[moondog]

AC has forwarded the questions summarised in Freelander's posting to the clubs accountants Shorts who produced the summary audit document posted by me earlier.

The response from Howard Freeman is as below

"As far as I am concerned, I can't see how the club has done anything negligent here and I will happily state that at the AGM tomorrow.

There has been no loss to the club on a venture that I assume the club initially thought would be of benefit"

[Mrhappy]

moondog, on 05 February 2017 - 10:35 AM, said:

AC has forwarded the questions summarised in Freelander's posting to the clubs accountants Shorts who produced the summary audit document posted by me earlier.

The response from Howard Freeman is as below

"As far as I am concerned, I can't see how the club has done anything negligent here and I will happily state that at the AGM tomorrow.

There has been no loss to the club on a venture that I assume the club initially thought would be of benefit"

Can you ask Ashley to supply the proof of the Paris trip as well?

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

moondog, on 05 February 2017 - 10:35 AM, said:

AC has forwarded the questions summarised in Freelander's posting to the clubs accountants Shorts who produced the summary audit document posted by me earlier.

The response from Howard Freeman is as below

"As far as I am concerned, I can't see how the club has done anything negligent here and I will happily state that at the AGM tomorrow.

There has been no loss to the club on a venture that I assume the club initially thought would be of benefit"

That might be the case in terms of the basic bottom line, however it doesn't come near to addressing the questions asked.

And the Club 'not negligent'?

Try telling that to the parents left cursing CFC as a result of their treatment at the hands of an enterprise using it's brand, badge and facilities. Try telling that to the employees who quit after going unpaid for so long. Try telling that to the businesses forced to pursue legal action to obtain their money.

All of which has cost the Club an incalculable amount in negative PR.

One other thing, too: why does CFC seem to be the only business receiving payments - well, in kind, anyway - whilst so many others went without?

PS: I bought my window cleaner a step ladder costing a hundred quid. He said he'd clean my windows for nowt for a year to repay me. He now insists he's been cleaning 'em when I was out, shoving an invoice through my door every week, despite there being no proof that he has. But hey, at least the sums add up on paper.

[moondog]

Mrhappy, on 05 February 2017 - 11:08 AM, said:

Can you ask Ashley to supply the proof of the Paris trip as well?

I previously have, I'm told the cheque to the supplier Absolute Travel bounced and subsequently wasn't booked by them.

[dim view]

moondog, on 05 February 2017 - 10:35 AM, said:

AC has forwarded the questions summarised in Freelander's posting to the clubs accountants Shorts who produced the summary audit document posted by me earlier.

The response from Howard Freeman is as below

"As far as I am concerned, I can't see how the club has done anything negligent here and I will happily state that at the AGM tomorrow.

There has been no loss to the club on a venture that I assume the club initially thought would be of benefit"

It all depends Howard whether telling lies counts as negligence.

If Allen thought it would be of benefit then Allen should shoulder the risk, not the DC's customers. Let's move all the money given to CFC by the DC back to the people that were owed it and see if there is a loss to the club.

[Mrhappy]

moondog, on 05 February 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

I previously have, I'm told the cheque to the supplier Absolute Travel bounced and subsequently wasn't booked by them.

Can you please ask AC if he would be happy for one of us to contact Absolute travel to verify this?

[dim view]

moondog, on 05 February 2017 - 10:35 AM, said:

AC has forwarded the questions summarised in Freelander's posting to the clubs accountants Shorts who produced the summary audit document posted by me earlier.

The response from Howard Freeman is as below

"As far as I am concerned, I can't see how the club has done anything negligent here and I will happily state that at the AGM tomorrow.

There has been no loss to the club on a venture that I assume the club initially thought would be of benefit"

Heyup Moondog

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

[Guest_freelander2_*]

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?

There are some subjects which have boiled my brains at times, but we're getting there, none more so than:

1) One of the articles published by the former Chairman of Sheffield Wednesday, "LS Response Redacted" ( https://www.scribd.c...sponse-Redacted), a paragraph from page 1 reads as follows:

"In the following weeks NP and the Calimere analysts (who had been charged with performing some due diligence) were not being given complete access to information (if any) by PJ. We ultimately concluded that this was due to legacy trust issues relating to KBW. The background to this being that it had been made clear to us by RMG and KBW that historically KBW had been given no access to the financial details and workings at the club, which is an odd situation for the Chief Executive to be in".


