[Wooden Spoon]

Blue5 said:

1557254664[/url]' post='1466816']
Another contentious subject which requires comment from the company secretary. That individual has such a varied role!

Only at Chesterfield FC would the company secretary be dealing with a subject which he has previously claimed to have had no involvement with when the club employs a CEO who has earned a living in recent years from arbitration and dispute resolution.

Ashley’s reputation and hands regarding the mess across the road are immaculately clean. He was simply duped by crooks who exploited his honest nature. The fact a former FA compliance officer was brought into CFC as CEO is mere coincidence. And luckily for us, he will have full access to all the accounts and will be able to bring any wrong doing by club officials to the fore, to face appropriate punishments.


You have nothing to worry about

[isleaiw1]

What worries me is that Crashley's response to the claim is to say the Auditors are happy it's not due. Someone needs to explain to him that they aren't lawyers and in deciding if it should go in the accounts, they will have taken a no doubt cursory view of the probability of it being paid.

If I was a director (even if only in name) I would be wanting solicitors involved and asking them to do a forensic review to see if there was any merit in the claim...

[Stockholm Spireite]

Benno Spire, on 07 May 2019 - 05:35 PM, said:

Surely all this information is easy to track on the development school laptops where they must have kept clear auditable income and expenditure details.


Oh silly me, didn’t i read that these had disappeared.

Would love to see a detailed breakdown of whose wages were paid by the development school and which first team players lodged there and given the amount claimed would it have been cheaper to stay at the Casa?

You would think the IT supplier the club is involved in would have used cloud storage for all important data, so if one or a number of devices were mis-placed, damaged or stolen, the only loss would be the laptop itself.

I wonder what our sponsors, Proact - you know, Europe's leading independent data centre and cloud services provider, feel about this happening under their nose and "on their watch"?

[Westbars Spireite]

isleaiw1, on 07 May 2019 - 07:27 PM, said:

What worries me is that Crashley's response to the claim is to say the Auditors are happy it's not due. Someone needs to explain to him that they aren't lawyers and in deciding if it should go in the accounts, they will have taken a no doubt cursory view of the probability of it being paid.

If I was a director (even if only in name) I would be wanting solicitors involved and asking them to do a forensic review to see if there was any merit in the claim...

It did strike me as odd that. Since when did they dispense legal advice?

Stockholm Spireite, on 07 May 2019 - 07:31 PM, said:

You would think the IT supplier the club is involved in would have used cloud storage for all important data, so if one or a number of devices were mis-placed, damaged or stolen, the only loss would be the laptop itself.

I wonder what our sponsors, Proact - you know, Europe's leading independent data centre and cloud services provider, feel about this happening under their nose and "on their watch"?

Proact will be out of here as soon as the present deal ends which may not be too far in the future.

[Blue5]

isleaiw1, on 07 May 2019 - 07:27 PM, said:

What worries me is that Crashley's response to the claim is to say the Auditors are happy it's not due. Someone needs to explain to him that they aren't lawyers and in deciding if it should go in the accounts, they will have taken a no doubt cursory view of the probability of it being paid.

If I was a director (even if only in name) I would be wanting solicitors involved and asking them to do a forensic review to see if there was any merit in the claim...

I am undecided whether by bringing the auditor into this, Ashley is trying to give credence to his statement or it is the start of the blame game.

[azul]

Westbars Spireite, on 07 May 2019 - 07:35 PM, said:

It did strike me as odd that. Since when did they dispense legal advice?



Proact will be out of here as soon as the present deal ends which may not be too far in the future.

10 years or someone did mentioned 11 years

Not sure their exit will be down to distaste about petty corruption on our part or general disillusionment

The original sponsors (b2bet) were local weren’t they

This post has been edited by azul: 07 May 2019 - 08:15 PM

[60s 70s Spireite]

Blue5, on 07 May 2019 - 07:41 PM, said:

I am undecided whether by bringing the auditor into this, Ashley is trying to give credence to his statement or it is the start of the blame game.

The auditors are duty bound to give more than a cursory review of contingent liabilities, they must use their professional judgement using whatever evidence is available to them to conclude the probability of the claim succeeding.
In view of the claim being in the public domain, the next AGM will be interesting if the view that a provision isn’t required remains the club’s standpoint.

[Westbars Spireite]

azul, on 07 May 2019 - 07:50 PM, said:

10 years or someone did mentioned 11 years

Not sure their exit will be down to distaste about petty corruption on our part or general disillusionment

The original sponsors (b2bet) were local weren’t they

B2Net were bought by Proact, hence the name change. Presumably it's effectively the original naming deal.

This post has been edited by Westbars Spireite: 07 May 2019 - 08:22 PM

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

isleaiw1, on 07 May 2019 - 07:27 PM, said:

What worries me is that Crashley's response to the claim is to say the Auditors are happy it's not due. Someone needs to explain to him that they aren't lawyers and in deciding if it should go in the accounts, they will have taken a no doubt cursory view of the probability of it being paid.

If I was a director (even if only in name) I would be wanting solicitors involved and asking them to do a forensic review to see if there was any merit in the claim...

Well I'm just an average punter-in-the-stand (or not, perhaps) trying to decipher all this.

So, an independent liquidator with no reason to pursue any kind of witch hunt is so convinced Chesterfield FC owe money - money which really does make the FA fines look like 'peanuts' - he's hired solicitors. Solicitors apparently undertaking litigation funded by another independent party who, presumably, are equally convinced they'll enjoy a return.

In the other corner, so to speak, is an Ashley Carson who's been aware of these issues for a number of years - fans presented him with evidence as witnessed by his mate Steve Coe - and has previously admitted accessing the CFCFDS accounts. Indeed he had ample opportunity to investigate events yet appeared comfortable with both Turner and Sutcliffe's denials and excuses. To the point of allegedly loaning them tens of thousands of pounds.

