[Westbars Spireite]

If Ashley Carson wants to get points across on here he needs to show some balls and post under his own name rather than getting other people to do his excuse making.

[Stoptalkingbol]

Westbars Spireite, on 06 September 2016 - 08:18 PM, said:

If Ashley Carson wants to get points across on here he needs to show some balls and post under his own name rather than getting other people to do his excuse making.

Send him some tinnies, they magically reopen his bobs board account.

[Bankrobber]

Anyone got any idea of how many CCJs are received by other clubs?

Let's see how well run our counterparts are.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

It's now a fortnight since Ashley Carson agreed to a meeting.

Yet we're still awaiting a date from him, the CEO who stated his 'door is always open' and Liam Sutcliffe, who's presumably at the CFC Village on an almost daily basis.

And now we're led to believe Dave Allen is somehow blocking the get-together.

As we were led to believe the action pursued against comments on social media was down to him.

As we were led to believe the threat of more litigation was down to him.

As we were led to believe the DT's ban was down to him.

As we're led to believe a change can't be made within the CFC hierarchy because of him...even if there've been inferences another member of that hierarchy sympathises with such a change.

Well that might all be true. However I not only think it's very easy to blame someone who's highly unlikely to deny any of this, but maybe, just perhaps, is only aware of a limited amount of it.

[hilly81]

Good old Dennis (Les) at it again on Facebook. They really can do no wrong in his eyes:

"I have been looking around at numerous posts on various forums and IMHO the vast majority of harm that is being done to CFC is caused by a few "private investigators " or should I say "private instigators" on different forums.
They seem to have the opinion that they have the authority to say who should and shouldn't be employed at the club, some think that because they are very small shareholders they have that right.
I have a fairly decent amount of shares in Santander but I don't have the right to tell anyone who to hire or fire, and as I know nothing about it I wouldn't even attempt to.
To put it bluntly they pay to watch football and have the rights to do that and nothing else ��
I am not saying they don't have a right to complain as they do have that right, but to organise protests and make plans for demos in the ground on match days by suggesting throwing turnips on the pitch is absolutely ridiculous.
I had a business and many other members of this forum have businesses would you allow others to tell you who to hire and fire?
When these protests include Boycotts of the games and the crowds go down who does it hurt?
They say their protests are against the board!
Does low attendance affect the board? Not a chance
Who does it affect? The genuine supporters of CFC and the reason for that is that lower attendance means lower money, lower money means either poorer players or fewer players or both and that means lower performances which equals lower leagues which I do not want.
Yet these investigators/instigators allege that they are "supporters" of CFC, I doubt that very much.
They ask if I as a supporter am happy with the newspaper reports no I am not, but what the alleged supporters are attempting to achieve and the methods they are using I am much more unhappy with, a report appears in a newspaper and it is immediately posted on public forums whether the report is true or false, if it is false the post is not removed they leave it there to fester in everybody's mind and by Chinese whispers it gets to be the truth."

This post has been edited by hilly81: 08 September 2016 - 07:21 PM

[starsky72]

How far do you reckon his tongue can reach??

[Forever a Spireite]

hilly81, on 08 September 2016 - 07:21 PM, said:

Good old Dennis (Les) at it again on Facebook. They really can do no wrong in his eyes:

