[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

moondog, on 05 February 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

Yes but rectified in terms of parents taking action by them being eventually refunded.

If money was taken fraudulently it's still a fraud even if said money is then paid back

[moondog]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 05 February 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

If money was taken fraudulently it's still a fraud even if said money is then paid back

Yes intent to defraud is a crime, it's a practical question of if the Police/CPS would be willing to bring charges.

[Mrhappy]

MDCCCLXVI, on 05 February 2017 - 02:58 PM, said:

And let's also remember this was just one of a number of trips cancelled only for parents to be left chasing money, or being re-paid 'in kind'.

I'm struggling to believe Sutcliffe wouldn't know the cheque would bounce.

That is of course if the cheque existed.

Moondog, maybe you can ask AC to ask his friend CT to ask his friend LS if it's ok for one of us to contact the travel company?

[moondog]

dim view, on 05 February 2017 - 12:26 PM, said:

Heyup Moondog

So, are we expecting answers to the questions or is that the lot from Howard?

Howard has seen the questions but hasn't been asked to answer them, not that I think he should as they primarily relate to how the DC operation was managed.

I've suggested to AC answers would further help in his wish to restore faith but i think I'd be fair in summarising that his view is he's provided enough already and it doesn't seem to be taking him further forward.

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

moondog, on 05 February 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

Howard has seen the questions but hasn't been asked to answer them, not that I think he should as they primarily relate to how the DC operation was managed.

I've suggested to AC answers would further help in his wish to restore faith but i think I'd be fair in summarising that his view is he's provided enough already and it doesn't seem to be taking him further forward.

How the hell is it going to restore faith when for months everyone has said it's all nothing to do with the club and club money hasn't been paid over etc. It's just appears to be one lie after another and they are running out of patsies

[moondog]

Mrhappy, on 05 February 2017 - 04:18 PM, said:

That is of course if the cheque existed.

Moondog, maybe you can ask AC to ask his friend CT to ask his friend LS if it's ok for one of us to contact the travel company?

I suggest you contact Liam Sutcliffe direct with your request


[email protected]

[DIFH]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 05 February 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

If money was taken fraudulently it's still a fraud even if said money is then paid back

Legally it''s all about the intention AT THE TIME that the offer was published. You will be hard pushed to prove fraudulent intent at the time of the offer.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

moondog, on 05 February 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

He doesn't have the authority that would have to come from Sutcliffe however I understand he's willing to confirm at the AGM tomorrow that parents were asked to pay for a trip that wasnt booked

An email received by a parent chasing a refund relating to the first trip:


"Unfortunately, you were advised that at each stage of deposit the money would be spent on various areas or to various people/companies that were facilitating the trip.

This was clearly outlined in the original brochure, so yes!!! The money was spent and due to parents of other players the trip was postponed, not cancelled due their non-payment of the full balance.

So, to clarify of course the money you paid was spent in good faith. I did agree to refund the full balance of the trip for those parents who's child could not attend but there seems to be a lot of confusion as though parents feel we have done something wrong or haven't calculated this trip properly.

There are quite a number of rumours at the moment but rest assured these will have a stop put on them and very very quickly.

You will receive your refund although I can not manage your expectations by giving you a date that doesn't exist and when I have full confidence in you receiving your refund, I will let you know.

If this isn't sufficient then my suggestion is you escalate this further but as I have advised other parents, it can't go any higher than myself and we are working tirelessly to bring this matter to a close."

[Goku]

Escalate higher but it can't go any higher

Gold

[Mr Mercury]

freelander2, on 05 February 2017 - 04:46 PM, said:

An email received by a parent chasing a refund relating to the first trip:


"Unfortunately, you were advised that at each stage of deposit the money would be spent on various areas or to various people/companies that were facilitating the trip.

This was clearly outlined in the original brochure, so yes!!! The money was spent and due to parents of other players the trip was postponed, not cancelled due their non-payment of the full balance.

So, to clarify of course the money you paid was spent in good faith. I did agree to refund the full balance of the trip for those parents who's child could not attend but there seems to be a lot of confusion as though parents feel we have done something wrong or haven't calculated this trip properly.

There are quite a number of rumours at the moment but rest assured these will have a stop put on them and very very quickly.

You will receive your refund although I can not manage your expectations by giving you a date that doesn't exist and when I have full confidence in you receiving your refund, I will let you know.

If this isn't sufficient then my suggestion is you escalate this further but as I have advised other parents, it can't go any higher than myself and we are working tirelessly to bring this matter to a close."

Turner ought to hang his head in shame for being a part of this in the past, total disgrace.

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

Dave In Footie Heaven, on 05 February 2017 - 04:43 PM, said:

Legally it''s all about the intention AT THE TIME that the offer was published. You will be hard pushed to prove fraudulent intent at the time of the offer.

