[dim view]

lindo-spireite, on 23 May 2016 - 02:26 PM, said:

Chris Turner has issued the following statement relating to the PPP and Chesterfield FC International Academy: chesterfield-fc.co.uk/news/article/c…

http://www.chesterfi...nt-3123049.aspx

Well, I'm prepared to give some credit to CT for this, as long as he accepts the need to carry on with the dialogue. It's a well written piece that, I think, does describe what a good idea it could be.

The most crucial question being of course......Why have they had such severe cash flow problems?. I suspect many people on here have a view on that.

He now has the self inflicted hurdle of trying to overcome competition at his own front door - a situation that a well run enterprise would never have blundered in to. It's not insurmountable though and it can be turned round as he has the marvellous advantage of being 'affiliated' to CFC. If he is sensible, he might even ask CFC supporters for help. Do the words 'Chris Turner' and 'decisive management action' go together?

[Bankrobber]

Should i have heard of 'Oxford Academy'?

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

lindo-spireite, on 23 May 2016 - 02:26 PM, said:

Chris Turner has issued the following statement relating to the PPP and Chesterfield FC International Academy: chesterfield-fc.co.uk/news/article/c…

http://www.chesterfi...nt-3123049.aspx

My interpretation of what I'm seeing here is that it's merely the shameless promotion of a supposedly stand alone enterprise of which the CFC CEO is a director - on the official Club website!

Then 'The timing of their departure was clearly done by the coaches to damage the PPP as much as possible for their own gain.'?

I wonder if their solicitors might be interested in such an assertion.

However for all the triumphalism of Turner's words it's perhaps what he doesn't say that resonates far more than anything he does.

The claim of several CFC players arriving via the DC/PPP that was hastily removed from it's website when exposed?

The CCJ allegedly awarded against the DC/PPP?

The visit from a court appointed officer?

The succession of cancelled tours?

The parent(s) left so feeling so ill used they approached the media?

The association with Bingham - who was also handed an official role at the Club?

The huge losses?

The reason why such a large number of staff have resigned?

The press report of intended - though since withdrawn - legal action by a CFC sponsor?

The questions surrounding Liam Sutcliffe's suitability given his previous business record?

Not one single sentence to address any of these issues.

Chris Turner does repeat that 'They are self-funded with no financial connection to the club' and 'It is important to note that neither the International Academy nor the PPP/Development Schools owe Chesterfield FC any monies whatsoever'.

Well given that we've no access to the unabridged CFC or DC/PPP accounts (at this point, at least) we've no choice but to accept this at face value.

But should it ever be revealed that one penny of the money handed over by punters for ST's, Spire Lotto, Fifty-Fifty or such like has been used to in any way subsidise Turner and Sutcliffe's enterprise, I'd guess dozens of angry parents and staff might be joined by thousands of absolutely furious fans!

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 23 May 2016 - 05:38 PM

[spireitenag]

Bankrobber, on 23 May 2016 - 05:04 PM, said:

Should i have heard of 'Oxford Academy'?

It appears to be a co educational state secondary school in Littlemore,Oxford.

I don't understand the relevance ?

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on 23 May 2016 - 05:07 PM, said:

My interpretation of what I'm seeing here is that it's merely the shameless promotion of a supposedly stand alone enterprise of which the CFC CEO is a director - and on the official CFC website!

It's clearly not 'supposedly stand alone', by his own statement. He claims the finances are separate, but other affiliations to CFC are clear and admitted. Part time coaches 'affiliated'. 100 PPP kids 'affiliated' by virtue of them progressing to the Academy. DA confirming 'affiliation' to the media............

I wish it was stand alone, then I probably wouldn't give a s**t. As it is, I'm disappointed and angry 'cos it should be thriving.

[Sammy Spireite]

Does the release of the statement via the clubs own website add to the confusion of a conflict of interest??

Sorry, just read the last few posts and it's been mentioned already.

