[dim view]

Zorro, on 06 September 2016 - 12:39 PM, said:

why didn't somebody on here at least point it out to the club or at least a director for investigation rather than it going the full distance.

This is surely a joke?

Do you want us to wipe their asses as well?
You run the hospitality, I'll do contracts, Freelander can do accounts.

[Stockholm Spireite]

Mr Mercury, on 06 September 2016 - 12:20 PM, said:

But why would it be billed to the club in the first place? If indeed it was. We are forever being told that the club doesn't financially support the PPP so why the mistake?
Maybe the supplier was unaware of the different entities so mistakenly billed the club rather than the organisation who placed the order? In which case the error should have been pointed out right away.

That's the risk you run when you send out printed information with the club details and letterhead - even if you're a separate legal entity, the correspondence has an origin for claimants to pursue.

Zorro, on 06 September 2016 - 12:39 PM, said:

What does my head in over this was why it wasn't picked up by the club, why didn't somebody at the PPP point this out to the club and why didn't somebody on here at least point it out to the club or at least a director for investigation rather than it going the full distance.

With the greatest of respect of Zorro, I know that some on here have discovered and brought things to the attention of the club; but a what point do you and we draw a line in the sand and say "the people who are employed by the club are responsible for the happenings at the club"?

That implies that the club is somehow reliant on Bob's Board to fix every problem it hears of. Clean up in aisle 5? Send for Bob's Board...

If it wasn't picked up by the club, or by the PPP, then those people need to be held accountable, not airlifted from trouble by us on here. If the CEO can negotiate his own bonuses from transfers, then surely he can he held liable for a CCJ payment if he's the culpable one. The same for the former non-league footballer if this happened on his watch.

As you say, people on here have successful track records of running businesses - if somebody was costing you money and generating bad publicity for your company, would you censure / fine / or dismiss accordingly, or would you let the next gaffe happen? Or would you have intervened sooner with preventative measures established so history does not repeat itself?

The captain and first officer of this particular "ship" are the ones scuttling their own vessel. Neither of them seem to be waving for help, sending up a distress flare or even trying to plug the leak.

This post has been edited by Stockholm Spireite: 06 September 2016 - 02:25 PM

[Sammy Spireite]

Zorro, on 06 September 2016 - 12:39 PM, said:

No azul, this has no bearing on the hold up.

What does my head in over this was why it wasn't picked up by the club, why didn't somebody at the PPP point this out to the club and why didn't somebody on here at least point it out to the club or at least a director for investigation rather than it going the full distance.

Z

Z

If assuming you have the same contact within the club as I do, and the same contact has today told me that this was known about but wasn't action effectively hence the resulting CCJ issued against the club.

Possibly, the 'head in the sand' image that was used yesterday would be more apt on this thread now?

[dim view]

Sammy Spireite, on 06 September 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:

I'm told this is a genuine mix up and the debt was allocated to the club in error, partly caused by the company in question closing their Chesterfield branch and wrongly associating the club with the PPP (who'd have thought that possible, eh??).

Perhaps CT can clear the whole thing up by getting the media department to display the paperwork then, with delicate bits redacted.

[dim view]

Stockholm Spireite, on 06 September 2016 - 02:24 PM, said:

As you say, people on here have successful track records of running businesses - if somebody was costing you money and generating bad publicity for your company, would you censure / fine / or dismiss accordingly, or would you let the next gaffe happen? Or would you have intervened sooner with preventative measures established so history does not repeat itself?

The captain and first officer of this particular "ship" are the ones scuttling their own vessel. Neither of them seem to be waving for help, sending up a distress flare or even trying to plug the leak.

There can only be one logical conclusion to all this - that DA tolerates all this incompetence because AC and CT are serving him well on whatever his secret mission is.

[Stockholm Spireite]

dim view, on 06 September 2016 - 02:43 PM, said:

There can only be one logical conclusion to all this - that DA tolerates all this incompetence because AC and CT are serving him well on whatever his secret mission is.

Let's be fair to AC, here. It's not him who's been involved long term with PPP and the like. This is directly associated with CT and LS.

[BlueRover52]

Stockholm Spireite, on 06 September 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

Let's be fair to AC, here. It's not him who's been involved long term with PPP and the like. This is directly associated with CT and LS.

Surely Carson as "Company Secretary" would have had knowledge of this way before it got to this stage.Had plenty of time to resolve the issue.

[Zorro]

dim view, on 06 September 2016 - 02:09 PM, said:

This is surely a joke?

Do you want us to wipe their asses as well?
You run the hospitality, I'll do contracts, Freelander can do accounts.

Why do you think it's a joke?