I wouldn't even try to prove it Dave.

I wouldn't waste any of my time trying with anything to do with the sorry episode as there is no will at the club by anyone to sort it out it would appear. For me the off field issues are killing the club quicker than what's not happening on the pitch. People are just getting fed up of one issue after another coming out.

[Mrhappy]

moondog, on 05 February 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

Howard has seen the questions but hasn't been asked to answer them, not that I think he should as they primarily relate to how the DC operation was managed.

I've suggested to AC answers would further help in his wish to restore faith but i think I'd be fair in summarising that his view is he's provided enough already and it doesn't seem to be taking him further forward.

He hasn't provided enough, he's provided some.

moondog, on 05 February 2017 - 04:37 PM, said:

I suggest you contact Liam Sutcliffe direct with your request


[email protected]

I think it's fair to say I wouldn't get a response.

[dim view]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 05 February 2017 - 05:36 PM, said:

I wouldn't even try to prove it Dave.

I wouldn't waste any of my time trying with anything to do with the sorry episode as there is no will at the club by anyone to sort it out it would appear. For me the off field issues are killing the club quicker than what's not happening on the pitch. People are just getting fed up of one issue after another coming out.

Summing up then...
The DC is set up by Sutcliffe and Turner.
CFC pay DC overheads for 2 years and is gradually reimbursed.
Ashley Carson, Dave Allen, Chris Turner, and Howard the Auditer consider this to be a private matter, nowt to do with supporters or shareholders, with no reference in annual accounts.
Turner chooses for some unknown reason to prefer to cover up and lie about this arrangement even though the venture is welcomed as a sound investment for CFC by supporters. The other 3 and other Directors chose to allow this situation to fester.
Turner breaks from Sutcliffe claiming ignorance of any wrongdoing.
DC cash appears in the CFC account, clearing any debt.
Carson and Howard state that this situation is within the parameters of normal business practice for CFC.

So, at the AGM....
There is plenty of evidence that Turner knew about the wrongdoings but, again, Carson and Howard will claim that it is irrelevant in accounting terms to CFC.
No amount of protesting by shareholders to get Sutcliffe prosecuted will change it.
No protests about Turner's dual position will change it.
No suggestions that a forensic audit of inter and intra business cash flow should be conducted will change it.
No disclosures about the nature of the wrongdoing at the DC, in spite of their seriousness, will change it.

These are the people running our club.

[moondog]

Mrhappy, on 05 February 2017 - 06:23 PM, said:

He hasn't provided enough, he's provided some.




I think it's fair to say I wouldn't get a response.

You could try what I understand is his new boss

[email protected]

[Guest_freelander2_*]

freelander2, on 04 February 2017 - 07:46 PM, said:

3) Rent Charged to CFC by Development School for Village – Again, £24.5K (2015) and £24K (2016) was deducted off the development school's liability to the club. This looks like the club were recharged the entire rental relating to the village, why? Also, please refer to the answer which you gave to question 7 in the list submitted to you prior to the fans' forum on the 9th November where you were asked about this. To remind you:


7) Rent has been charged to the P&L account at £24,500 (2015) and £29,139 (2016). Please confirm if any of the expenditure charged to 'Rent' relates to the accommodation block situated at the front of Simply Gym, Sheffield Road, Chesterfield, known as the 'CFCVillage'?

No. This relates to rent for Pitches / Players Digs. Absolutely no connection with CFC Village

Given that the CFC Village opened during the middle of 2013, who took the decision to recharge the rent to the club for years 2015 & 2016 and more importantly, why?

If you just take this one subject in isolation, you really have to wonder what is going off at the club.

AC was clearly asked prior to the fans' forum whether or not the charges to CFC 2001 Ltd's P&L account relating to rent £24,500 (2015) & £29,139 (2016) were related to the CFC Village. His reply quoted above reads, "absolutely no connection with CFC Village", yet they obviously are.

So can we assume that AC was unaware of this £2K per month overhead being charged to CFC or was he BS us?

[Wooden Spoon]

dim view, on 05 February 2017 - 07:04 PM, said:

Summing up then...
The DC is set up by Sutcliffe and Turner.
CFC pay DC overheads for 2 years and is gradually reimbursed.
Ashley Carson, Dave Allen, Chris Turner, and Howard the Auditer consider this to be a private matter, nowt to do with supporters or shareholders, with no reference in annual accounts.
Turner chooses for some unknown reason to prefer to cover up and lie about this arrangement even though the venture is welcomed as a sound investment for CFC by supporters. The other 3 and other Directors chose to allow this situation to fester.
Turner breaks from Sutcliffe claiming ignorance of any wrongdoing.
DC cash appears in the CFC account, clearing any debt.
Carson and Howard state that this situation is within the parameters of normal business practice for CFC.

