The unofficial AFC Rushden & Diamonds messageboard

I don't think Cloverdale et al were trying to wind the club up. What they were trying to do was to recover money that was rightfully owed to them. Missed deadlines, broken promises and non payment forced them to take the action they did.

The creditors are not to blame

SouthRushdenJFC wrote:I don't think Cloverdale et al were trying to wind the club up. What they were trying to do was to recover money that was rightfully owed to them. Missed deadlines, broken promises and non payment forced them to take the action they did.

The creditors are not to blame

Sorry I didn't put that very well. I don't blame these people/companies, they were owed money and rightfully chased it up, but technically they did issue a winding up petition against the club.

BartonRaz wrote:

SouthRushdenJFC wrote:I don't think Cloverdale et al were trying to wind the club up. What they were trying to do was to recover money that was rightfully owed to them. Missed deadlines, broken promises and non payment forced them to take the action they did.

The creditors are not to blame

Sorry I didn't put that very well. I don't blame these people/companies, they were owed money and rightfully chased it up, but technically they did issue a winding up petition against the club.

But getting back to the point... Keith Cousins was referring specifically to the HMRC money because they could not be negotiated with whereas it's easier to do a deal with individual people/companies. If the club had raised £250,000 and paid off the tax bill the club would have survived. I was taking issue with the fact that these figures somehow proved KC wrong in what he said on that point.

Based on those figures even if HRMC were paid off there was zero chance that the club could have survived since other creditors would have joined with Cloverdale to pursue the winding up order.
Added to that the Beasants appeared not to have had any working capital to pay further day to day bills.
Anyway it's all water under the bridge now.

Alongside the value of the debt to HMRC would be the debt to VAT - they would take the same action. This would put the required amount at around £300k - it may have been lower at the time. I am not sure what the debt to the Department of Employment relates to, but at another £100k, and at what I assume is another government debt, there would be no escape from about £400k of debts that would need to be paid. Little chance of offering them 'something' because there was little or nothing available from anywhere to keep payments going.

I would love to see the figures supplied to the Conference which led to the fine. This would say a great deal about the details of debts owed to HMRC at an earlier point. They say that all the information is 'public' but I have not been able to find it anywhere.

There was some detail here http://www.thediamondsfc.com/page/NewsD ... 66,00.html

I suspect this is correct, as I found out that the Conference Board would quickly take issue to anything reported that involved them that they didn't like - e.g. statements about ground sharing.

could someone provide a link to this information? Thanks.

The £8033 may be the Grant that the FA gave the club to run football community projects - a colleague of mine was due to work on this project in the Bedford area, but the person who was meant to take on the club's Community Officer role was never employed, for obvious reasons.

I'm fairly sure with all that was going on that it wouldn't have been repaid, so MAY be that money - £8k was the figure mentioned, Helen Thompson knows more about it as it was her that first put me in touch with the club about the grant.

diamondphil wrote:could someone provide a link to this information? Thanks.

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/2fc6f ... ompdetails

(or if that doesn't work the company number is 02400504).

The report is subject to copyright, and costs £1, so obviously it can't be copied on here en masse (and I'm not sure putting the list of creditors names on here would be a good idea anyway, as a lot of them are private individuals - each of them will have had free access to this information via the administrator).

PigmanRDFC wrote:...... that was a load of old bollocks?

Just a continuation of the financial (mis)information that was ever made available to rank and file supporters following Max's handing over the club in April 2005. :evil: