[whittman]

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

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

Thats why they are "running at great profit" because no bills are being paid

[Guest_freelander2_*]

Mr Mercury, on 07 September 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

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?

Mate, Turner said that in a minuted meeting at a fans' forum on 25/04/15.

[Mr Mercury]

freelander2, on 07 September 2016 - 08:21 PM, said:

Mate, Turner said that in a minuted meeting at a fans' forum on 25/04/15.

I believe he also said it in a radio interview at around the same time.

[60s 70s Spireite]

freelander2, on 07 September 2016 - 08:21 PM, said:

Mate, Turner said that in a minuted meeting at a fans' forum on 25/04/15.

F2. Do you ever feel like you're shooting fish in a barrel?

[Guest_freelander2_*]

MDCCCLXVI, on 07 September 2016 - 12:53 PM, said:

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?

If you think about this logically, the entire explanation is odd.

1) Sixt receive a new customer enquiry from CFC Football Development School.

2) Sixt conduct a credit check on CFC Football Development School.

3) Sixt generate a rental agreement for CFC Football Development School.

4) Sixt generate monthly rental invoices against CFC Football Development School on their sale ledger and post / email invoices to the same.

Why would anyone within Sixt ignore all their historic sales ledger data and then pursue CFC 2001 Ltd for the outstanding amount? Not only that, make a representation to the County Court Business Centre and claim that a totally separate legal entity (CFC 2001 Ltd) is actually the debtor and is liable for the debt?

Odd to say the least.

[Heart of a Niven]

One could even be forgiven for thinking they're not two selerate entities after all and that, yet again, certain people have been economical with the truth.

[dtp]

Mr Mercury, on 07 September 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

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?

I didn't say that at all, did I?

I was merely stating that a possible reason why a business can be faced with a CCJ even if that business is profitable but has not paid a bill.

It is quite possible for a Creditor to try to obtain payment from a Debtor by presenting him with a CCJ even though it is known that the unpaid bill is in dispute.

I made no reference to CFC, any other organisation, or staff of any organisation - just answered a question.

[dim view]

freelander2, on 08 September 2016 - 07:43 AM, said:

If you think about this logically, the entire explanation is odd.

1) Sixt receive a new customer enquiry from CFC Football Development School.

2) Sixt conduct a credit check on CFC Football Development School.

3) Sixt generate a rental agreement for CFC Football Development School.

4) Sixt generate monthly rental invoices against CFC Football Development School on their sale ledger and post / email invoices to the same.

Why would anyone within Sixt ignore all their historic sales ledger data and then pursue CFC 2001 Ltd for the outstanding amount?

...because CFC FDS failed point 2 so Sixt demanded a guarantor?

[DIFH]

dim view, on 08 September 2016 - 12:15 PM, said:

...because CFC FDS failed point 2 so Sixt demanded a guarantor?

Mr T ???

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

freelander2, on 08 September 2016 - 07:43 AM, said:

If you think about this logically, the entire explanation is odd.

1) Sixt receive a new customer enquiry from CFC Football Development School.

2) Sixt conduct a credit check on CFC Football Development School.

3) Sixt generate a rental agreement for CFC Football Development School.

4) Sixt generate monthly rental invoices against CFC Football Development School on their sale ledger and post / email invoices to the same.

Why would anyone within Sixt ignore all their historic sales ledger data and then pursue CFC 2001 Ltd for the outstanding amount? Not only that, make a representation to the County Court Business Centre and claim that a totally separate legal entity (CFC 2001 Ltd) is actually the debtor and is liable for the debt?

Odd to say the least.

I'm only guessing, here, but is there a possibility the development school used vehicles yet set-up an account in the Club's name?

[DIFH]

MDCCCLXVI, on 08 September 2016 - 03:00 PM, said:

I'm only guessing, here, but is there a possibility the development school used vehicles yet set-up an account in the Club's name?

Who actually set the account up would be nice to know, wouldn't be just anyone. Wold have to be one of the directors I suspect.

[Sammy Spireite]

to rack up £6k worth of rental debts, surely at some point someone at the PPP must have looked out of the window and thought:

"I don't recall seeing an invoice for those minibuses in the car park we use every day..."

Unless, of course, the old "head in the sand" picture is due an appearance....

[BlueRover52]

Sammy Spireite, on 08 September 2016 - 03:45 PM, said:

to rack up £6k worth of rental debts, surely at some point someone at the PPP must have looked out of the window and thought:

"I don't recall seeing an invoice for those minibuses in the car park we use every day..."

Unless, of course, the old "head in the sand" picture is due an appearance....

I've never known invoices being paid that haven't been received. And not many will chase invoices they know are overdue.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

I've been trying to locate what our friend 'spireitenag' reported Turner as saying in terms of the large 'Sixt' bill run-up some months ago.

From memory, I seem to recall him admitting a sizeable debt had been accrued by PPP, a five figure debt unless I'm mistaken, which had led to vehicles being withdrawn and either PPP or the Club agreeing to pay down the debt over time.

Again unless I'm mistaken, which could easily be the case, it was never made clear in whose name the bill actually was.

Can anyone be more specific?

Oh, and PS: I did find a post where the two then directors of PPP claimed the court official accompanied by a film crew pursuing a previous debt left after realising it had all been a mix-up.

Y'know, PPP must be the unluckiest enterprise in the World to be the subject of so many mix-ups...

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 08 September 2016 - 05:53 PM

[Guest_freelander2_*]

spireitenag

Posted 25 May 2016 - 09:12 AM
CT confirmed in our meeting that all vehicles leased from Sixt had been returned as being surplus to requirements.

He also stated there was an amount of money owed to Sixt that was being paid off by an agreed monthly repayment plan.

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

Dave In Footie Heaven, on 08 September 2016 - 02:41 PM, said:

Mr T ???

You ain't getting me to pay no bill, fool😀

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

freelander2, on 08 September 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

spireitenag

Posted 25 May 2016 - 09:12 AM
CT confirmed in our meeting that all vehicles leased from Sixt had been returned as being surplus to requirements.

He also stated there was an amount of money owed to Sixt that was being paid off by an agreed monthly repayment plan.

Thankyou, my friend.

Vehicles so 'surplus to requirements' someone spent thousands to use them.

The key question is who, and in whose name...

[Guest_freelander2_*]

MDCCCLXVI, on 08 September 2016 - 06:03 PM, said:

Thankyou, my friend.

Vehicles so 'surplus to requirements' someone spent thousands to use them.

The key question is who, and in whose name...

Was the Merc considered surplus to requirements too?

I love the flash, no cash brigade!

[Benno Spire]

freelander2, on 08 September 2016 - 07:18 PM, said:

Was the Merc considered surplus to requirements too?

I love the flash, no cash brigade!

I remember someone saying that a certain non league player drove round in two different mercs, were they from sixt and who paid for them
I'm only guessing but could an account have been set up in one name for someone else to pay and someone got rumbled, sorry surplus to requirements, could be the mix up they are referring to

[Spireite-Karl]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 08 September 2016 - 05:52 PM, said:

You ain't getting me to pay no bill, fool😀

Haha, we could sure use Mr T now... I remember him saying that he didn't like magic, but he'd been known to make guys disappear