So, at the AGM....
There is plenty of evidence that Turner knew about the wrongdoings but, again, Carson and Howard will claim that it is irrelevant in accounting terms to CFC.
No amount of protesting by shareholders to get Sutcliffe prosecuted will change it.
No protests about Turner's dual position will change it.
No suggestions that a forensic audit of inter and intra business cash flow should be conducted will change it.
No disclosures about the nature of the wrongdoing at the DC, in spite of their seriousness, will change it.

These are the people running our club.

Vote with your feet - not a penny more! Allen losing his millions will change it.


Right now I'd rather support a step 6 Phoenix club ground sharing with stavely than give another penny to the dishonest men at our club. If it means CFC gold, so be it.

[dim view]

freelander2, on 05 February 2017 - 07:29 PM, said:

If you just take this one subject in isolation, you really have to wonder what is going off at the club.

AC was clearly asked prior to the fans' forum whether or not the charges to CFC 2001 Ltd's P&L account relating to rent £24,500 (2015) & £29,139 (2016) were related to the CFC Village. His reply quoted above reads, "absolutely no connection with CFC Village", yet they obviously are.

So can we assume that AC was unaware of this £2K per month overhead being charged to CFC or was he BS us?

The key question is

Is it Howard's job, as Accountant and Auditor (which seems odd to a layman),to question the payments in the forensic detail that you list? An invoice comes in to Sally. She is instructed to process it and record the transaction. Job done.

[hilly81]

freelander2, on 05 February 2017 - 04:46 PM, said:

An email received by a parent chasing a refund relating to the first trip:


"Unfortunately, you were advised that at each stage of deposit the money would be spent on various areas or to various people/companies that were facilitating the trip.

This was clearly outlined in the original brochure, so yes!!! The money was spent and due to parents of other players the trip was postponed, not cancelled due their non-payment of the full balance.

So, to clarify of course the money you paid was spent in good faith. I did agree to refund the full balance of the trip for those parents who's child could not attend but there seems to be a lot of confusion as though parents feel we have done something wrong or haven't calculated this trip properly.

There are quite a number of rumours at the moment but rest assured these will have a stop put on them and very very quickly.

You will receive your refund although I can not manage your expectations by giving you a date that doesn't exist and when I have full confidence in you receiving your refund, I will let you know.

If this isn't sufficient then my suggestion is you escalate this further but as I have advised other parents, it can't go any higher than myself and we are working tirelessly to bring this matter to a close."

Just unbelievable.

[Westbars Spireite]

freelander2, on 05 February 2017 - 04:46 PM, said:

An email received by a parent chasing a refund relating to the first trip:


"Unfortunately, you were advised that at each stage of deposit the money would be spent on various areas or to various people/companies that were facilitating the trip.

This was clearly outlined in the original brochure, so yes!!! The money was spent and due to parents of other players the trip was postponed, not cancelled due their non-payment of the full balance.

So, to clarify of course the money you paid was spent in good faith. I did agree to refund the full balance of the trip for those parents who's child could not attend but there seems to be a lot of confusion as though parents feel we have done something wrong or haven't calculated this trip properly.

There are quite a number of rumours at the moment but rest assured these will have a stop put on them and very very quickly.

You will receive your refund although I can not manage your expectations by giving you a date that doesn't exist and when I have full confidence in you receiving your refund, I will let you know.

If this isn't sufficient then my suggestion is you escalate this further but as I have advised other parents, it can't go any higher than myself and we are working tirelessly to bring this matter to a close."

Is this admission enough to get his collar felt?

[whittman]

freelander2, on 05 February 2017 - 04:46 PM, said:

An email received by a parent chasing a refund relating to the first trip:


"Unfortunately, you were advised that at each stage of deposit the money would be spent on various areas or to various people/companies that were facilitating the trip.

This was clearly outlined in the original brochure, so yes!!! The money was spent and due to parents of other players the trip was postponed, not cancelled due their non-payment of the full balance.

So, to clarify of course the money you paid was spent in good faith. I did agree to refund the full balance of the trip for those parents who's child could not attend but there seems to be a lot of confusion as though parents feel we have done something wrong or haven't calculated this trip properly.

There are quite a number of rumours at the moment but rest assured these will have a stop put on them and very very quickly.

You will receive your refund although I can not manage your expectations by giving you a date that doesn't exist and when I have full confidence in you receiving your refund, I will let you know.

If this isn't sufficient then my suggestion is you escalate this further but as I have advised other parents, it can't go any higher than myself and we are working tirelessly to bring this matter to a close."

Reading that does anyone else have the impression that it was originally written in a foreign language and then translated into englsh?

This post has been edited by whittman: 05 February 2017 - 08:38 PM