[azul]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 04 May 2017 - 07:24 PM, said:

It's also deception pretending to be 4 different people

It is brilliant that these useless clowns come on here and feign hurt

Utterly pathetic

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

moondog, on 03 May 2017 - 03:24 PM, said:

AC has provided the following explanation regarding the bank account access


"For clarification, until about a year ago, because like everything else, the Development Centre had been classed by Barclays as part of the Club, hence why when we opened our Online Banking their account was linked to our other 4 active accounts.

The Bank Manager was always concerned about the cash and lack of it in the Development Account and he would inform me if there was a problem. I was also able to ask if the account was showing any real credit or on the breadline.

Once the account had been changed and the old account closed we were not able to see a transaction by transaction again, and I never asked the bank for this detail, I would not expect to get it.

However I was issued with their information relating to the PSG Trip as there were several cheques that had been bounced and the Bank informed me of these and confirmed the 2 specific ones relating to the Travel Company"

1. a bank doesn't make assumptions. I wouldn't have thought it legally possible to link an account without permission of the account holder? Perhaps one of our bankers will confirm?
2. AC wouldn't ask the bank for detail as he would not expect to get it
3. he did ask for detail about the trip and got it lol. So the bank issued details of an account which shouldn't have been linked to the club and was done so in error? If so there are some serious data protection issues going on here
2.

[Wooden Spoon]

Curious said:

1493915297[/url]' post='1301071']
Hello...I see my last message was deleted double quick....

So...something serious is going on.....who will the Avon Lady strike at next?????

You see...a woman with a bone will never give up asking questions....

I have friends who are high ranking Police Officers and I have heard that grossly offensive messages posted about people will be investigated...under the new laws that came out last September....

It is an offense to post anything about people that could cause distress or anxiety....

Give your friends a ring, seriously, we WANT the police to become involved, because they may then become interested in the bigger picture

[Mr Mercury]

a kick in the balls, on 04 May 2017 - 08:22 PM, said:

Give your friends a ring, seriously, we WANT the police to become involved, because they may then become interested in the bigger picture

Too true, who posts such stupid stuff. Let's get the police all over the Proact, please.

[Westbars Spireite]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 04 May 2017 - 07:43 PM, said:

1. a bank doesn't make assumptions. I wouldn't have thought it legally possible to link an account without permission of the account holder? Perhaps one of our bankers will confirm?
2. AC wouldn't ask the bank for detail as he would not expect to get it
3. he did ask for detail about the trip and got it lol. So the bank issued details of an account which shouldn't have been linked to the club and was done so in error? If so there are some serious data protection issues going on here
2.

If what he saying is true Barclays treated them as part of the same entity from day one and linked it to the football club's accounts accordingly.

There would have been an immediate opportunity to point out the error so you have to assume the those with authority over the club's accounts agreed.

This post has been edited by Westbars Spireite: 04 May 2017 - 09:39 PM

[Eastander]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 04 May 2017 - 07:24 PM, said:

It's also deception pretending to be 4 different people

Pretty sure it's 5 - at least!

[dim view]

Westbars Spireite, on 04 May 2017 - 08:42 PM, said:

If what he saying is true Barclays treated them as part of the same entity from day and linked it to the football club's accounts accordingly.

To me, reading Ashley's response, that is a straightforward admission. The claim of independence from Turner was just nonsense.

What worries me is that 'we opened the account' was at a time when Turner was CEO and running the shop. This was Ashley's 'inactive' period.

Did Turner have the authority to move cash between companies?

[Westbars Spireite]

dim view, on 04 May 2017 - 09:38 PM, said:

To me, reading Ashley's response, that is a straightforward admission. The claim of independence from Turner was just nonsense.

What worries me is that 'we opened the account' was at a time when Turner was CEO and running the shop. This was Ashley's 'inactive' period.

Did Turner have the authority to move cash between companies?

Depending on the mandate held for the accounts it's perfectly possible, yes.

I'm not sure whether Barclays' online business banking allows a 'read only' option if the mandate differs from 'one to sign'.

[dim view]

Westbars Spireite, on 04 May 2017 - 09:41 PM, said:

Depending on the mandate held for the accounts it's perfectly possible, yes.

