[Interested Bystander]

SST,

Thank you for sharing

On the subject of the CCJs, I am not being critical of you because you are only able to report what you’ve been told.

That said, any reputable business owner will do their utmost to protect their reputation, the reputation of their business, their company’s credit rating and to safeguard relationships with suppliers. From my experience, CCJs arise for one of two reasons. In a minority of cases, a contractual dispute arises between claimant and defendant which can’t be settled, I would suggest this is highly unlikely in this case as two CCJs have already been issued and Hilton has indicated there are more to follow. In the vast majority of cases, CCJs are awarded because the defendant has insufficient working capital to settle its liabilities as and when they become due.

In terms of invoices not received. Suppliers to the club will issue their invoices within a few days of goods/services being delivered. At the end of each calendar month and until invoices are paid, those suppliers will send a statement of account to the club. Those suppliers who have had to resort to legal action in an attempt to get paid will have also issued the club with a 7-day notice of legal action. Such letters generally confirm the amount due, when the debt was due, how many days it is overdue and how many times the debt has been chased. Once the claimant submits their claim to the court, the court then writes to the defendant notifying them of the claim and gives them an opportunity to defend their position. The defendant has 14 days from date of service to submit their defence before the claimant can request a judgement.

Hilton’s had seven months to appraise the purchase ledger therefore it not more time he needs.

Please feel free to speak with a good credit controller or management accountant, they will tell you exactly the same.

[Interested Bystander]

Siderite wrote:

There are so many red flags around the club at the moment that I would rather focus on this. Yet situations confirmed by Hilton, governmental authority (CCJs) and worries over ground issues are dismissed as mad rumours. I don’t think Hilton would confirm a supporter cap if it was a rumour, nor would legal proceedings go through on rumours; you’re not getting a CCJ because someone spreads a rumour about owed costs.

Do some of those who oppose Hilton have agendas against him? Very likely. However, I don’t see how that nullifies worries, including those which have been raised by them. It would be like focussing on the journalist’s background and ignoring any issues raised about the government, while supporting the government and saying we should be thankful for them. The agenda or background of the journalist does nothing to show the government’s alleged greatness or contradict claims raised by the journalist.

Lest it needed be said, I don’t want us to be in a bad position, but I think we have very worrying signs that we are, and not all because of Swann’s legacy. I’d be overjoyed to be proven wrong, but until the ground issues, CCJs, wage/redundancy payment and supporter cap issues get sorted or properly explained without any room for doubt, I cannot let go of such worries. Rubbishing them and pleeing to ignore them does not remove worries. Some people speak as if these issues wouldn’t exist if people didn’t come on to mention them. That would just make it more likely for us to be blissfully unaware. I’d rather know than not know and potentially be confused and distraught later on.

As for rumours, when is that state of the art training pitch being unveiled?

Bravo.

What you have here is a classic case of confirmation bias. A group of people who have put the farm on an individual whose actions are casting serious doubt over their judgement and making them look foolish.

It is much easier to attempt to discredit or even take out the messenger than it is to acknowledge the problem and in doing so, admit that they were wrong.

[Interested Bystander]

[Interested Bystander]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Facts aside, are you genuinely ‘sorry’?

For your club and the fans, of course. When I see clubs deducted points due to the actions of corrupt and bad owners, it boils my p. Fans and clubs shouldn’t be penalised.

I think the EFL and NL have forgot that they are able to takeover the day-to-day running of a club should it be required.

3 users thanked author for this post.

North Lincolnshire Irons, TheJuryeffsOut, Siderite

[Interested Bystander]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

What a great offer!
IF,the court case goes in Hilton’s favour and the club is shown to be secure in the owners promises,it is a superb offer. Obviously there are BUTS at the moment,however this offer does show Hilton is determined to give the fans a stake in the club.

Is it? How sustainable is it for the club?

If something looks too good to be true, it usually is.

[Interested Bystander]

Please, please, please do your homework.

The fact that the club feel it appropriate to announce the rebrand of this ‘package’ given the obvious uncertainty surrounding Glanford Park should be regarded as yet another red flag.

[Interested Bystander]

64 wrote:

” I just hope we can keep it pretty civil and posters don’t revert to being disrespectful of each other, insulting and abusing.”