2) A post by a supporter of the club and I believe a social friend of Chris Turner's on the Chesterfield FC Fans Facebook page on 09/01/17 at 17:23 read as follows:

"It means that he is now doing the job he has always done extremely well, it's basically just a name change, a CEO is supposed to be in charge of everything expenditure budget and so on, he has never been allowed to do it, so now he is in charge of football i.e. Sales and Purchases but he will still have to have the permission of the purse holder".


3) In the meetings with the ex members of staff from the development centre, we were told of the frustrations of the former bookkeeper as no opening balance was supplied to her and she was unable to reconcile the accounts because she wasn't permitted full access despite her requests.

[moondog]

Mrhappy, on 05 February 2017 - 12:06 PM, said:

Can you please ask AC if he would be happy for one of us to contact Absolute travel to verify this?

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

[spireitenag]

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

I would hope if that is the case that parents take the appropriate legal action that Sutcliffe so richly deserves.

[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

Will AC also make reference to the meeting which Sutcliffe called with his staff on 29/03/16, hours before they met with the parents where it was decided that the trip was a bad idea due to the threat of a "terrorist attack"?

Just to remind everyone, the original trip was scheduled for 26/10/15 but this was cancelled because it was said at the time that a small number of parents had failed to pay their final balance, the trip was then rescheduled for 04/04/16.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

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

'M'; have we any more information on exactly what CFC might've been paying for on the DS's behalf?

[spireitenag]

freelander2, on 05 February 2017 - 02:46 PM, said:

Will AC also make reference to the meeting which Sutcliffe called with his staff on 29/03/16, hours before they met with the parents where it was decided that the trip was a bad idea due to the threat of a "terrorist attack"?

Just to remind everyone, the original trip was scheduled for 26/10/15 but this was cancelled because it was said at the time that a small number of parents had failed to pay their final balance, the trip was then rescheduled for 04/04/16.

The million dollar question however is were either of the two proposed trips actually booked ?

If indeed neither were booked it's surely a case that either theft or fraud has taken place ?

[Guest_freelander2_*]

Bowzer spirey, on 04 February 2017 - 06:11 AM, said:

To me the answer is clear, friends helping friends, helping friends.

My research and understanding is that the Elite Development Centre which was linked to Rotherham was blown out of the water by Rotherham's CEO, Paul Douglas within 6 months of it starting. My research also shows that suppliers and staff were left pursuing payment and unpaid wages.

The key again to understanding the wider issues at our club is why it has taken CFC's executive team 4.5 years to get to the same point it took Paul Douglas 6 months to get to.

This post has been edited by freelander2: 05 February 2017 - 03:03 PM

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

spireitenag, on 05 February 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

The million dollar question however is were either of the two proposed trips actually booked ?

If indeed neither were booked it's surely a case that either theft or fraud has taken place ?

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.

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 05 February 2017 - 02:59 PM

[spireitenag]

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.

Perhaps it was a case of the DS having more than one bank account and LS got confused and issued a cheque from the wrong account ?

Please note this is only my possible suggestion not actually knowing if the DS had multiple accounts.

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 05 February 2017 - 09:01 AM, said:

I've bee going since 1969/70 and I've seen plenty of bad sides and relegations and I can accept another relegation to the basement. What I can't accept is that this years failure is disown to a lack of investment in the squad but it appears we had money but it has been used for an enterprise which is supposedly nothing to do with the club. The apparent rellatiinshio continues, the financial cloud over th club grows. Unless this debacle gets sorted before the end of the season I'm think I'm done and the 3 season tickets won't be renewed.

you can't beat a cracked iphone screen lol

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

spireitenag, on 05 February 2017 - 03:04 PM, said:

Perhaps it was a case of the DS having more than one bank account and LS got confused and issued a cheque from the wrong account ?

Please note this is only my possible suggestion not actually knowing if the DS had multiple accounts.

Oh what a tangled web some folk weave...

[moondog]

spireitenag, on 05 February 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

The million dollar question however is were either of the two proposed trips actually booked ?

If indeed neither were booked it's surely a case that either theft or fraud has taken place ?

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

[moondog]

MDCCCLXVI, on 05 February 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

'M'; have we any more information on exactly what CFC might've been paying for on the DS's behalf?

AC hasn't provided any to me, apart from saying when the venture was first set up the club paid the wages for a couple of years which was then recouped because the DC had no payroll facility.