I'm not sure whether Barclays' online business banking allows a 'read only' option if the mandate differs from 'one to sign'.

Ashley describes the reason for the payment by the DS of CFC players as a 'mystery'.

Not if that's how the books were balanced.

[Westbars Spireite]

dim view, on 04 May 2017 - 09:49 PM, said:

Ashley describes the reason for the payment by the DS of CFC players as a 'mystery'.

Not if that's how the books were balanced.

A 'mystery' yet had access to the bank account via the club's own online banking?

[moondog]

Westbars Spireite, on 04 May 2017 - 09:52 PM, said:

A 'mystery' yet had access to the bank account via the club's own online banking?

In answer to this AC informed me a bank statement would not seperate payroll.

[dim view]

moondog, on 05 May 2017 - 04:59 AM, said:

In answer to this AC informed me a bank statement would not seperate payroll.

I had a courteous exchange with Ashley but he then wrote and said he needed to bring the subject to an end to concentrate on helping GC build a new team. And yet he keeps reviving the controversy by providing bit part answers. It's almost as if he is purposely keeping the topic alive.

How and when did Ashley discover that CFC players had been paid by the DS?
Were other players in addition to Wright and Orrell paid by the DS?
Did Turner control both CFC and DS bank accounts?
Was real cash transferred from CFC bank accounts to DS accounts, with the DS providing invoices for goods and services such as 'rent' to CFC to balance the books?

What I said to Ashley was that he needs to issue an unambiguous statement to clear the air. In the next couple of months there will be a report produced by the Liquidator and there is so much information in the public domain that their conclusions can easily be dissected. Ashley will have to face the whole episode again.

[DIFH]

dim view, on 04 May 2017 - 09:38 PM, said:

To me, reading Ashley's response, that is a straightforward admission. The claim of independence from Turner was just nonsense.

What worries me is that 'we opened the account' was at a time when Turner was CEO and running the shop. This was Ashley's 'inactive' period.

Did Turner have the authority to move cash between companies?

Surely that would be straight forward theft.

[Benno Spire]

moondog, on 05 May 2017 - 04:59 AM, said:

In answer to this AC informed me a bank statement would not seperate payroll.

Yes they do, as each person is paid individually to their account each transaction shows on a bank statement

[Westbars Spireite]

Benno Spire, on 05 May 2017 - 07:48 AM, said:

Yes they do, as each person is paid individually to their account each transaction shows on a bank statement

Only if individual payments are sent. Larger organisations with more sophisticated systems will show a single debit on their account with individual payments being handled elsewhere.

This post has been edited by Westbars Spireite: 05 May 2017 - 07:54 AM

[Hoare (400)]

Surely if enough people complain to the police, they have to investigate it?



Hoare (400)

[Benno Spire]

Westbars Spireite, on 05 May 2017 - 07:53 AM, said:

Only if individual payments are sent. Larger organisations with more sophisticated systems will show a single debit on their account with individual payments being handled elsewhere.

This is CFC we are talking about, so you can't use the word sophisticated!!
But yes aware of some companies processing wages through other systems and Barclays certainly do this, but surely someone has to send them the information to process

[dim view]

Benno Spire, on 05 May 2017 - 08:28 AM, said:

This is CFC we are talking about, so you can't use the word sophisticated!!
But yes aware of some companies processing wages through other systems and Barclays certainly do this, but surely someone has to send them the information to process

Ashley has confirmed that CFC players were paid by the DS. Somebody at CFC must has ordered or requested Sutcliffe to process the payments. Who and why?

[Half Full]

Westbars Spireite, on 05 May 2017 - 07:53 AM, said:

Only if individual payments are sent. Larger organisations with more sophisticated systems will show a single debit on their account with individual payments being handled elsewhere.

Out of interest does anyone know if the club outsources the payroll payment? If so who is it that processes wage payments?

[Westbars Spireite]

Half Full, on 05 May 2017 - 09:29 AM, said:

Out of interest does anyone know if the club outsources the payroll payment? If so who is it that processes wage payments?

I can't imagine it's cost effective for us.

So probably.