[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

70s Vivo, on 06 September 2016 - 10:12 PM, said:

You have probably put together a pretty fair assessment of the actual situation. The thing that the fans have to worry about is in relation to what they are actually all working towards. What is the end point they are trying to get to together?

My grandad got me into following town in the 69/70 promotion season. My son and nephews have all been brainwashed and are spireites. Am I confident my grand kids when they come will have a club to follow? No I'm not. To me the club is being drained of life from within and its sucking out the very passion of the fans that have kept it going,

We are a downward spiral that appears to have no resolution as nobody outside the cheap seats appears bothered.

[Mrhappy]

On the button, my feelings too.

[Blue95]

Yupp same, very surprised no more publicly staged protests have taken place at the ground as of yet.

[dim view]

Westbars Spireite, on 06 September 2016 - 09:55 PM, said:

You'll have to fill me in on what that might be.

I've no idea, and I'm not suggesting anything illegal.

Perhaps DA has put away a block of money that will enable him to surprise us all and sell at a much cheaper price than the one being banded about. Perhaps he has needed a block of money to support his other businesses. In my opinion and if the numbers are accurate, CT has done more than enough to impressa DA on transfer/compensation income to the extent that not much else matters.

There's one thing for sure. Unless the accounts demonstrate that a load of debt has been paid off in line with his very own 70/30 rule, then he's got to expect cynicism. Another year of 'we've been unable to reduce debt because our costs have gone up but the CEO is doing a fantastic job' won't wash.

[Exharboroughspireite]

Perhaps someone at the AGM could ask the obvious question 'will there be any resignations from board level following the several high profile scandals the club has been subjected to over the last few months?'

[dazcarrlegend]

Dennis, on 06 September 2016 - 08:31 PM, said:

Now that is not necessarily true, a debt can be issued against anybody without having served any papers at all, The following is absolute fact.
2 years ago I went to a property my son owns in Walton, as I arrived a chap was walking from the property, I asked him if I could help him, He asked me if I was Lee Ashmore, I told him I wasn't and that Lee lived in Hong Kong and had done so for 5 years, I explained I was his father, He then told me he was a County Court Bailiff and he was there to serve a warrant, He gave me the CCJ documents, We rightly thought that as my son had been letting the property out that the tenants who had recently left the property must have had some documents and not said anything, we contacted them and they stated that no documentation had been delivered at all, We contacted my son and he knew nothing of any debt, He contacted the Manchester County Court and they forwarded him all the details, The company concerned who were named stated that my son had purchased equipment off them 1 year prior, That was impossible as my son was not in the country, He asked for copies of all documentation ie letters sent etc etc, They stated there had not been any as the required time had lapsed for a CCJ, so they had applied and were successful, anyway to cut a long story short they had the wrong Lee Ashmore, the wrong Town, The wrong address but it cost my son over £450 to clear his name.
But what it does show is that no papers need to be served
But what I will say is it does help the case if it can be proven that papers have been served

A very similar thing happened to me to an old employer who over-paid me. I contacted them to let them know that they had overpaid me, to stop paying me, and where to contact me to pay the money back. I moved out of the property 15 months later (I was moving about a lot with work) - about the same time the old employer started to contact me for the money back (the letters of which I did not receive). They made no further attempts to contact me at any other address, or find out where I lived. They eventually issued me a CCJ, which I only found out about when I subsequently moved again with work and tried to rent another property.

There are two ways to remove a CCJ:-
1) Prove it was issued in error as there was no debt to an individual (see Les' example above), at which point it is removed from the records.
2) Prove that even though there was a debt, sufficient attempts to contact an individual were not made, and have the CCJ cancelled only once the debt has been repaid and this has been agreed by the company who applied for it.

Number 2 happened to me and it cost me about the £450 to get it sorted out even though it was me who initially identified the issue! The system is unfair if you are an innocent party.

[DIFH]

Blue95, on 07 September 2016 - 12:23 AM, said:

Yupp same, very surprised no more publicly staged protests have taken place at the ground as of yet.

That wouldn't make any difference to the hard nosed way that the hieracy opperate...............

Embarrassment, maybe but in the end no real influence.

Withdrawing matchday support - that would just pile on the debt and in my opionion play into their hands to do what ever is planned.

[CFC91]

The support on the whole seems to have given up. The atmosphere is awful and this has to be a contributing factor. IT just isn't an enjoyable experience anymore. The comment about the 'passion' of the fans being gone is absolutely bang on the money.

The board have to take the blame for that.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Here's how I understand things.

A CCJ has been awarded against CFC.

Another CCJ has been awarded against PPP, though that can be expunged from the records if promptly addressed.

The Club seem to say the CCJ awarded against them is the result of an historical debt that's either been, or is in the process of being paid.

What's more it's a CCJ associated with PPP.

The fact a second CCJ in less than four years has been awarded against an enterprise closely associated with CFC appears to've been accepted without undue concern by CFC.

However that doesn't explain why not only a company who've presumably been pursuing this for quite some time, but professional court officials would make such an amateur mistake.

Nor does it explain why this wasn't highlighted by CFC at the start of the process.

And if the two CCJ's are from the same creditor - which at this point is unclear - why would they seek duplicate actions instead of a single one against the Club if they were unaware of the separation?

