Help
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.
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.
Excellent summary Chris.
I think many of us are in agreement regarding club money and the PPP.