Then can someone explain if 'The Auditor was also content that these liabilities were not due at the Year End' means money's not owed by then or at all?

And yeah, if I were that lad from Shorts who always seemed so uncomfortable at AGM's, I'd be more than worried about what might easily be dubbed finger pointing...

[dim view]

60s 70s Spireite, on 07 May 2019 - 08:18 PM, said:

The auditors are duty bound to give more than a cursory review of contingent liabilities, they must use their professional judgement using whatever evidence is available to them to conclude the probability of the claim succeeding.
In view of the claim being in the public domain, the next AGM will be interesting if the view that a provision isn’t required remains the club’s standpoint.

Time for Graham Bean to stop xxxxing about.
What is the basis of the Liquidator's claim that the DS paid the salaries of non playing CFC staff? Name names. Carson has already confirmed that Turner did not receive a penny.

[Eastander]

dim view, on 07 May 2019 - 06:11 PM, said:

Graham Bean, SIO, should identify the UCO, send in the CSE's to infiltrate the OCG, and apprehend H (again).

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on 07 May 2019 - 08:48 PM, said:

In the other corner, so to speak, is an Ashley Carson who's been aware of these issues for a number of years - fans presented him with evidence as witnessed by his mate Steve Coe - and has previously admitted accessing the CFCFDS accounts. Indeed he had ample opportunity to investigate events yet appeared comfortable with both Turner and Sutcliffe's denials and excuses. To the point of allegedly loaning them tens of thousands of pounds.

Why is our Secretary the custodian of accounts that are ambiguous to the extent that a third party even has a chance of challenging them?
The accounts must show in black and white whether CFC or another party has paid it's employees.
Is he going to blame Sally?
Graham Bean. Man up and take charge.

[isleaiw1]

60s 70s Spireite, on 07 May 2019 - 08:18 PM, said:

The auditors are duty bound to give more than a cursory review of contingent liabilities, they must use their professional judgement using whatever evidence is available to them to conclude the probability of the claim succeeding.
In view of the claim being in the public domain, the next AGM will be interesting if the view that a provision isn’t required remains the club’s standpoint.

Yep, and we have all seen recent examples where auditor professional judgement and scepticism have gone really well.... I doubt the auditors got an opinion or any view from anyone other than mgt then relied on a letter of rep to cover it off...

[60s 70s Spireite]

isleaiw1, on 08 May 2019 - 05:24 AM, said:

Yep, and we have all seen recent examples where auditor professional judgement and scepticism have gone really well.... I doubt the auditors got an opinion or any view from anyone other than mgt then relied on a letter of rep to cover it off...

Can see where you are coming from.....but going forward a letter of rep only can hardly be relied upon in view of the comment:
“Our last communication with Schofield Sweeney Solicitors was dealt with by our Auditors at the end of January and we have not received any further communication since”.

[isleaiw1]

60s 70s Spireite, on 08 May 2019 - 05:48 AM, said:

Can see where you are coming from.....but going forward a letter of rep only can hardly be relied upon in view of the comment:
“Our last communication with Schofield Sweeney Solicitors was dealt with by our Auditors at the end of January and we have not received any further communication since”.

Litigation takes a while. I imagine that was a first shot across the bows to see the quality of the responses and what form of denial the club took so they knew where to focus their main evidence gathering / questioning.

I wouldn’t be relying on auditors, I would have solicitors lined up and working on responses too. And if I was Ashley, given his seeming earlier involvement, I would be handing it over to the most financially / legally literate non exec to handle to ensure it appeared like we were dealing with it correctly.

[60s 70s Spireite]

isleaiw1, on 08 May 2019 - 05:55 AM, said:

Litigation takes a while. I imagine that was a first shot across the bows to see the quality of the responses and what form of denial the club took so they knew where to focus their main evidence gathering / questioning.

I wouldn’t be relying on auditors, I would have solicitors lined up and working on responses too. And if I was Ashley, given his seeming earlier involvement, I would be handing it over to the most financially / legally literate non exec to handle to ensure it appeared like we were dealing with it correctly.

Exactly. Good Corporate Governance wouldn’t allow a director with a potential conflict of interest anywhere near a dispute like this -other than when he was needed to answer questions raised. He most certainly shouldn’t be the main spokesperson on the subject.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

>Sigh<

If only a qualified and experienced accountant had been appointed as an Ass' D.

Unfortunately someone prioritised certain other 'attributes' instead...

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on 08 May 2019 - 06:44 AM, said:

>Sigh<

If only a qualified and experienced accountant had been appointed as an Ass' D.....

….then he/she would have been presented with an unbearable dilemma. Do due diligence and expose the shortcomings, or clam up. It's summat Graham Bean will face at some point over summat and it will affect his job prospects.

[isleaiw1]

dim view, on 08 May 2019 - 07:49 AM, said:

….then he/she would have been presented with an unbearable dilemma. Do due diligence and expose the shortcomings, or clam up. It's summat Graham Bean will face at some point over summat and it will affect his job prospects.

That’s not a dilemma. If you are a director (whether associate or non exec or full time) you do what is right to protect yourself amongst other things - the associate directors will be legally liable for wrongdoing just like the others.

If clamming up is even an option to you then you are at the wrong gig....

[Blue5]

isleaiw1, on 08 May 2019 - 09:03 AM, said:

That’s not a dilemma. If you are a director (whether associate or non exec or full time) you do what is right to protect yourself amongst other things - the associate directors will be legally liable for wrongdoing just like the others.

If clamming up is even an option to you then you are at the wrong gig....

How many would know the difference between right and wrong? And how many were simply desperate for the association or some acknowledgement of their contribution?

There is only one horse I would back when it comes to the associate directors.