[Mr_Pleasant]

freelander2, on 20 February 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

Alternatively, it's quite possible, given the confusion, that the claimant incorrectly issued proceedings against CFC 2001 Ltd instead of CFC Football Development School Ltd.

Given the note below that appears on http://cfcfds.co.uk/, clearly there has been some confusion at some stage.

Please Note: Our accounts/finance department are separate to that of Chesterfield FC. Any individual, company or entity that CFC Football Devleopment Limited has a financial relationship must contact by email: [email protected] in the first instance.

Yes,that's possible too. In which case the club would have a CCJ against its name wrongly and should apply to set it aside if it hasn't already done so.
Doesn't change the fact of course that the info given to our man yesterday suggests that the HCEO left after being told that it was a false claim.

[Westbars Spireite]

60s 70s Spireite, on 20 February 2016 - 08:33 AM, said:

Sounds plausible.
I have said it before on here, but the accounts of the development company make miserable reading. A loss of £17k in the first period of trading, a £30k loss in the year to 30 June 14, and no explanation of who is supporting the ongoing existence of the business, as there is no share capital in issue and no mention of related party transactions, just liabilities of £53k.
From afar, it looks like creditors are likely to be knocking on the door every day. Unless of course there is unconditional support from a benefactor, whether individual or another company.

Given all the first team players we get it's well worth it though.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Well first of all it's good to see the rumour confirmed.

So much for those who constantly peddle 'you lot know nothing/you're just making stuff up/it's all a conspiracy' style sneers.

Then here's my understanding of these issues.

A complainant approaches a court with evidence in pursuit of a claim.

The court then decide if there's a case to answer based on that evidence and after giving the opposing party opportunity to challenge.

If found against, those owing the money have a reasonable period in which to pay or come to an agreement with the claimant.

However should they fail to do so the case goes to the High Court, where a judge can appoint an officer to reclaim goods to the value of the sum owed.

Which would appear to be what's happened here.

So are Turner and Sutcliffe saying this is just a disgruntled ex-employee chasing dubious expenses or something? I find it impossible to believe this whole process would take place, involving courts and judges, if that was simply the case.

I'll finish with a question: is there a possibility that our CEO, who's also a director of the DC, handed over a cheque to see-off the court appointed officer?

[Stoptalkingbol]

MDCCCLXVI, on 20 February 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

Well first of all it's good to see the rumour confirmed.

So much for those who constantly peddle 'you lot know nothing/you're just making stuff up/it's all a conspiracy' style sneers.

Then here's my understanding of these issues.

A complainant approaches a court with evidence in pursuit of a claim.

The court then decide if there's a case to answer based on that evidence and after giving the opposing party opportunity to challenge.

If found against, those owing the money have a reasonable period in which to pay or come to an agreement with the claimant.

However should they fail to do so the case goes to the High Court, where a judge can appoint an officer to reclaim goods to the value of the sum owed.

Which would appear to be what's happened here.

So are Turner and Sutcliffe saying this is just a disgruntled ex-employee chasing dubious expenses or something? I find it impossible to believe this whole process would take place, involving courts and judges, if that was simply the case.

I'll finish with a question: is there a possibility that our CEO, who's also a director of the DC, handed over a cheque to see-off the court appointed officer?

Are we likely to see more 'unexpected items coming out of the woodwork' in the next set of accounts again?

[60s 70s Spireite]

Stoptalkingbol, on 20 February 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:

Are we likely to see more 'unexpected items coming out of the woodwork' in the next set of accounts again?

Both the Development and the CFC in the Community Charity accounts are due to be filed by 31 March. Both should be enlightening in terms of whether trading in surplus or deficit and in terms of their interaction with CFC 2001, the football club business.

[Mr_Pleasant]

MDCCCLXVI, on 20 February 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

I'll finish with a question: is there a possibility that our CEO, who's also a director of the DC, handed over a cheque to see-off the court appointed officer?

It's possible but if that did happen, I would expect there to be a CCJ still on the record.
A money claim for around £10k will tend to start in the County Court. Most Judgments order payment within 14 days of Judgment. If a CCJ is paid in full within (from memory) 30 days it can come off the record. However, if payment isn't made on time, you can transfer the debt up to the High Court to enforce it. By the time the Judgment is transferred and the HCEO visits the debtor, you tend to be beyond that 30 day period. So even if payment is made, in full, to the HCEO, the CCJ will stay on record for 6 years.

[DIFH]

MDCCCLXVI, on 20 February 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

Well first of all it's good to see the rumour confirmed.

So much for those who constantly peddle 'you lot know nothing/you're just making stuff up/it's all a conspiracy' style sneers.

Then here's my understanding of these issues.

A complainant approaches a court with evidence in pursuit of a claim.

The court then decide if there's a case to answer based on that evidence and after giving the opposing party opportunity to challenge.

If found against, those owing the money have a reasonable period in which to pay or come to an agreement with the claimant.

However should they fail to do so the case goes to the High Court, where a judge can appoint an officer to reclaim goods to the value of the sum owed.

Which would appear to be what's happened here.

So are Turner and Sutcliffe saying this is just a disgruntled ex-employee chasing dubious expenses or something? I find it impossible to believe this whole process would take place, involving courts and judges, if that was simply the case.

I'll finish with a question: is there a possibility that our CEO, who's also a director of the DC, handed over a cheque to see-off the court appointed officer?

I don't think cheques are acceptable in these cases - it's payment in full at the time. High court bailiffs will take goods/payment at the time.

I would think the bailiffs could not proceed not being able to talk to the development owners CT being based at cfc.

Do the development have offices and if so where.

[DIFH]

60s 70s Spireite, on 20 February 2016 - 10:36 AM, said:

Both the Development and the CFC in the Community Charity accounts are due to be filed by 31 March. Both should be enlightening in terms of whether trading in surplus or deficit and in terms of their interaction with CFC 2001, the football club business.

IF they are filed on time - the DC set up seems very lacking on the books side of things.

[DIFH]

For your eyes only, on 19 February 2016 - 11:54 PM, said:

LS allegedly didn't turn up in court.

That in itself speaks volumes.

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

freelander2, on 20 February 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

Alternatively, it's quite possible, given the confusion, that the claimant incorrectly issued proceedings against CFC 2001 Ltd instead of CFC Football Development School Ltd.

Given the note below that appears on http://cfcfds.co.uk/, clearly there has been some confusion at some stage.

Please Note: Our accounts/finance department are separate to that of Chesterfield FC. Any individual, company or entity that CFC Football Devleopment Limited has a financial relationship must contact by email: [email protected] in the first instance.

If you incorrectly issues proceedings surely you would have contested the proceedings either on receipt of the relevant paperwork, or at the very latest at the court stage before any deployment of court officers was required to resolve the matter?

[Sammy Spireite]

freelander2, on 20 February 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

Alternatively, it's quite possible, given the confusion, that the claimant incorrectly issued proceedings against CFC 2001 Ltd instead of CFC Football Development School Ltd.

Given the note below that appears on http://cfcfds.co.uk/, clearly there has been some confusion at some stage.

Please Note: Our accounts/finance department are separate to that of Chesterfield FC. Any individual, company or entity that CFC Football Devleopment Limited has a financial relationship must contact by email: [email protected] in the first instance.

So another statement declaring separation from the football club, and anyone with any issues should email a football club account.....