts, and I might be totally wrong.

[dim view]

Sammy Spireite, on 07 August 2016 - 08:32 PM, said:

I also think that the PPP will be left to fend for itself from now on, left "high n dry" if you will.

Of course, just my thoughts, and I might be totally wrong.

That might all depend on whether LS has managed to secure new, independent, investors.

[For your eyes only]

dim view, on 07 August 2016 - 08:42 PM, said:

That might all depend on whether LS has managed to secure new, independent, investors.

Who in their right mind would invest in that?
If someone else was running it and not an alleged human money colander then yes by all means, but as it is right now, knowing what we know, it'd take someone rather dim (no pun intended) to give a penny to that set up!!

Besides don't you need good staff to run somethung well?
Mr S has forgotten the golden rule many times over...


Why Good Employee Leave? David W Richard
A study came up with the surprising finding: If you're loosing good people, look to their immediate supervisors. More than any other single reason, he is the reason people stay and thrive in organization. And he's the reason why they quit, talking their knowledge, experience and contacts with them. Often, straight to the competition.

"People leave managers not companies" write the authors Marcus Buckinggham and Curt Coffman " So much money has been thrown at the challenges of keeping good people-in the form of better pay, better perks and better training-when in the end, turnover is mostly a manager issue."

If you have a turnover problem, look first to your managers and supervisors.

Beyond a point, an employee's primary need has less to do with money, and more to do with how he's treated and how valued he feels. Much depends directly on the immediate manager.

Quote by David W Richard. And he's right ya know.

[moondog]

For your eyes only, on 07 August 2016 - 08:52 PM, said:

Who in their right mind would invest in that?
If someone else was running it and not an alleged human money colander then yes by all means, but as it is right now, knowing what we know, it'd take someone rather dim (no pun intended) to give a penny to that set up!!

Besides don't you need good staff to run somethung well?
Mr S has forgotten the golden rule many times over...


Why Good Employee Leave? David W Richard
A study came up with the surprising finding: If you're loosing good people, look to their immediate supervisors. More than any other single reason, he is the reason people stay and thrive in organization. And he's the reason why they quit, talking their knowledge, experience and contacts with them. Often, straight to the competition.

"People leave managers not companies" write the authors Marcus Buckinggham and Curt Coffman " So much money has been thrown at the challenges of keeping good people-in the form of better pay, better perks and better training-when in the end, turnover is mostly a manager issue."

If you have a turnover problem, look first to your managers and supervisors.

Beyond a point, an employee's primary need has less to do with money, and more to do with how he's treated and how valued he feels. Much depends directly on the immediate manager.

Quote by David W Richard. And he's right ya know.

Spot on

[Mrhappy]

Matt allwright

[Nitrous Oxide]

Oliver Holt for a balanced press report on proceedings.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

For your eyes only, on 07 August 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

Yes they do!

That's what I've heard, too.

So, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that someone involved at the Club has a stake in a Saltergate guesthouse. Perhaps alongside a close family member who already has interests in the property sector.

Let's also say, again just for the sake of argument, that that guesthouse was housing members of Mark Smith's Academy.

Now there'd be absolutely nothing illegal about any of that, infact CFC might even be receiving a beneficial deal.

However I reckon Town fans couldn't be blamed for wondering if it was an example of folk employed by CFC using their relationship with the Club for personal gain.

Maybe it's something that Proact Head of Media and Communications Nick Johnson should be looking at. I mean, surely yet more negative PR is the last thing he'd want on his 'watch', so to speak.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

Benno Spire, on 07 August 2016 - 04:56 PM, said:

What about a representative from Royal Pearl?

I would hope that subject is now considered common ground.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

MDCCCLXVI, on 08 August 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

That's what I've heard, too.

So, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that someone involved at the Club has a stake in a Saltergate guesthouse. Perhaps alongside a close family member who already has interests in the property sector.

Let's also say, again just for the sake of argument, that that guesthouse was housing members of Mark Smith's Academy.

Now there'd be absolutely nothing illegal about any of that, infact CFC might even be receiving a beneficial deal.

However I reckon Town fans couldn't be blamed for wondering if it was an example of folk employed by CFC using their relationship with the Club for personal gain.

Maybe it's something that Proact Head of Media and Communications Nick Johnson should be looking at. I mean, surely yet more negative PR is the last thing he'd want on his 'watch', so to speak.

Chris,

Could these be the Irish lads?

I suspect it's difficult trying to place one lad with a family, never mind a group of lads. Assuming that you are referring to the Irish lads, I suspect that the club ideally wanted to keep them together and what is the alternative, the Village?

Give Nick a call. What he'll tell you will be the truth, he doesn't know any other way.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

freelander2, on 08 August 2016 - 12:30 PM, said:

Chris,

Could these be the Irish lads?

I suspect it's difficult trying to place one lad with a family, never mind a group of lads. Assuming that you are referring to the Irish lads, I suspect that the club ideally wanted to keep them together and what is the alternative, the Village?

Give Nick a call. What he'll tell you will be the truth, he doesn't know any other way.

Well I've spoken to someone I respect and trust who tells me this could actually be a good news story for a change.

Apparently Mark Smith has become increasingly frustrated by having lads scattered around Town, with all the logistical and financial issues that creates. Subsequently lodging them all under one roof is hugely beneficial whilst it's also been suggested Town are getting what might be termed 'mates rates'. I'm led to believe this guesthouse offers the appropriate facilities and chaperoning needed for young footballers, too - infact everything we hoped the CFC Village would and should provide!

Gotta be honest and say I'm still uncomfortable at the thought of CFC employees being involved in an associated venture, the kinda stuff that led to this thread in the first place.

But y'know what? I reckon I will give Nick Johnson a call and allow him to set the record straight.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

"Chesterfield" gets mentioned 21 times in this link here (http://www.goprofoot....co.uk/success/), we appear to have strong links.

The only named director of Go Pro UK is Ndubuisi Paul Ihonor.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

This bloke, perhaps?

http://www.rugbyadve...pants-1-1477203

The name, hometown and date of birth seem to tally according to this:

https://beta.compani...y0/appointments

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 09 August 2016 - 05:03 PM

[Wooden Spoon]

MDCCCLXVI said:

1470760874[/url]' post='1233054']
This bloke, perhaps?

http://www.rugbyadve...pants-1-1477203

The name, hometown and date of birth seem to tally according to this:

https://beta.compani...y0/appointments

Not another one? Too many times this has happened for it to be simple naïveté.