[moondog]

Was it asked why the meeting was in Ossett and not Chesterfield?

[spireitenag]

moondog, on 02 March 2017 - 10:47 PM, said:

Was it asked why the meeting was in Ossett and not Chesterfield?

Hopefully out of sight,out of mind.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

moondog, on 02 March 2017 - 10:30 PM, said:

"Liam Sutcliffe has agreed to make a contribution towards the cost of liquidation of £7,500. No monies have yet been paid in respect of this agreement " good luck getting that Mr Liquidator

I wonder who is financing Sutcliffe?

As I have already said, late Tuesday afternoon, the meeting was in doubt because the liquidator's fees had not been guaranteed, a point which he acknowledged at the start of the meeting.
Given his desperation at the 11th hour to gets his fees covered, who has stumped up the cash?

[moondog]

spireitenag, on 02 March 2017 - 10:49 PM, said:

Hopefully out of sight,out of mind.

Yes, to keep it under the radar, make it as awkward as possible for creditors to attend

[moondog]

freelander2, on 02 March 2017 - 10:52 PM, said:

I wonder who is financing Sutcliffe?

As I have already said, late Tuesday afternoon, the meeting was in doubt because the liquidator's fees had not been guaranteed, a point which he acknowledged at the start of the meeting.
Given his desperation at the 11th hour to gets his fees covered, who has stumped up the cash?

I would have thought that is a reasonable question to ask the liquidator

[clarevoyant.]

Looker-on, on 02 March 2017 - 09:49 PM, said:

If the company owes Sutcliffe 49k in wages, what has he been living on?

Does he have a contract that states what his rewards are and if so who writes it?

[For your eyes only]

dim view, on 02 March 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

Any road up. 3 simple things I noted from the questioning of Sutcliffe, to get us started.....

3. No records of cash taken from parents.

Point 3 is a very, very interesting point. The little ones fees for games that parents dig in their pockets for, for nearly 3 years.
A fiver a player.
No records to show for it...

[spireitenag]

moondog, on 02 March 2017 - 10:52 PM, said:

Yes, to keep it under the radar, make it as awkward as possible for creditors to attend

It would seem that was exactly the case with the appointed liquidator's having a nearer office in Sheffield.

It would appear now that they've had a rude awakening and are starting to ask Sutcliffe some searching questions.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

moondog, on 02 March 2017 - 10:47 PM, said:

Was it asked why the meeting was in Ossett and not Chesterfield?

It was and we pointed out our concerns about it being off patch. Reasoning:

1) There is no real money in the job, so it's important to keep costs down.

2) The liquidator has offices in Sheffield but lack meeting facilities.

3) A number of creditors are based in Leeds, Barnsley, York, etc.

[Mrhappy]

And all of this sorry situation could have been prevented had CT taken the advice which he allegedly ignored.

[moondog]

spireitenag, on 02 March 2017 - 10:57 PM, said:

It would seem that was exactly the case with the appointed liquidator's having a nearer office in Sheffield.

It would appear now that they've had a rude awakening and are starting to ask Sutcliffe some searching questions.

Quite rightly so, one wouldnt imagine if they are a reputable firm they would act in supporting a fraud

freelander2, on 02 March 2017 - 10:59 PM, said:

It was and we pointed out our concerns about it being off patch. Reasoning:

1) There is no real money in the job, so it's important to keep costs down.

2) The liquidator has offices in Sheffield but lack meeting facilities.

3) A number of creditors are based in Leeds, Barnsley, York, etc.

Did other creditors attend and if so who and did they have anything to say ?

[spireitenag]

Mrhappy, on 02 March 2017 - 11:00 PM, said:

And all of this sorry situation could have been prevented had CT taken the advice which he allegedly ignored.

There were more people than CT at CFC who failed to take heed of well meant advice from concerned fans.

[clarevoyant.]

spireitenag, on 02 March 2017 - 11:03 PM, said:

There were more people than CT at CFC who failed to take heed of well meant advice from concerned fans.

Unfortunately taking advice from fans isn't in the present culture at CFC

[Guest_freelander2_*]

moondog, on 02 March 2017 - 11:03 PM, said:

Quite rightly so, one wouldnt imagine if they are a reputable firm they would act in supporting a fraud




Did other creditors attend and if so who and did they have anything to say ?

Members from Bob's Board represented a local garage, an ex member of staff and a scout and the insolvency practitioner represented a scholar and his parents.

There was no other representation.

[Lee Ranaldo]

Looker-on, on 02 March 2017 - 09:49 PM, said:

If the company owes Sutcliffe 49k in wages, what has he been living on?

freelander2, on 02 March 2017 - 09:55 PM, said:

That's a very, very good question.

I may be missing something here, I'm not sure if the rules are different for directors or not but it almost seems as though he's claiming he was never paid a wage.

Given the company ceased trading in early 2016, then he can only class as being 'employed' for three full years(?), so as a minimum he should be due three weeks pay for his notice period (subject to tax and NI) and three weeks full pay (at a capped rate but tax free given the value) for redundancy.
Given the figures quoted that appears to me to put the arrears of pay at around two years full wages. But wouldn't those pay arrears also me subject to tax and NI, reducing the amount he is due?

[Wooden Spoon]

Are there grounds for an investigation into fraud here?

[Mrhappy]

a kick in the balls, on 02 March 2017 - 11:37 PM, said:

Are there grounds for an investigation into fraud here?

My thoughts exactly.

[For your eyes only]

Looker-on, on 02 March 2017 - 09:49 PM, said:

If the company owes Sutcliffe 49k in wages, what has he been living on?

I was told he was on CFC payroll by someone who works for the club.
He denied this, of course.

[Lee Ranaldo]

For your eyes only, on 02 March 2017 - 11:41 PM, said:

I was told he was on CFC payroll by someone who works for the club.
He denied this, of course.

I thought it had been stated by Short's that CFC provided payroll facilities for the DC as part of the trade off of services?

[Mrhappy]

For your eyes only, on 02 March 2017 - 11:41 PM, said:

I was told he was on CFC payroll by someone who works for the club.
He denied this, of course.

He offered my son a position at the club academy, and a meeting with DS. My son was around 12 at the time and LS spoke the him without me being present.......I'd say he was clearly representing CFC here.