[Doughnut]

The Gimp, on 06 September 2016 - 05:02 PM, said:

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

No idea why someone 'negged' you for this so I've nullified it.

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on 06 September 2016 - 05:03 PM, said:

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.

nail on head.

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

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

Z you're saying you think the club is run badly from top to bottom. I'd say the top is responsible for the badly run bottom. You say we are doing a health check and other things have been found out. Why weren't these found out earlier? The person at the bottoms fault or the person at the top? More and more things come to light as the months go on, but despite all of it nothing appears to change and then the next embarrassment comes along. If the club is such a shambles it's because there is no accountability within it.

[DIFH]

Cartman, on 06 September 2016 - 11:30 AM, said:

simply saying 'we weren't aware' doesn't seem good enough

if the paperwork was addressed to CFC they should have seen it

If it was addressed to the PPPs business place but marked for CFC then there may be a case for CFC claiming not to know about it - big if though

Surely this down to AC being the company secretary.

[moondog]

Dave In Footie Heaven, on 06 September 2016 - 06:23 PM, said:

Surely this down to AC being the company secretary.

One would expect to any court action to immediately be flagged up to the company secretary who is typically responsible for the effective governance of the company

You'd also think given his personally stated loan to the PPP he would have put controls in place to ensure all debts are settled when they fall due.

[dim view]

[quote name='Zorro' timestamp='1473174156' post='1240372']
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.

/quote]
As I'm fully behind any campaign to get CT removed from office, it would be slightly hypocritical of me to feed him hints that would stop that happening. Where do you stand on this?

[Les Ashmore]

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.

Now that is not necessarily true, a debt can be issued against anybody without having served any papers at all, The following is absolute fact.
2 years ago I went to a property my son owns in Walton, as I arrived a chap was walking from the property, I asked him if I could help him, He asked me if I was Lee Ashmore, I told him I wasn't and that Lee lived in Hong Kong and had done so for 5 years, I explained I was his father, He then told me he was a County Court Bailiff and he was there to serve a warrant, He gave me the CCJ documents, We rightly thought that as my son had been letting the property out that the tenants who had recently left the property must have had some documents and not said anything, we contacted them and they stated that no documentation had been delivered at all, We contacted my son and he knew nothing of any debt, He contacted the Manchester County Court and they forwarded him all the details, The company concerned who were named stated that my son had purchased equipment off them 1 year prior, That was impossible as my son was not in the country, He asked for copies of all documentation ie letters sent etc etc, They stated there had not been any as the required time had lapsed for a CCJ, so they had applied and were successful, anyway to cut a long story short they had the wrong Lee Ashmore, the wrong Town, The wrong address but it cost my son over £450 to clear his name.
But what it does show is that no papers need to be served
But what I will say is it does help the case if it can be proven that papers have been served

[spireitenag]

Dennis, on 06 September 2016 - 08:31 PM, said:

Now that is not necessarily true, a debt can be issued against anybody without having served any papers at all, The following is absolute fact.
2 years ago I went to a property my son owns in Walton, as I arrived a chap was walking from the property, I asked him if I could help him, He asked me if I was Lee Ashmore, I told him I wasn't and that Lee lived in Hong Kong and had done so for 5 years, I explained I was his father, He then told me he was a County Court Bailiff and he was there to serve a warrant, He gave me the CCJ documents, We rightly thought that as my son had been letting the property out that the tenants who had recently left the property must have had some documents and not said anything, we contacted them and they stated that no documentation had been delivered at all, We contacted my son and he knew nothing of any debt, He contacted the Manchester County Court and they forwarded him all the details, The company concerned who were named stated that my son had purchased equipment off them 1 year prior, That was impossible as my son was not in the country, He asked for copies of all documentation ie letters sent etc etc, They stated there had not been any as the required time had lapsed for a CCJ, so they had applied and were successful, anyway to cut a long story short they had the wrong Lee Ashmore, the wrong Town, The wrong address but it cost my son over £450 to clear his name.
But what it does show is that no papers need to be served
But what I will say is it does help the case if it can be proven that papers have been served

Les just what does have to happen at CFC to make you see that things are very wrong and there are obviously massive problems with the day to day running of the club ?

When Sixt took out the CCJ I have no doubt the details on the paperwork were taken from the original lease agreement as to who was responsible for the debt.

As regards the CCJ for the DC/PPP my information is that it has been taken out by a Sheffield based electrician. CT and LS told me to my face in a meeting in March that this debt had been paid in full.

[Bonnyman]

Dennis, on 06 September 2016 - 08:31 PM, said:

Now that is not necessarily true, a debt can be issued against anybody without having served any papers at all, The following is absolute fact.
2 years ago I went to a property my son owns in Walton, as I arrived a chap was walking from the property, I asked him if I could help him, He asked me if I was Lee Ashmore, I told him I wasn't and that Lee lived in Hong Kong and had done so for 5 years, I explained I was his father, He then told me he was a County Court Bailiff and he was there to serve a warrant, He gave me the CCJ documents, We rightly thought that as my son had been letting the property out that the tenants who had recently left the property must have had some documents and not said anything, we contacted them and they stated that no documentation had been delivered at all, We contacted my son and he knew nothing of any debt, He contacted the Manchester County Court and they forwarded him all the details, The company concerned who were named stated that my son had purchased equipment off them 1 year prior, That was impossible as my son was not in the country, He asked for copies of all documentation ie letters sent etc etc, They stated there had not been any as the required time had lapsed for a CCJ, so they had applied and were successful, anyway to cut a long story short they had the wrong Lee Ashmore, the wrong Town, The wrong address but it cost my son over £450 to clear his name.
But what it does show is that no papers need to be served
But what I will say is it does help the case if it can be proven that papers have been served

So they had the wrong person the wrong town the wrong address yet your son had to fork out £450 ...One born every minute.