If I gave you poor service from 1 of my guys I would hope that you told me about it rather than gossiping in the pub, the same as if Freelander supplied me with dodgy clothing, I would pick up the phone and talk to him rather than bad mouthing his company.

If you can't understand that the club is run terribly from top to bottom and that sometimes a word in the ear is better than waiting to kick them whilst they're down, then we have different standards

Z

Stockholm Spireite, on 06 September 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

Let's be fair to AC, here. It's not him who's been involved long term with PPP and the like. This is directly associated with CT and LS.

Correct, and I think it's going to take AC time to correct all the wrongs

Somebody described it perfectly for me "it's a shambles!"

Z

This post has been edited by Zorro: 06 September 2016 - 03:03 PM

[calvin plummers socks]

At least we can rest in the knowledge that none of AC CT DA or LS have anything to do with businesses in the real world- just at Town thankfully.

[Zorro]

BlueRover52, on 06 September 2016 - 02:59 PM, said:

Surely Carson as "Company Secretary" would have had knowledge of this way before it got to this stage.Had plenty of time to resolve the issue.

I honestly don't think he was aware of it. I phoned him whilst he is in Malta, I also phoned another director who also knew nothing about it.
How this has happened is anybodies guess, but what WE all know, it shouldn't of happened and it should never have got to this stage. I did not have CFC on monitor, but I do have now and if I see anything pop up on Experian, I will phone the club immediately to ask what the hell is going on.

I know there is a health check going on throughout CFC and other issues have been found out. Hopefully they can put the internal affairs in order and bring some sense of management within.

At the end of the day we are all customers and it is not down to us to question the running of the club which is supposed to be a business, I would hate it if any of my customers phoned me up to tell me how to run my business. Customers can always complain, but don't tell me how to run my business.

We can't compare this to a disgruntled customer who is unhappy with Tesco's and switches to Sainsbury's. I may not be happy with the club and what is happening, but I won't go to Sheffield or Mansfield to watch another football team. I will still turn up and support the team irrespective if I don't agree with DA

Z

[BlueRover52]

Unfortunately that ear seems to be totally deaf.Along with eyes that cannot see.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Zorro, on 06 September 2016 - 03:02 PM, said:

Why do you think it's a joke?

If I gave you poor service from 1 of my guys I would hope that you told me about it rather than gossiping in the pub, the same as if Freelander supplied me with dodgy clothing, I would pick up the phone and talk to him rather than bad mouthing his company.

If you can't understand that the club is run terribly from top to bottom and that sometimes a word in the ear is better than waiting to kick them whilst they're down, then we have different standards

Z



Correct, and I think it's going to take AC time to correct all the wrongs

Somebody described it perfectly for me "it's a shambles!"

Z

But Rob - IT'S NOT HIS JOB!!!

We have a no doubt well rewarded CEO, someone who's enjoyed a number of perks and privileges presumably on the Club's account and allegedly receives a percentage of player sales; yet AC's supposed to sort out what even you describe as the 'shambles' he's overseeing?

And are those being asked to pay top dollar for tickets and merchandise supposed to accept an individual running Town 'terribly from top to bottom' with a simple shrug of the shoulders?

Then is this bloke you're now putting all your faith in the same AC who's been at the Club the entire time all this has been happening?

Sorry my friend, but as is so often the case things just don't add up.

[starsky72]

Sammy Spireite, on 06 September 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:

I'm told this is a genuine mix up and the debt was allocated to the club in error, partly caused by the company in question closing their Chesterfield branch and wrongly associating the club with the PPP (who'd have thought that possible, eh??).

I am also told the CCJ will be removed from the club very shortly.

Still doesn't explain why it wasn't headed off way before now, though.

We'll see!

Thats the question, why on earth are these things allowed to get this far and create even more bad publicity.. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the debt allocation, this should have been nipped in the bud and never allowed to get to this stage.

[dim view]

starsky72, on 06 September 2016 - 03:29 PM, said:

Thats the question, why on earth are these things allowed to get this far and create even more bad publicity.. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the debt allocation, this should have been nipped in the bud and never allowed to get to this stage.

They are asking us to believe that it's nobody's job at CFC to redirect misaddressed mail.
Just like it was nobody's job at CFC to deal with Ernie Moss's daughter's requests.
Looks like the same person went on holiday.

[Phil V 72]

Why do I have a mental image of the scene in Naked Gun with Drebin saying 'move along, nothing to see here' while the city burns down behind him?

[Doughnut]

At what point does Mr Allen decide enough is enough and act? The shambles that is the running of CFC can't be doing his personal reputation any good in the business world. Why is he putting up with this?

