[Bonnyman]

It amazes me why we bothered with cat 3 status,facts dictate that we have only produced players who have joined at a late stage after being released..bowery and tendayi were never our products,cat 4 must surely cost less to run,it does away with all the lower age groups.This would then cascade down to the PPP which for all the bad press is a fantastic idea if run correctly which it should be.

[JonB]

Bonnyman, on 09 February 2016 - 11:16 AM, said:

It amazes me why we bothered with cat 3 status,facts dictate that we have only produced players who have joined at a late stage after being released..bowery and tendayi were never our products,cat 4 must surely cost less to run,it does away with all the lower age groups.This would then cascade down to the PPP which for all the bad press is a fantastic idea if run correctly which it should be.

At what point does someone have to join to be classed as a "product"...both joined us well before any first team appearances being members of the youth team here etc. Surely we had a big part to play in developing them through to being first team players that we were able to sell on. I appreciate they came to us when Notts County packed up their youth set up but they were hardly first teamers when they joined us. They were still very young lots of work still to do young lads.

[Bonnyman]

JonB, on 09 February 2016 - 11:28 AM, said:

At what point does someone have to join to be classed as a "product"...both joined us well before any first team appearances being members of the youth team here etc. Surely we had a big part to play in developing them through to being first team players that we were able to sell on. I appreciate they came to us when Notts County packed up their youth set up but they were hardly first teamers when they joined us. They were still very young lots of work still to do young lads.

that's what I am saying if they came at 15/16 then from elsewhere why not use that formula instead of wasting tens of thousands with younger age groups in the current format

[Wooden Spoon]

Bonnyman, on 09 February 2016 - 11:46 AM, said:

that's what I am saying if they came at 15/16 then from elsewhere why not use that formula instead of wasting tens of thousands with younger age groups in the current format

And look for young players at lower clubs like Clucas and Raglan or bigger clubs reserves like Johnson or Cooper. players that can improve the squad immediately and have re sale value

[Cartman]

Bonnyman, on 09 February 2016 - 11:46 AM, said:

that's what I am saying if they came at 15/16 then from elsewhere why not use that formula instead of wasting tens of thousands with younger age groups in the current format

I agree

Our location goes against us - any kid who looks good enough to play league football from a young age will not be at the Town junior sections, they'll be snapped up by the more attractive bigger clubs in the area

Start at U16 - take those deemed not quite good enough at Forest, Derby, Wednesday etc etc

Whilst employing youth scouts to monitor the youth leagues locally and find anyone who may be a late developer and not picked up by other teams to supplement those we bring in from other clubs at U15/16 level

[calvin plummers socks]

Bonnyman, on 09 February 2016 - 11:16 AM, said:

It amazes me why we bothered with cat 3 status,facts dictate that we have only produced players who have joined at a late stage after being released..bowery and tendayi were never our products,cat 4 must surely cost less to run,it does away with all the lower age groups.This would then cascade down to the PPP which for all the bad press is a fantastic idea if run correctly which it should be.

I'm actually amazed we are Cat 3 and not 4!

It was only mentioned a while ago that we don't have a youth talent Id /scouting network wasn't it?

[For your eyes only]

SaltergateBlue01222, on 03 February 2016 - 05:34 PM, said:

This, if true is shameful and reflects very badly on CFC. Surely it deserves an inquiry and an explanation at the very least!

This is true I'm afraid. There are another 14 sets of parents waiting for payment back as refunds.

Westbars Spireite, on 03 February 2016 - 08:24 PM, said:

Chesterfield FC are a 'not for profit' outfit unfortunately.

[For your eyes only]

Chesterfield FC development Ltd are NOT a not for profit organisation. They can say they are until the cows come home but on the companies house site, they have no charity number or anything to prove that's the case.
You will also never see any transactions between the main club and the development centre.
They may waste a hell of a lot of money, but they aren't daft.

Mr Mercury, on 03 February 2016 - 06:29 PM, said:

If any money from the club was going into helping fund it would it show in the accounts?

No it wouldn't. They can hide what they wish and they are doing.

[Westbars Spireite]

'FYEO'; are you someone in the know here or just guessing?

[For your eyes only]

Westbars Spireite, on 09 February 2016 - 11:19 PM, said:

'FYEO'; are you someone in the know here or just guessing?

Definitely not a guess. As the saying goes, it's not what you know...

[For your eyes only]

MDCCCLXVI, on 03 February 2016 - 05:42 PM, said:

If not true, I'd have expected a comprehensive denial and legal action instead of excuses and more apparently empty promises.

Unfortunately there're reports that Mrs Banthorpe is just one of many people left in a similar situation by Sutcliffe and Turner's enterprise.