"I have been looking around at numerous posts on various forums and IMHO the vast majority of harm that is being done to CFC is caused by a few "private investigators " or should I say "private instigators" on different forums.
They seem to have the opinion that they have the authority to say who should and shouldn't be employed at the club, some think that because they are very small shareholders they have that right.
I have a fairly decent amount of shares in Santander but I don't have the right to tell anyone who to hire or fire, and as I know nothing about it I wouldn't even attempt to.
To put it bluntly they pay to watch football and have the rights to do that and nothing else ��
I am not saying they don't have a right to complain as they do have that right, but to organise protests and make plans for demos in the ground on match days by suggesting throwing turnips on the pitch is absolutely ridiculous.
I had a business and many other members of this forum have businesses would you allow others to tell you who to hire and fire?
When these protests include Boycotts of the games and the crowds go down who does it hurt?
They say their protests are against the board!
Does low attendance affect the board? Not a chance
Who does it affect? The genuine supporters of CFC and the reason for that is that lower attendance means lower money, lower money means either poorer players or fewer players or both and that means lower performances which equals lower leagues which I do not want.
Yet these investigators/instigators allege that they are "supporters" of CFC, I doubt that very much.
They ask if I as a supporter am happy with the newspaper reports no I am not, but what the alleged supporters are attempting to achieve and the methods they are using I am much more unhappy with, a report appears in a newspaper and it is immediately posted on public forums whether the report is true or false, if it is false the post is not removed they leave it there to fester in everybody's mind and by Chinese whispers it gets to be the truth."

y suggesting throwing turnips on the pitch is absolutely ridiculous.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[Tha Knows...]

I'd like to see that. It's never happened at a football game afaik. Funny pic for the DT too

[Benno Spire]

hilly81, on 08 September 2016 - 07:21 PM, said:

Good old Dennis (Les) at it again on Facebook. They really can do no wrong in his eyes:

"I have been looking around at numerous posts on various forums and IMHO the vast majority of harm that is being done to CFC is caused by a few "private investigators " or should I say "private instigators" on different forums.
They seem to have the opinion that they have the authority to say who should and shouldn't be employed at the club, some think that because they are very small shareholders they have that right.
I have a fairly decent amount of shares in Santander but I don't have the right to tell anyone who to hire or fire, and as I know nothing about it I wouldn't even attempt to.
To put it bluntly they pay to watch football and have the rights to do that and nothing else ��
I am not saying they don't have a right to complain as they do have that right, but to organise protests and make plans for demos in the ground on match days by suggesting throwing turnips on the pitch is absolutely ridiculous.
I had a business and many other members of this forum have businesses would you allow others to tell you who to hire and fire?
When these protests include Boycotts of the games and the crowds go down who does it hurt?
They say their protests are against the board!
Does low attendance affect the board? Not a chance
Who does it affect? The genuine supporters of CFC and the reason for that is that lower attendance means lower money, lower money means either poorer players or fewer players or both and that means lower performances which equals lower leagues which I do not want.
Yet these investigators/instigators allege that they are "supporters" of CFC, I doubt that very much.
They ask if I as a supporter am happy with the newspaper reports no I am not, but what the alleged supporters are attempting to achieve and the methods they are using I am much more unhappy with, a report appears in a newspaper and it is immediately posted on public forums whether the report is true or false, if it is false the post is not removed they leave it there to fester in everybody's mind and by Chinese whispers it gets to be the truth."

Trying hard to remember any false reports!
Speaking of festering, where did I leave that turnipe

[Phil V 72]

hilly81, on 08 September 2016 - 07:21 PM, said:

Good old Dennis (Les) at it again on Facebook. They really can do no wrong in his eyes:

"I have been looking around at numerous posts on various forums and IMHO the vast majority of harm that is being done to CFC is caused by a few "private investigators " or should I say "private instigators" on different forums.
They seem to have the opinion that they have the authority to say who should and shouldn't be employed at the club, some think that because they are very small shareholders they have that right.
I have a fairly decent amount of shares in Santander but I don't have the right to tell anyone who to hire or fire, and as I know nothing about it I wouldn't even attempt to.
To put it bluntly they pay to watch football and have the rights to do that and nothing else ��
I am not saying they don't have a right to complain as they do have that right, but to organise protests and make plans for demos in the ground on match days by suggesting throwing turnips on the pitch is absolutely ridiculous.
I had a business and many other members of this forum have businesses would you allow others to tell you who to hire and fire?
When these protests include Boycotts of the games and the crowds go down who does it hurt?
They say their protests are against the board!
Does low attendance affect the board? Not a chance
Who does it affect? The genuine supporters of CFC and the reason for that is that lower attendance means lower money, lower money means either poorer players or fewer players or both and that means lower performances which equals lower leagues which I do not want.
Yet these investigators/instigators allege that they are "supporters" of CFC, I doubt that very much.
They ask if I as a supporter am happy with the newspaper reports no I am not, but what the alleged supporters are attempting to achieve and the methods they are using I am much more unhappy with, a report appears in a newspaper and it is immediately posted on public forums whether the report is true or false, if it is false the post is not removed they leave it there to fester in everybody's mind and by Chinese whispers it gets to be the truth."