This post has been edited by Sammy Spireite: 23 May 2016 - 05:38 PM

[Westbars Spireite]

MDCCCLXVI, on 23 May 2016 - 05:07 PM, said:

My interpretation of what I'm seeing here is that it's merely the shameless promotion of a supposedly stand alone enterprise of which the CFC CEO is a director - and on the official CFC website!

Then 'The timing of their departure was clearly done by the coaches to damage the PPP as much as possible for their own gain.'?

I wonder if their solicitors might be interested in such an assertion.

However for all the triumphalism of Turner's words it's perhaps what he doesn't say that resonates far more than anything he does.

The claim of several CFC players arriving via the DC/PPP that was hastily removed from it's website when exposed?

The CCJ allegedly awarded against the DC/PPP?

The visit from a court appointed officer?

The succession of cancelled tours?

The parent(s) left so feeling so ill used they approached the media?

The association with Bingham - who was also handed an official role at the Club?

The huge losses?

The reason why such a large number of staff have resigned?

The press report of intended - though since withdrawn - legal action by a CFC sponsor?

The questions surrounding Liam Sutcliffe's suitability given his previous business record?

Not one single sentence to address any of these issues.

Chris Turner does repeat that 'They are self-funded with no financial connection to the club' and 'It is important to note that neither the International Academy nor the PPP/Development Schools owe Chesterfield FC any monies whatsoever'.

Well given that we've no access to the unabridged CFC or DC/PPP accounts (at this point, at least) we've no choice but to accept this at face value.

But should it ever be revealed that one penny of the money handed over by punters for ST's, Spire Lotto, Fifty-Fifty or such like has been used to in any way subsidise Turner and Sutcliffe's enterprise, I'd guess dozens of angry parents and staff might be joined by thousands of absolutely furious fans!

I'm certainly more in your camp than Dave's 'give CT credit' one.

[dim view]

Westbars Spireite, on 23 May 2016 - 05:35 PM, said:

I'm certainly more in your camp than Dave's 'give CT credit' one.

I expected nowt, so that's the basis of the credit. With the big proviso that he doesn't fly off to Dubai now he's started summat. He's done his pitch on 'Dragon's Den'. Now he has to face a grilling.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dim view, on 23 May 2016 - 05:30 PM, said:

It's clearly not 'supposedly stand alone', by his own statement. He claims the finances are separate, but other affiliations to CFC are clear and admitted. Part time coaches 'affiliated'. 100 PPP kids 'affiliated' by virtue of them progressing to the Academy. DA confirming 'affiliation' to the media............

I wish it was stand alone, then I probably wouldn't give a s**t. As it is, I'm disappointed and angry 'cos it should be thriving.

Point taken, Dave.

But as 'Sammy' suggests, surely that merely adds weight to questions of exactly where CFC ends and PPP begins - or vice-versa.

What it does do, however, is offer CFC shareholders a right to raise those questions at the next AGM.

[Sammy Spireite]

dim view, on 23 May 2016 - 05:42 PM, said:

I expected nowt, so that's the basis of the credit. With the big proviso that he doesn't fly off to Dubai now he's started summat. He's done his pitch on 'Dragon's Den'. Now he has to face a grilling.

Is he still in the country?

His absence was well noted at yesterday's event.

[Sammy Spireite]

One glaring question remains unanswered for me;

What IF one of the kids does a Gboly* (*Simons, Gardner, banks, orrell - delete/Fantasise as appropriate!) and actually makes it as a pro footballer?

CT suggests they're not tied to CFC, so IF one signs a pro deal with CFC how much is his signature gonna cost CFC?

Is CT using the clubs reputation to build up the DC and as/when he leaves his role at the club, he can then take the credit and the financial gain when 1or 2 of the hundreds of kids they turn over actually makes it. If he is allowed to sign transfer rights over for any successful DC product whilst in his role as CE then that certain is a conflict of interest.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

dim view, on 23 May 2016 - 04:52 PM, said:

Well, I'm prepared to give some credit to CT for this, as long as he accepts the need to carry on with the dialogue. It's a well written piece that, I think, does describe what a good idea it could be.