It couldn’t get any worse, we’ve had people’s homes pin pointed on google earth with sinister messages like ” how’s (wife’s name)” ,we’re watching you
We’ve had people threatened with having their throats slit ‘
We’ve had one case of a person ,proporting to be Hilton on twitter finding out what he wrongly thought was a twitter users real name and suggesting he was a convicted paedophile by searching his wrong name and promoting stories about a genuine paedo and intimating it’s this particular Twitter user.
Personally I don’t care what this chairman does at SUFC anymore, I just know he attracts the sort of persons above and hasn’t ever distanced himself from such behaviour and for that I find him distasteful .
I also don’t like that little verifiable business record, by verifiable I mean at companies house .
As for his own online behaviour and shoot from the hip pronouncements, good grief!

With a post like that, there is little wonder you failed to acknowledge or even accept that bet I offered you a few weeks ago which would have resulted in a childrens’ charity in Scunthorpe being £5K better off.

[Interested Bystander]

sufc_not_on_tour wrote:

Why can I not publicly name the party involved?
Because if the debt is satisfied within 30 days then the CCJ will not be made public and wiped from the record.
If it isn’t satisfied then it will be made public for all to see, in which case there will be no need for me to name the creditor.

Just one point of correction, at no point, now or in the future will details of the creditor be made public.

[Interested Bystander]

ironfromafar wrote:

Richgy wrote:

Great start to the season for you results wise , fair play .

This is another strange twist , like many others .

I have seen the recruitment of some really good people onto your board , which must bring hope – some intelligent imdividuals there , and you would have thought they would not have got involved without certain assurances about the clubs future surely

1.5k seems a relatively small amount of capital for the club not to pay , obviously like others have said it means a lot to a small business so hopefully it gets resolved .

Hopefully the stadium ownership is resolved soon to – is there any update on court proceedings for that ?

Rich

Taking over a business isnt easy and tiz my personal experience doing so that thers always a chance of a small prior debt or CCJ that can slip through the contractual net… even whilst not a not a huge amount it is very annoying but alas best just to bite the on the stick and take one for the boys n pay up.

With all due respect this is absolutely rocking horse muck.

The supplier will have originally sent an invoice to the club with payment terms of say 30 or 60 days. Following that invoice being sent and at the end of every month until payment is received, a statement of account will have been sent to the club. As payment has clearly not been received, the supplier will have then sent the club a 7-day notice of legal proceedings. After submitting the claim to the court, the court then writes to the defendant (the club) giving them notice of the claim and an opportunity to file a defence within 14 days of the date of service.

To suggest this matter has slipped through the net demonstrates a total lack of understanding on your part.

[Interested Bystander]

Iron-awe wrote:

Deereyme66 wrote:

Adjourned is my bet

Could well be and in any case, the gambling addict is used by now to being skint, another 18 months or a couple of years waiting is neither here or there.

I wish you would be a little bit more specific when referring to the gambling addict.

Is it the one who begged, borrowed and stole to fund their habit? The same one whose credit rating was so bad that they could only afford to rent a house, never paid the rent and then days before a court hearing have the audacity to ask the landlord for a cash incentive to leave the property before eviction?

I wonder what happened to that gambling addict?

[Interested Bystander]

SST wrote:

It may be a big deal to an individual or a small company. I find it concerning and wonder how many others may come out of the woodwork in the coming weeks. It is a shame that this sort of thing is playing out in the background when things on the pitch are looking up.

Well said.

[Interested Bystander]

Iron-awe wrote:

Gotta say SST super tolerant guy, allowing numbnuts back on barely a week after he received such a tirade of personal abuse from ironinsider.

Thankfully because an indefinite ban would only have served as a benefit to Hilton and perhaps a few of us on here who don’t like insults and bad language!

Hopefully normal service has resumed.

[Interested Bystander]

TheJuryeffsOut wrote:

It doesn’t say, Ferrite. It is just against sufc. From what I can work out it is online claim. The club have 30 days to pay or dispute it.

Judgement has been made. The club has 30 days to pay it and if they do, they can ask for the CCJ to be removed. If they don’t pay it within 30 days of the judgement it will remain on the club’s credit file for 5 / 7 years.

[Interested Bystander]

The modus operandi will be to take it to the eleventh hour and then ask Swann for a sweetener to leave.

[Interested Bystander]

Awaywego wrote:

Does appear that Hilton as left that site again.

I bet he has!

As I said earlier, his behaviour is starting to attract attention. Different geographical area, different group of authorities, same old Dave.