That's you lot told

[calvin plummers socks]

Phil V 72, on 08 September 2016 - 07:54 PM, said:

That's you lot told

Wow who is this clown Dennis:,-)

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

hilly81, on 08 September 2016 - 07:21 PM, said:

Good old Dennis (Les) at it again on Facebook. They really can do no wrong in his eyes:

"I have been looking around at numerous posts on various forums and IMHO the vast majority of harm that is being done to CFC is caused by a few "private investigators " or should I say "private instigators" on different forums.
They seem to have the opinion that they have the authority to say who should and shouldn't be employed at the club, some think that because they are very small shareholders they have that right.
I have a fairly decent amount of shares in Santander but I don't have the right to tell anyone who to hire or fire, and as I know nothing about it I wouldn't even attempt to.
To put it bluntly they pay to watch football and have the rights to do that and nothing else ��
I am not saying they don't have a right to complain as they do have that right, but to organise protests and make plans for demos in the ground on match days by suggesting throwing turnips on the pitch is absolutely ridiculous.
I had a business and many other members of this forum have businesses would you allow others to tell you who to hire and fire?
When these protests include Boycotts of the games and the crowds go down who does it hurt?
They say their protests are against the board!
Does low attendance affect the board? Not a chance
Who does it affect? The genuine supporters of CFC and the reason for that is that lower attendance means lower money, lower money means either poorer players or fewer players or both and that means lower performances which equals lower leagues which I do not want.
Yet these investigators/instigators allege that they are "supporters" of CFC, I doubt that very much.
They ask if I as a supporter am happy with the newspaper reports no I am not, but what the alleged supporters are attempting to achieve and the methods they are using I am much more unhappy with, a report appears in a newspaper and it is immediately posted on public forums whether the report is true or false, if it is false the post is not removed they leave it there to fester in everybody's mind and by Chinese whispers it gets to be the truth."

Just the mindless ramblings of a sad old man incapable of logical thinking.

And the most pitiful part of all is when those he currently calls friends eventually leave the Club, for one reason or another, he'll be left all alone trying to explain his sycophantic posturing.

Let's leave him in his own little world and move on. The many long term and loyal Chesterfield supporters genuinely worried about their club have far more important issues to focus upon.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

I'm adding this link for ease of future reference.

http://www.thecfss.c...showtopic=58366

[moondog]

hilly81, on 08 September 2016 - 07:21 PM, said:

Good old Dennis (Les) at it again on Facebook. They really can do no wrong in his eyes:

"I have been looking around at numerous posts on various forums and IMHO the vast majority of harm that is being done to CFC is caused by a few "private investigators " or should I say "private instigators" on different forums.
They seem to have the opinion that they have the authority to say who should and shouldn't be employed at the club, some think that because they are very small shareholders they have that right.
I have a fairly decent amount of shares in Santander but I don't have the right to tell anyone who to hire or fire, and as I know nothing about it I wouldn't even attempt to.
To put it bluntly they pay to watch football and have the rights to do that and nothing else ��
I am not saying they don't have a right to complain as they do have that right, but to organise protests and make plans for demos in the ground on match days by suggesting throwing turnips on the pitch is absolutely ridiculous.
I had a business and many other members of this forum have businesses would you allow others to tell you who to hire and fire?
When these protests include Boycotts of the games and the crowds go down who does it hurt?
They say their protests are against the board!
Does low attendance affect the board? Not a chance
Who does it affect? The genuine supporters of CFC and the reason for that is that lower attendance means lower money, lower money means either poorer players or fewer players or both and that means lower performances which equals lower leagues which I do not want.
Yet these investigators/instigators allege that they are "supporters" of CFC, I doubt that very much.
They ask if I as a supporter am happy with the newspaper reports no I am not, but what the alleged supporters are attempting to achieve and the methods they are using I am much more unhappy with, a report appears in a newspaper and it is immediately posted on public forums whether the report is true or false, if it is false the post is not removed they leave it there to fester in everybody's mind and by Chinese whispers it gets to be the truth."