Most of all why was a debt allowed to accrue in the first place; doesn't that speak to the cavalier attitude towards finances individuals at PPP and CFC have been criticised for?

Is this an accurate summary?

[DIFH]

dim view, on 07 September 2016 - 03:29 AM, said:

I've no idea, and I'm not suggesting anything illegal.

Perhaps DA has put away a block of money that will enable him to surprise us all and sell at a much cheaper price than the one being banded about. Perhaps he has needed a block of money to support his other businesses. In my opinion and if the numbers are accurate, CT has done more than enough to impressa DA on transfer/compensation income to the extent that not much else matters.

There's one thing for sure. Unless the accounts demonstrate that a load of debt has been paid off in line with his very own 70/30 rule, then he's got to expect cynicism. Another year of 'we've been unable to reduce debt because our costs have gone up but the CEO is doing a fantastic job' won't wash.

Nothing illegal but a Web of monstrous deceit being peddied.

[BodieUK]

Westbars Spireite, on 06 September 2016 - 12:15 PM, said:

Your last sentence sums it up. Partly why I'm not interested in meeting with or listening to anything Turner has to say. He is part of the problem, not the solution.

This is exactly the reason why I left the Fans Forum group.

I would love to join it again though in the future (if they will take me back) - Under the "right" circumstances though of course!

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

BodieUK, on 07 September 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

This is exactly the reason why I left the Fans Forum group.

I would love to join it again though in the future (if they will take me back) - Under the "right" circumstances though of course!

Speaking of which, is the proposed pre-Northampton face-to-face with Turner still on?

I did ask to attend, a request that no one challenged unless I'm mistaken.

Can Nige or someone PM me details if we're still good?

Cheers - Chris.

[Scooby Doo]

Westbars Spireite, on 06 September 2016 - 09:55 PM, said:

You'll have to fill me in on what that might be.

Think about it!!

[Westbars Spireite]

Scooby Doo, on 07 September 2016 - 04:17 PM, said:

Think about it!!

Do tell Scooby!

[The Peoples Champion]

freelander2, on 06 September 2016 - 09:18 AM, said:

Source: http://www.derbyshir...eites-1-8107190

Before the spokesman issued the statement to the Derbyshire Times, it might have been in their interests to research the process of issuing a County Court Judgment. Let's be clear how these things work:

1) The claimant will have usually pursued the debt over a number of weeks and months.

2) The claimant will have written to the defendant, giving them 7 days notice of legal proceedings.

3) The claimant then files their case, usually with moneyclaim.gov.uk. The court normally issues the claim within 2 days.

4) The court will then send out a claim form to the defendant and allow a further 5 days from the date of issue (date of service).

5) The defendant has 14 days from the date of service to file a response.

6) The defendant has many options including full defence, counterclaim, part admission, paid defence, full admission, no response or payment.

7) Once a judgment has been entered, the defendant is sent a copy of the order. The order will tell the defendant how much to pay, when to pay it and where to send the payments.

8) If the defendant makes full payment within 30 days of the judgment, the CCJ notice will be erased from the register. If the CCJ is not paid within 30 days, it will generally sit on the defendant’s credit file for a period of 6 years.

Clearly there was ample time before judgment was passed for the club to point out to the Court that the debt was not related to Chesterfield Football Club.

Just how long is this going to go on for? The decisions and actions of those whose job it is to safeguard the club’s reputation continues to have the opposite effect. In fact, the unwillingness to address the ongoing deficiencies in the club’s structure fuels speculation and suspicion. This is yet another perfect example of Chesterfield Football Club, its staff, sponsors and supporters being badly let down.

It is now starting to get embarrassing. For as long as I have been a supporter, with the exception of the 2000/01 season, CFC had an excellent reputation for being a well-run, professional club. Given our new stadium and the facilities at our disposal, you really do have to wonder what the heck is happening to the club that we support. More to the point, you have to question why action has not been taken.

If this was happening over at Mansfield, it would be highly amusing, sadly though it is happening right under our noses.

"WE DON'T MAKE MISTAKES "

[Mr Mercury]

The Peoples Champion, on 07 September 2016 - 06:19 PM, said:

"WE DON'T MAKE MISTAKES "

And why would bills go unpaid at organisations that are "running at great profit"?

[The Peoples Champion]

Mr Mercury, on 07 September 2016 - 06:56 PM, said:

And why would bills go unpaid at organisations that are "running at great profit"?

Exactly Mr M

Feel very uneasy about all this

[dtp]

Mr Mercury, on 07 September 2016 - 06:56 PM, said:

And why would bills go unpaid at organisations that are "running at great profit"?

If the bill is in dispute this can happen.

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

dtp, on 07 September 2016 - 07:46 PM, said:

If the bill is in dispute this can happen.

These are supposed to be bills they don't know anything about, so how can they be in dispute?

[Mr Mercury]

dtp, on 07 September 2016 - 07:46 PM, said:

If the bill is in dispute this can happen.

So do you believe Turner when he said in a radio interview that the "DC is running at great profit", although it was a while ago now. Or was it that he actually had no idea about the financial state of an organisation he was a major player in, or if he did know the situation why did he say it?