I think you're right.

It explains the model and the theory, but what it doesn't address is the application. In other words, if I buy a product, add value to it and sell it on, I'll make money and this time next year Rodney, we'll all be millionaires. Great in theory, reality might be somewhat different.

[brockwell-spireite]

So he doesn't make a statement... Gets grief... Makes a statement... Gets grief.... If he discovers players and the business makes money... He'll get criticism... If he doesn't discover a pro ... He'll get criticised....

It was a far more informative statement than I expected, it answers the point I see raised the most on here... I.e the financial link to the club and no monies owed to cfc....

[s42blue]

Sammy Spireite, on 23 May 2016 - 06:01 PM, said:

One glaring question remains unanswered for me;

What IF one of the kids does a Gboly* (*Simons, Gardner, banks, orrell - delete/Fantasise as appropriate!) and actually makes it as a pro footballer?

CT suggests they're not tied to CFC, so IF one signs a pro deal with CFC how much is his signature gonna cost CFC?

Is CT using the clubs reputation to build up the DC and as/when he leaves his role at the club, he can then take the credit and the financial gain when 1or 2 of the hundreds of kids they turn over actually makes it. If he is allowed to sign transfer rights over for any successful DC product whilst in his role as CE then that certain is a conflict of interest.

So CT could be in negotiations with CT about a transfer fee???

Hmmmm.

[spireitenag]

brockwell-spireite, on 23 May 2016 - 06:17 PM, said:

So he doesn't make a statement... Gets grief... Makes a statement... Gets grief.... If he discovers players and the business makes money... He'll get criticism... If he doesn't discover a pro ... He'll get criticised....

It was a far more informative statement than I expected, it answers the point I see raised the most on here... I.e the financial link to the club and no monies owed to cfc....

It was a pleasant surprise to see any sort statement from CT.

Unfortunately in the words of the Johnny Nash song " There Are More Questions Than Answers".

[Guest_freelander2_*]

MDCCCLXVI, on 23 May 2016 - 05:07 PM, said:

Then 'The timing of their departure was clearly done by the coaches to damage the PPP as much as possible for their own gain.'?

I wonder if their solicitors might be interested in such an assertion.

That's quite spectacular.

[Johnnyspireite7]

freelander2, on 23 May 2016 - 06:22 PM, said:

That's quite spectacular.

Tantamount to slander isn't it? I see BS is back to defending the indefensible again! His initials stand for something else as well!

[Forever a Spireite]

Johnnyspireite7, on 23 May 2016 - 06:45 PM, said:

Tantamount to slander isn't it? I see BS is back to defending the indefensible again! His initials stand for something else as well!

Careful don't upset him he'll through his rattle out the pram again! Not sure if he is in the Turnipe camp or not!

[calvin plummers socks]

MDCCCLXVI, on 23 May 2016 - 05:07 PM, said:

My interpretation of what I'm seeing here is that it's merely the shameless promotion of a supposedly stand alone enterprise of which the CFC CEO is a director - on the official Club website!

Then 'The timing of their departure was clearly done by the coaches to damage the PPP as much as possible for their own gain.'?

I wonder if their solicitors might be interested in such an assertion.

Oh wow that's some statement.
If that was me I'd be marching down to the B2Net and kicking doors down to get to T ur nip

This post has been edited by calvin plummers socks: 23 May 2016 - 06:51 PM

[brockwell-spireite]

Johnnyspireite7, on 23 May 2016 - 06:45 PM, said:

Tantamount to slander isn't it? I see BS is back to defending the indefensible again! His initials stand for something else as well!

I see your complete lack of comprehension of simple written English is back again, can you tell me what the indefensible act is that I just defended? Or do you just see my username... Remove your hands from your pants and type the first thing that comes to mind? I can't type enough times... I don't defend non payment of staff... Non repayment of deposits for tours... Not safeguarding kids at coaching sessions... I can't be much clearer for you...