We do not leave false reports on this forum, I've sent a PM to "Dennis" asking him to highlight a false report

[Somerset Spireite]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[Westbars Spireite]

Ah, the old 'alleged' supporters line. Only a matter of time before that one came out.

Daft old fool.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Y'know, we've repeatedly been assured that not one penny of CFC money has been used to subsidise the development school/PPP.

Well folk can choose for themselves whether to believe that or not - and I choose to believe it as much as I believe only Fitzgerald knew about 'Rafflegate'!

Either way, though, isn't the apparently free use of the CFC badge, name, facilities and for a period address by DS/PPP a subsidy in itself?

We've a sadly diminishing number of local firms, many run by loyal and long standing Spireites, being asked to pay a great deal to associate themselves with the Club. What's more the famous 'Bob's Board' charity game was cancelled when staunch supporters were charged excessive fees for use of the Proact pitch.

Yet on the face of it a supposedly separate enterprise run by CFC's Head of Academy Recruitment (whatever that means) and until recently CEO enjoys a far closer association and more extensive use of the stadium for nowt?!

I don't think the good people of North Derbyshire can be blamed for feeling hugely suspicious, cynical and, perhaps, even cheated. Meanwhile I leave it to those possessing greater knowledge of such matters to decide if any tax issues are involved.

Then we have the latest CCJ's.

Now the Club insist, seeming to blandly accept it as an almost everyday occurrence, that this is in fact a third CCJ awarded against the company to which it's joined at the hip, so to speak. At the same time someone the Derbyshire Times describes as a 'PPP spokesman' (by the way, could this possibly be Nick Johnson, the CFC media man? And if so, wouldn't that constitute yet another subsidy to PPP on the Club's part? We simply don't know.) suggests it's all some sort of mix-up. Just as the earlier visit from a court official accompanied by a film crew was all some sort of mix-up.

Similarly our friend 'Zorro', whom I know to be a lifelong Town fan and major sponsor with impeccable contacts, tells us it relates to the 'Sixt' bill run-up some months ago and discussed by Chris Turner at a subsequent fans forum.

However.

The hugely respected and unerringly accurate 'Freelander2' makes perfect sense when he points out that surely a large business like 'Sixt' would have a central record of the original account with DS/PPP, that account would contain clear information regarding whom to contact and where, whilst if payments had been agreed then made - as Turner claimed - they'd further be linked to PPP. So why the alleged error? Why the sudden mix-up? Do 'Sixt' make mistakes that according to Turner CFC doesn't?

Unless, of course, the account wasn't with PPP in the first place. Infact the whole sorry episode might be better explained if it was, after all, in the Club's name. In other words a subsidy those under scrutiny deny. Again, we simply don't know.

I guess those with vested interests in brushing all this under an increasingly mountainous carpet can continue trotting out the 'not costing the Club anything' line realising the truth lays buried in documents fans are highly unlikely to see. On the other hand I'd argue that it's almost 'Siamese twin' relationship with what many view as a controversial, possibly toxic brand has already cost the Club significant amounts in terms of withdrawn support and sponsorship. Conversations with stay-away Town fans confirm as much.

I'd go further.

It's my view that unless Dave Allen - whom to my understanding is in no way connected to recent scandals - amputates certain gangrenous appendages attaching themselves to his football club, they'll continue to infect the larger body.

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 09 September 2016 - 08:55 AM

[Bonnyman]

MDCCCLXVI, on 09 September 2016 - 08:46 AM, said:

Y'know, we've repeatedly been assured that not one penny of CFC money has been used to subsidise the development school/PPP.

