Bob's Board - Chesterfield FC: Do We Really Want To Be Associated With This Questionable Enterprise. - Bob's Board - Chesterfield FC

brockwell-spireite, on 20 October 2016 - 10:27 PM, said:

No mugs?
Are you sure?

calvin plummers socks, on 21 October 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

I went to the game in question at the proact. there was little difference in the sides "ours" finishing lower than Staveley MW and other non league clubs in the league...

calvin plummers socks, on 21 October 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

Well the way their system works in terms of players coming in and out of their programme they are stronger at some points rather than others but they've certainly had enough players go on to earn pro contracts.

New website up and running


http://www.fbtintern...nalacademy.com/

moondog, on 21 October 2016 - 03:47 PM, said:

Photo Caption Competiton

Bottom photo under the Kit and Apparel section

http://www.fbtintern...kit-and-apparel

Can I start:

"Times nearly up, Liam"

Sutcliffe's (and formerly Turner's) enterprise still enjoys use of the CFC name and badge.

The old Aqua' building still displays the CFC name and badge.

The lads therein still sport the CFC name and badge.

The portakabin used by Sutcliffe still sits inside the Proact between the West and North stand (by the way, who paid for it's purchase/lease and running costs? Another indirect subsidy from CFC to PPP?).

And despite being rescued/bailed out/taken over by a far eastern sportswear company his academy still receives a full, double page spread in the CFC programme.

I'm told our football club is now described as a 'partner' to that outfit, a term that could be used to encompass a whole host of interactions between the two.

Meanwhile we can only hope CFC will provide invoices and receipts for the forty, fifty or even sixty grand's worth of unspecified 'services' - the total changed with each statement - supposedly provided by Sutcliffe.

Otherwise the suspicious and cynical might wonder if it's merely a convenient way of writing off significant assistance his failing, scandal ridden operation possibly received.

Of course both Ashley Carson and Chris Turner have insisted no money has changed hands and PPP was merely 'associated' with Town.

Folk can decide for themselves whether to believe that or not. However until I see credible evidence the relationships covered in the hundreds of pages of this thread really have been terminated - and given the above it just looks like business as usual to me - my money will stay firmly in my pocket whenever I visit the Proact.

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 21 October 2016 - 05:26 PM

Good post Chris!!

MDCCCLXVI, on 21 October 2016 - 05:21 PM, said:

There will be no invoices or receipts. Ashley implied that Sutcliffe 'could have' (my phrase) submitted invoices for services rendered, but hadn't out of the goodness of his heart. Sutcliffe must have great affection for CFC - greater affection than he has for his customers' mams and dads, who might have benefitted had he claimed the money and recycled it.
Ashley of course, as a dedicated, professional company secretary, should have insisted that the invoices be submitted and paid promptly. After all those kids and mums and dads are CFC supporters.
Sutcliffe now personally owes CT and AC summat like £40k, or £50k, or £60k. Perhaps you are right and Sutcliffe does indeed appear in the accounts as a Sundry Creditor and they will get there money back from CFC. Will we ever know?

moondog, on 21 October 2016 - 03:47 PM, said:

All the peripheral stuff appears to be getting done. However looking at Companies House, the corporate / legal nuts and bolts are still as they were, despite the acquisition being announced over a month ago.

CFC International Football Academy Ltd
1) No change to the trading name.

2) No change to the trading address.

3) No change to the share capital. Given that CT owns 1 share and LS owns 1 share, I would have expected to see a resolution to increase the share capital to allow for the investment, unless of course CT or LS have sold their entire shareholding to FBT.

4) No new directors have been appointed.

In addition, the CCJ that was registered against CFC Football Development School on 23/08/16 for £4,334 is still showing as unpaid.

Likewise, the CCJ that was registered against CFC 2001 Ltd on 27/07/16 for £6,327 is showing as being paid on 02/09/16 but remains on the credit file. Given AC's comments about the judgment being made in error and against the wrong company, it would appear to be a slow process in getting the judgment set aside and removed from the register.

dim view, on 21 October 2016 - 06:23 PM, said:

And that's why the club is in the financial p..I....s..s.

dim view, on 21 October 2016 - 06:23 PM, said:

Given AC's comments about providing shareholders with greater detail and transparency in the accounts, I hope he'll permit Howard Freeman to release the following information at the AGM:

1) Other debtors, a full list of debtor details and outstanding balances relating to the same for year ending 30/06/13 (£280,071), 30/06/14 (£641,200), 30/06/15 (£228,557) and 30/06/16 (value TBC).

2) Total value of expenditure charged to CFC 2001 Ltd by CFC Football Development School Ltd for year ending 30/06/13, 30/06/14, 30/06/15 and 30/06/16.

3) Total value of expenditure charged to CFC 2001 Ltd by CFC International Football Academy Ltd for year ending 30/06/16.

4) Confirmation of the last transaction date where expenditure was charged to CFC 2001 Ltd by Dales & Peaks Property Ltd.

This post has been edited by freelander2: 21 October 2016 - 06:55 PM

freelander2, on 21 October 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:

My information is that Ashley is happy to accept questions in advance of the AGM from shareholders so that full, frank answers can be provided.

dim view, on 21 October 2016 - 07:04 PM, said:

Faiir play to Ashley for that attitude, but there is always cynics (spit) who'll say that could help him to prepare for difficult questions (I'd never think that)

dim view, on 21 October 2016 - 07:04 PM, said:

I'd rather have questions in advance as well lol

freelander2, on 21 October 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:

Genuine question as I honestly don't know the answer, what would be considered the industry norm in terms of exactly how much detail is released by a football club when the accounts go out? Do we meet the standard? Less?

MDCCCLXVI, on 21 October 2016 - 05:21 PM, said:

Plus the use of the indoor pool / treadmill in the 'Hub / Community trust', East stand which they were showing on social media earlier this week.
Wonder what was the going rate for the use of those facilities by LS's crew?

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 21 October 2016 - 07:50 PM, said:

well I wouldn't. There is full Board responsibility for all pre-prepared answers. Can Chris Breeze account for all income that should have made it's way into the Academy for example? Can David Jones account for all the sponsors that have withdrawn their money? Let's see.

freelander2, on 21 October 2016 - 06:44 PM, said:

Quick research into the career of DA suggests that he had to endure NIL CCJ's against any of his businesses prior to becoming involved with CFC. Since then he's fielded several, 3 I think.

This post has been edited by dim view: 21 October 2016 - 09:07 PM

dim view, on 21 October 2016 - 06:23 PM, said:

How does that stand with HMRC?

Won't they require documents informing them of any transactions that've taken place between two supposedly separate companies?

Otherwise, and I make no apologies for repeating this, the suspicious might believe it's a convenient way of writing off subsidies.

freelander2, on 21 October 2016 - 06:44 PM, said:

And the latest CCJ against Sutcliffe's academy?

He clearly stated that, alongside every other debt, had been paid.

Unfortunately it appears his, Turner and Carson's asurances - albeit some were via our friend 'Zorro' - don't tally with reality.

brockwell-spireite, on 21 October 2016 - 08:23 PM, said:

Do the club have to answer shareholders questions fully and frankly - can the chairman say 'Thats all we are prepared to say on the question.'