[Interested Bystander]

Thanks to his own conduct, people are now starting to see Hilton for what he is. He’s drawing attention to himself and ears that were once shut are now wide open.

I’m surprised he needs a reminder on how it ends when you rub the authorities up the wrong way.

[Interested Bystander]

BigLeftToe wrote:

If you’ve paid for something on the premise of being entered into a prize draw which then never materialises, surely the Gambling Commission may have something to say about that?

Not to mention the Advertising Standards Agency.

[Interested Bystander]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Either way, it’s starting to get reminiscent of DH’s previous Twitter spats. Unsavoury and not advisable from a club owner…

‘Wendi Betts kind people that put them up
You’re on here having been paid extremely well by the club slating that very entity because you’ve lost your little earner. Stop spouting rubbish and portraying you were doing this out of the goodness of your heart to help the lads. Your motivation like most in that academy set up was financial.
You are just angry it’s come to an end.’

The topic has now been deleted! Complicit.

[Interested Bystander]

https://twitter.com/LincolnCity_FC/status/1689683029663666176?s=20

[Interested Bystander]

Siderite wrote:

The saviour is the world’s most unfortunate man to only aggravate those after money and those with dishonest or immoral intentions and have to deal with them. It’s a good job they’re all crooked, otherwise we might have to have concerns about him.

You have him in a nutshell.

As you might have noticed by now, it doesn’t take long for the mask to slip.

[Interested Bystander]

Shaking head!

I’ve spoke to DH…. There is an explanation on the fans page. pic.twitter.com/3RTuTJIaDF

— jason herbert (@smashedagain) August 8, 2023

[Interested Bystander]

open hearth iron wrote:

He working to a sustainable future and this site holds mega debates on catering. Perhaps attending you would see we need to move forward

How will leasing out one of the matchday revenue streams increase income and net profits? I will give you a clue, it won’t.

Given the eleventh hour publicity and with rumours of a potential cap on attendees, one might argue a timely scheme.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dragoniron

[Interested Bystander]

Does this look like the actions of a man who is committed to growing both the top and bottom line? I don’t think so.

This screams short-termism and cashflow. In normal circumstances, such an arrangement would see the new provider paying an upfront advance to a club to secure the deal. Well I suppose they can ask, but I know what my answer would be.

Only the stupid need tender!

[Interested Bystander]

Bishops Finger wrote:

Fan ranting on dark side saying staff still not been paid…

I did see that earlier about wages and expenses, but the post appears to have been pulled.

[Interested Bystander]

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. The problem is that some rumours are nonsense (like this seemingly, the drug dealer crap), but others are true (ground issues). I don’t blame some for being jaded with such, but I have seen enough to have some concerns. Anyway, no point continuing this any longer. I will try and shut up about such rumours now and focus on talking about the team, given the season starts in 10 minutes. I will comment on off-field matters when there is something more than what sources or others have said.

Speaking in general terms regarding the background of individuals, unless you are involved in law enforcement, the legal system or the Probation Service, you just don’t know. If you did, there would be no requirement for the introduction of Sarah’s Law, Clare’s Law and various DBS checks which are now available as part of any vetting process.

Past history usually only gets an airing when the brown stuff hits the fan and by that time it’s too late. Pilley at Fleetwood being a recent example.

[Interested Bystander]

Having not seen II behave like that before, my initial reaction was has his account been hacked? Apparently not.

[Interested Bystander]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Perhaps Siderite. Not what I was alluding to or mentioned once tbh. But looks like I’m the whipping boy today in the absence of an IB or II pile on. Ah well.

Don’t take it to heart.

Well after @bremnersboots73’s lips got a bit loose on Thursday night, I was rather looking forward to reading a lengthy rebuttal and for the user to be put on notice of pending litigation. Unless I’ve missed it, nothing. Not a sausage.

[Interested Bystander]

Good luck this afternoon.

It’s piddling it down here. First game of the season, the weather’s having a laugh!

[Interested Bystander]

They’ve got the Columbian marching powder out over on Facebook. Chief dipstick is telling people Hilton’s put £2.9M in to date!

[Interested Bystander]

Iron-awe wrote:

Very true to life IB, I remember Bremner going in with both boots many times for Leeds in the sixties and seventies, then after the unfortunate victim got to his feet, Norman Hunter would come in and finish him off.

Cloughie was bang on!

Put your feet up and ensure you have popcorn to hand.

[Author]

Posts