Well folk can choose for themselves whether to believe that or not - and I choose to believe it as much as I believe only Fitzgerald knew about 'Rafflegate'!

Either way, though, isn't the apparently free use of the CFC badge, name, facilities and for a period address by DS/PPP a subsidy in itself?

We've a sadly diminishing number of local firms, many run by loyal and long standing Spireites, being asked to pay a great deal to associate themselves with the Club. What's more the famous 'Bob's Board' charity game was cancelled when staunch supporters were charged excessive fees for use of the Proact pitch.

Yet on the face of it a supposedly separate enterprise run by CFC's Head of Academy Recruitment (whatever that means) and until recently CEO enjoys a far closer association and more extensive use of the stadium for nowt?!

I don't think the good people of North Derbyshire can be blamed for feeling hugely suspicious, cynical and, perhaps, even cheated. Meanwhile I leave it to those possessing greater knowledge of such matters to decide if any tax issues are involved.

Then we have the latest CCJ's.

Now the Club insist, seeming to blandly accept it as an almost everyday occurrence, that this is in fact a third CCJ awarded against the company to which it's joined at the hip, so to speak. At the same time someone the Derbyshire Times describes as a 'PPP spokesman' (by the way, could this possibly be Nick Johnson, the CFC media man? And if so, wouldn't that constitute yet another subsidy to PPP on the Club's part? We simply don't know.) suggests it's all some sort of mix-up. Just as the earlier visit from a court official accompanied by a film crew was all some sort of mix-up.

Similarly our friend 'Zorro', whom I know to be a lifelong Town fan and major sponsor with impeccable contacts, tells us it relates to the 'Sixt' bill run-up some months ago and discussed by Chris Turner at a subsequent fans forum.

However.

The hugely respected and unerringly accurate 'Freelander2' makes perfect sense when he points out that surely a large business like 'Sixt' would have a central record of the original account with DS/PPP, that account would contain clear information regarding whom to contact and where, whilst if payments had been agreed then made - as Turner claimed - they'd further be linked to PPP. So why the alleged error? Why the sudden mix-up? Do 'Sixt' make mistakes that according to Turner CFC doesn't?

Unless, of course, the account wasn't with PPP in the first place. Infact the whole sorry episode might be better explained if it was, after all, in the Club's name. In other words a subsidy those under scrutiny deny. Again, we simply don't know.

I guess those with vested interests in brushing all this under an increasingly mountainous carpet can continue trotting out the 'not costing the Club anything' line realising the truth lays buried in documents fans are highly unlikely to see. On the other hand I'd argue that it's almost 'Siamese twin' relationship with what many view as a controversial, possibly toxic brand has already cost the Club significant amounts in terms of withdrawn support and sponsorship. Conversations with stay-away Town fans confirm as much.

I'd go further.

It's my view that unless Dave Allen - whom to my understanding is in no way connected to recent scandals - amputates certain gangrenous appendages attaching themselves to his football club, they'll continue to infect the larger body.

If Mr Carson has invested in the ppp and his son is actively working in the ppp why would he do anything but protect it from any more bad press?

[Stockholm Spireite]

Bonnyman, on 09 September 2016 - 11:42 AM, said:

If Mr Carson has invested in the ppp and his son is actively working in the ppp why would he do anything but protect it from any more bad press?

Now, his son working in the PPP is news to me.

If only there was a website where I could keep up with what's going on... I just keep getting a blue screen with the words "back online soon".

I'm sure Carson Jnr. was a thoroughly vetted appointment, and father and son have enough football acumen between them to right the wrongs and set a more suitable course for the enterprise...

[Sammy Spireite]

Stockholm Spireite, on 09 September 2016 - 04:37 PM, said:

Now, his son working in the PPP is news to me.

If only there was a website where I could keep up with what's going on... I just keep getting a blue screen with the words "back online soon"

I gather the PPP website being down is due to "number of changes" currently underway, including a rebranding exercise.

Presumably, the PPP is now taking steps to disassociate itself from itself!!