[For your eyes only]

I'd also like to add that some of the parents waiting for their refund, have had their money 'moved forward' 3 times before this. The money was paid for a tour to Wales October 2014, it was cancelled as Sutcliffe said they'd spent the money and response was not big enough to justify going. So the money was moved to a deposit for a tour in Spain 2015, that was cancelled too so the parents had the choice to move their deposit to a PSG tour in October 2015, in September that was cancelled AGAIN and moved to April 2016!
His response is always the same. 'The parents did not pay enough and on time'. Rubbish of course.
At this point about 15 sets of parents asked for refunds.
They've not had it yet and was told in November they'd be paid within 28 days.
There are also parents praying that the tour will go ahead in April or there will be a massive uproar.
It'll not be one parent going to the press it'll be a lot more I assure you!

[60s 70s Spireite]

For your eyes only, on 09 February 2016 - 11:06 PM, said:

Chesterfield FC development Ltd are NOT a not for profit organisation. They can say they are until the cows come home but on the companies house site, they have no charity number or anything to prove that's the case.

To be fair, per Companies House they are deemed a not for profit organisation (which is different to a charity) by virtue of the only share capital being limited by guarantee. The government's definition of such an organisation says:
A Company Limited by Shares or Limited by Guarantee. Its Memorandum & Articles of Association must state that any surplus is put towards the company’s social purpose and usually defines the company as democratic and accountable to the community through its membership. In law, a Limited Company is considered to be a person and it can therefore own land or enter into contracts. The directors are agents of the company and are not personally liable for its debts. This is a flexible structure, suitable for a wide range of Social Enterprises.

A private members golf club usually has this structure. Has do a lot of training organisations. However, as per a number of my posts, I remain an old cynic, and will often say, look at the senior executives' salary, pay package; and then decide if it's a 'not for profit organisation'.

As regards the development outfit, unfortunately none of this information, (about wages etc) is available to us. However, what is telling is a £47k deficit in the last accounts filed. Supposedly this will be corrected by earning profits going forward!

[Westbars Spireite]

For your eyes only, on 09 February 2016 - 11:40 PM, said:

I'd also like to add that some of the parents waiting for their refund, have had their money 'moved forward' 3 times before this. The money was paid for a tour to Wales October 2014, it was cancelled as Sutcliffe said they'd spent the money and response was not big enough to justify going. So the money was moved to a deposit for a tour in Spain 2015, that was cancelled too so the parents had the choice to move their deposit to a PSG tour in October 2015, in September that was cancelled AGAIN and moved to April 2016!
His response is always the same. 'The parents did not pay enough and on time'. Rubbish of course.
At this point about 15 sets of parents asked for refunds.
They've not had it yet and was told in November they'd be paid within 28 days.
There are also parents praying that the tour will go ahead in April or there will be a massive uproar.
It'll not be one parent going to the press it'll be a lot more I assure you!

Utterly disgraceful if true. I would have kicked up a real fuss already. Though if rumours are true court judgements to repay debts are routinely ignored anyway.

This shambolic operation needs moving well away from CFC or better still, closed down.

As for CT, how his involvement is tolerated by DA, I've no idea.

[For your eyes only]

Westbars Spireite, on 10 February 2016 - 08:48 AM, said:

Utterly disgraceful if true. I would have kicked up a real fuss already. Though if rumours are true court judgements to repay debts are routinely ignored anyway.

This shambolic operation needs moving well away from CFC or better still, closed down.

As for CT, how his involvement is tolerated by DA, I've no idea.

[For your eyes only]

It is100% true. I know parents that are in this exact predicament right now. It's not the operation that needs moving away from CFC it's the people running it who have absolutely no idea how to run a successful business.
Just because they can run a business, does not mean they should.
The parents daren't kick up too much of a fuss incase their sons are released

[starsky72]

If it's being run so badly then being released could be a blessing...

[hilly81]

For your eyes only, on 10 February 2016 - 09:02 AM, said:

It is100% true. I know parents that are in this exact predicament right now. It's not the operation that needs moving away from CFC it's the people running it who have absolutely no idea how to run a successful business.
Just because they can run a business, does not mean they should.
The parents daren't kick up too much of a fuss incase their sons are released

Sounds like these parents should be taking their kids elsewhere anyway! Shambles.

[Somerset Spireite]

I would suggest that if anyone reading this thread has any influence whatsoever within the Club then this needs sorting out NOW.

The reputational damage of letting this slide and then turning around (given the website's content) and saying limply that "there is no financial link with the CFC" will be major.

Not only should those who are owed be paid (and with good grace), but the website needs some serious amendment to avoid any <ahem> "confusion" about the link with CFC.

[Bonnyman]

Somerset Spireite, on 10 February 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

I would suggest that if anyone reading this thread has any influence whatsoever within the Club then this needs sorting out NOW.

The reputational damage of letting this slide and then turning around (given the website's content) and saying limply that "there is no financial link with the CFC" will be major.

Not only should those who are owed be paid (and with good grace), but the website needs some serious amendment to avoid any <ahem> "confusion" about the link with CFC.

Get your head out your arris if the development is doing wrong the club is doing wrong,its that simple its not a matter of cfc distancing itself.