[The Black Triangle]

Doughnut, on 06 September 2016 - 04:58 PM, said:

At what point does Mr Allen decide enough is enough and act? The shambles that is the running of CFC can't be doing his personal reputation any good in the business world. Why is he putting up with this?

That, my friend is the million dollar question. I can only assume "dim view" is correct when he says CT is assessed on transfer income alone. Using that as the only criteria, then the man is a success

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

freelander2, on 06 September 2016 - 09:18 AM, said:

Source: http://www.derbyshir...eites-1-8107190

Before the spokesman issued the statement to the Derbyshire Times, it might have been in their interests to research the process of issuing a County Court Judgment. Let's be clear how these things work:

1) The claimant will have usually pursued the debt over a number of weeks and months.

2) The claimant will have written to the defendant, giving them 7 days notice of legal proceedings.

3) The claimant then files their case, usually with moneyclaim.gov.uk. The court normally issues the claim within 2 days.

4) The court will then send out a claim form to the defendant and allow a further 5 days from the date of issue (date of service).

5) The defendant has 14 days from the date of service to file a response.

6) The defendant has many options including full defence, counterclaim, part admission, paid defence, full admission, no response or payment.

7) Once a judgment has been entered, the defendant is sent a copy of the order. The order will tell the defendant how much to pay, when to pay it and where to send the payments.

8) If the defendant makes full payment within 30 days of the judgment, the CCJ notice will be erased from the register. If the CCJ is not paid within 30 days, it will generally sit on the defendant’s credit file for a period of 6 years.

Clearly there was ample time before judgment was passed for the club to point out to the Court that the debt was not related to Chesterfield Football Club.

Just how long is this going to go on for? The decisions and actions of those whose job it is to safeguard the club’s reputation continues to have the opposite effect. In fact, the unwillingness to address the ongoing deficiencies in the club’s structure fuels speculation and suspicion. This is yet another perfect example of Chesterfield Football Club, its staff, sponsors and supporters being badly let down.

It is now starting to get embarrassing. For as long as I have been a supporter, with the exception of the 2000/01 season, CFC had an excellent reputation for being a well-run, professional club. Given our new stadium and the facilities at our disposal, you really do have to wonder what the heck is happening to the club that we support. More to the point, you have to question why action has not been taken.

If this was happening over at Mansfield, it would be highly amusing, sadly though it is happening right under our noses.

'Scandal after scandal: what next?' asked the banner unfurled by disillusioned Town fans outside the Proact before the season's first home game.

Well now we know.

This excellent post also suggests that CFC will've surely had an abundance of opportunities to challenge the CCJ yet failed to do so. Why; incompetence? Indifference? Ignorance?

Meanwhile the 'it's everyone else's fault' excuse lacks any credibility whatsoever.

No longer some disgruntled ex-employee pursuing a vindictive vendetta, as was alleged on previous occasions, we're told the source of this CCJ is a company with whom CFC/PPP did business. However not only are we expected to believe the company pursuing this debt made a huge mistake, but the courts themselves? Professional officials who deal with litigation on a daily basis? And again, why not point this out at an earlier juncture?

Could the company in question perhaps be 'Sixt' vehicle hire? I only ask because Chris Turner discussed a situation relating to vans hired from them at a meeting with 'spireitenag' some months ago, his account bearing striking similarities to the Club spokesperson's current one. Indeed there appeared to be a question regarding just whose name the debt accrued by the development school was actually in; PPP or CFC?

Perhaps these events indicate the development school really did rack up debts using the Club's name, that being the reason for the alleged confusion.

I'm not saying this as fact, merely offering a possibility.

Either way it's clear the issues so often afflicting PPP have now crossed the road. Though is that any real surprise when the same person occupied prominent positions at both until fairly recently? When the Club and PPP are virtual 'Siamese twins' despite all the assurances they're separate entities?

And here's an idea; how about not allowing large bills to go unpaid in the first place? Especially when CFC and PPP shared an address.

The Chesterfield CEO once announced that the club he's running 'doesn't make mistakes' to widespread ridicule. Ridicule that'll only continue whilst 'mistakes' like this continue to emerge.

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 06 September 2016 - 05:32 PM

[The Black Triangle]

dim view, on 06 September 2016 - 02:09 PM, said:

This is surely a joke?

Do you want us to wipe their asses as well?
You run the hospitality, I'll do contracts, Freelander can do accounts.

Can I do rubber clad theme nights in the lounges? I reckon it would be a rip roaring success

[The Black Triangle]

Stockholm Spireite, on 06 September 2016 - 02:24 PM, said:

The captain and first officer of this particular "ship" are the ones scuttling their own vessel. Neither of them seem to be waving for help, sending up a distress flare or even trying to plug the leak.

Excellent metaphorical comparison