[Alan Birch]

Mrhappy, on 20 January 2017 - 06:24 PM, said:

What is the total CCJ figure which remains outstanding?

That's very kind of you Sir, you offering to pay it......

[Spireite-Karl]

MDCCCLXVI, on 20 January 2017 - 06:14 PM, said:

No more evasion; no more excuses; just the straightforward facts and figures.

That's about as likely as CT getting the boot, Chris.

[moondog]

60s 70s Spireite, on 20 January 2017 - 06:30 PM, said:

Absolutely not. In fact anyone setting up a new company whilst walking away from a failing one is more likely to come under enquiry.

Good

[Guest_freelander2_*]

60s 70s Spireite, on 20 January 2017 - 06:30 PM, said:

Absolutely not. In fact anyone setting up a new company whilst walking away from a failing one is more likely to come under enquiry.

I asked LS why the new business, CFC International Football Academy had been incorporated. He considered the new company name would appeal to a much wider audience than CFC Football Development School. I also asked him why he chose not to change the name of the old company, no answer was forthcoming.

When I suggested, that from the outside looking in, it could be seen that the new company was incorporated as a means to access credit, he refuted the suggestion.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

Not that we needed proof:



12 mins, 56 secs.

[Mr Mercury]

Oh Biggs where art thou?

[Somerset Spireite]

freelander2, on 20 January 2017 - 08:25 PM, said:

Not that we needed proof:



12 mins, 56 secs.

Nice and definitive - not much chance of that being misunderstood.

[calvin plummers socks]

Mr Mercury, on 20 January 2017 - 08:37 PM, said:

Oh Biggs where art thou?

Usually about a couple of yards from Allen's backside?

[Mrhappy]

calvin plummers socks, on 21 January 2017 - 06:54 PM, said:

Usually about a couple of yards from Allen's backside?

As far as that?

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on 20 January 2017 - 06:14 PM, said:

Even more reason why Chesterfield supporters need to know if any of their money, handed over in good faith for the benefit of their football club, has found it's way over the road.

No more evasion; no more excuses; just the straightforward facts and figures.

Yep, just to clarify things in case Ashley wants to clear things up with a simple little table.
From the time that the Sutcliffe/Turner partnership started.....

1. How many CFC Board meetings have taken place?
2. How many times have the regular CFC accounts provided to Directors shown the DC as a Sundry Debtor?
3. How many times have full year end CFC accounts shown the DC as a Sundry Debtor?

I reckon I could collate that data in less than 1 hour.

If the answer to 2 is zero, I need to make a full apology.
If the answer to 2 is not zero, then several people especially Chris Turner and John Croot need to make a full apology.
If the answer to 2 is not zero, then we need to know how the numbers were reconciled/written off or indeed are still owing.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dim view, on 22 January 2017 - 09:48 AM, said:

Yep, just to clarify things in case Ashley wants to clear things up with a simple little table.
From the time that the Sutcliffe/Turner partnership started.....

1. How many CFC Board meetings have taken place?
2. How many times have the regular CFC accounts provided to Directors shown the DC as a Sundry Debtor?
3. How many times have full year end CFC accounts shown the DC as a Sundry Debtor?

I reckon I could collate that data in less than 1 hour.

If the answer to 2 is zero, I need to make a full apology.
If the answer to 2 is not zero, then several people especially Chris Turner and John Croot need to make a full apology.
If the answer to 2 is not zero, then we need to know how the numbers were reconciled/written off or indeed are still owing.

Don't agree - if the answer to '2' is not zero the bloke who claimed CFC has a 'zero tolerance policy' should go, simple as that.

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on 22 January 2017 - 10:37 AM, said:

Don't agree - if the answer to '2' is not zero the bloke who claimed CFC has a 'zero tolerance policy' should go, simple as that.

I'd apply that to 3.

If CFC cash was fully repaid during a financial year then I can possibly see DA and directors tolerating it. It still means we've been lied to though.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

freelander2, on 20 January 2017 - 08:25 PM, said:

Not that we needed proof:



12 mins, 56 secs.

Sickening, truly sickening.

Not just that a supposedly professional journalist offers prompts clearly designed to exonerate the subject, but that an individual can lie so shamelessly in public.

[DIFH]

MDCCCLXVI, on 22 January 2017 - 10:58 AM, said:

Sickening, truly sickening.

Not just that a supposedly professional journalist offers prompts clearly designed to exonerate the subject, but that an individual can lie so shamelessly in public.

Well to me that just shows the guy and his morals out on show for all to see.

[SpireiteFitzy]

How many CCJ's can a business rack up before questions start getting asked? Or legally how many are you allowed before sanctions start getting put in? Genuinely I've no idea. I know very little about businesses and running them but surely continuous CCJ's should be alarming the courts or creditors or someone in the know enough for action to get taken?

[DIFH]

SpireiteFitzy, on 22 January 2017 - 04:52 PM, said:

How many CCJ's can a business rack up before questions start getting asked? Or legally how many are you allowed before sanctions start getting put in? Genuinely I've no idea. I know very little about businesses and running them but surely continuous CCJ's should be alarming the courts or creditors or someone in the know enough for action to get taken?

More creedance should be given to the number of times that a guys businesses go bust. On occasions that can be out of ones hands but a regular occurance can only lead to one conclusion.

[Mrhappy]

SpireiteFitzy, on 22 January 2017 - 04:52 PM, said:

How many CCJ's can a business rack up before questions start getting asked? Or legally how many are you allowed before sanctions start getting put in? Genuinely I've no idea. I know very little about businesses and running them but surely continuous CCJ's should be alarming the courts or creditors or someone in the know enough for action to get taken?

Don't let LS know you 'know very little about business' or he'll be offering you a job with the Village people.

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

MDCCCLXVI, on 22 January 2017 - 10:58 AM, said:

Sickening, truly sickening.

Not just that a supposedly professional journalist offers prompts clearly designed to exonerate the subject, but that an individual can lie so shamelessly in public.

Painful to listen to, the answers are all so slow and considered.

Get this debacle away from our football club with immediate effect.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 22 January 2017 - 06:37 PM, said:

Painful to listen to, the answers are all so slow and considered.

Get this debacle away from our football club with immediate effect.

Part 2's here if you missed it:

http://www.thecfss.c...c=56809&st=3200

Listen from 17 mins in!

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

SpireiteFitzy, on 22 January 2017 - 04:52 PM, said:

How many CCJ's can a business rack up before questions start getting asked? Or legally how many are you allowed before sanctions start getting put in? Genuinely I've no idea. I know very little about businesses and running them but surely continuous CCJ's should be alarming the courts or creditors or someone in the know enough for action to get taken?

Well for starters you'd think any further sources of credit would dwindle to zero.

Which raises questions over why AC and CT would loan someone even they themselves described as deceitful tens of thousands.

We then have to wonder why 'FBT' would tolerate someone with Sutcliffe's record.

Once again the suspicious can't be blamed for thinking Sutcliffe starting a new business - the 'International Academy' - when there was no real need suggests he's intended winding-up the original enterprise for quite some time.