[Les Ashmore]

Another case here the same, No Papers but a CCJ

http://www.consumera...eceived-**WON**

[moondog]

Bonnyman, on 06 September 2016 - 08:45 PM, said:

So they had the wrong person the wrong town the wrong address yet your son had to fork out £450 ...One born every minute.

Was just thinking the same, the process is very clear, as F2 explained earlier


https://www.moneyadv...judgements-ccjs

[Les Ashmore]

Ditto
http://www.mumsnet.c...idnt-know-about

Bonnyman, on 06 September 2016 - 08:45 PM, said:

So they had the wrong person the wrong town the wrong address yet your son had to fork out £450 ...One born every minute.

Unfortunately it is the legal process, plus he had to pay searches and as he was living in Hong Kong the postage and Phone calls, Work it out

moondog, on 06 September 2016 - 08:48 PM, said:

Was just thinking the same, the process is very clear, as F2 explained earlier


https://www.moneyadv...judgements-ccjs

Dont take everything for granted, Do a search, I have and just posted 2 others that had CCJ's and no paperwork

[moondog]

Dennis, on 06 September 2016 - 08:52 PM, said:

Ditto
http://www.mumsnet.c...idnt-know-about


Unfortunately it is the legal process, plus he had to pay searches and as he was living in Hong Kong the postage and Phone calls, Work it out


Dont take everything for granted, Do a search, I have and just posted 2 others that had CCJ's and no paperwork

Did your lad try and recover his costs from the firm that made the error?

[spireitenag]

spireitenag, on 06 September 2016 - 08:45 PM, said:

Les just what does have to happen at CFC to make you see that things are very wrong and there are obviously massive problems with the day to day running of the club ?

When Sixt took out the CCJ I have no doubt the details on the paperwork were taken from the original lease agreement as to who was responsible for the debt.

As regards the CCJ for the DC/PPP my information is that it has been taken out by a Sheffield based electrician. CT and LS told me to my face in a meeting in March that this debt had been paid in full.

Back to you Les.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

https://www.moneyadv...e-initial-claim

https://www.citizens...ourt-for-debt/#

This post has been edited by freelander2: 06 September 2016 - 09:31 PM

[Mr Mercury]

spireitenag, on 06 September 2016 - 08:45 PM, said:

Les just what does have to happen at CFC to make you see that things are very wrong and there are obviously massive problems with the day to day running of the club ?

When Sixt took out the CCJ I have no doubt the details on the paperwork were taken from the original lease agreement as to who was responsible for the debt.

As regards the CCJ for the DC/PPP my information is that it has been taken out by a Sheffield based electrician. CT and LS told me to my face in a meeting in March that this debt had been paid in full.

Well if he can give an interview when he quite clearly stated that "the DC is running at great profit" when it blatantly wasn't can anyone be blamed for quite simply not believing a word the man says. And for a CEO of a FL club to be in that position is a very sad state of affairs indeed for us.

[dim view]

Mr Mercury, on 06 September 2016 - 09:32 PM, said:

Well if he can give an interview when he quite clearly stated that "the DC is running at great profit" when it blatantly wasn't can anyone be blamed for quite simply not believing a word the man says. And for a CEO of a FL club to be in that position is a very sad state of affairs indeed for us.

CT is doing something that is of great value to DA and his inadequacies as a CEO are an irritant, perhaps even irrelevant. AC knows what DA is using CT for, and is doing his best to help CT survive until the job is done, at which time he also will benefit.

That's my take on the plot.

[Westbars Spireite]

dim view, on 06 September 2016 - 09:49 PM, said:

CT is doing something that is of great value to DA and his inadequacies as a CEO are an irritant, perhaps even irrelevant. AC knows what DA is using CT for, and is doing his best to help CT survive until the job is done, at which time he also will benefit.

That's my take on the plot.

You'll have to fill me in on what that might be.

[spireitenag]

dim view, on 06 September 2016 - 09:49 PM, said:

CT is doing something that is of great value to DA and his inadequacies as a CEO are an irritant, perhaps even irrelevant. AC knows what DA is using CT for, and is doing his best to help CT survive until the job is done, at which time he also will benefit.

That's my take on the plot.

Sadly none of it is going to benefit CFC,its fans or whoever is left to pick up the pieces.

[Vivo]

dim view, on 06 September 2016 - 09:49 PM, said:

CT is doing something that is of great value to DA and his inadequacies as a CEO are an irritant, perhaps even irrelevant. AC knows what DA is using CT for, and is doing his best to help CT survive until the job is done, at which time he also will benefit.

That's my take on the plot.

You have probably put together a pretty fair assessment of the actual situation. The thing that the fans have to worry about is in relation to what they are actually all working towards. What is the end point they are trying to get to together?