Ok, whether or not it's a case of can't pay or won't pay, when CCJ's are first issued, that's the claim not the judgement, you are given a set period of time to respond and if wanted to counter claim, (from memory 28days), if you do not reply, judgement is issued by default whether at fault or not. So, something is seriously amiss at the club, claims are NOT sent to registered offices, they are send to the buisness address, so the club saying it's because we changed registered office is, to put it bluntly, . I issue these things regularly as part of my job, in the last 2 years i have issued approx 50 claims, only 2 have ever gone to judgement by default.

make your own minds up........

Yeah probably so.

Maybe a certain poster should stop and think before using things like this as a petty excuse to have a go at this club. But thats probably not going to happen.

Indeed. The most embarrassing thing about this thread is that it was started at all!!

It'll die on its own - I'm sure.

Exactly.

I don't think it should be closed, but I also think people need to listen to both views on these matters.

Yes, the fact that they are even there is not good, but judging the club without listening to them is not sensible behaviour IMO.

The clubs opinion is that they are better left without public comment. It is part of modern business that these things arise - and after what we've been through there is still some settling down to do.

I don't like them, but then I don't believe that they indicate that we are in any way in bother either.

Keep the thread open though - unless anything breaks the AUP of course!

TBH I'm not sure if it will ever not be the old regimes fault - without them some posters on here would have nothing to say.

There are faults with the current regime as with all others - anyone who believes Andrew Glover or anyone else has found the magic formula is off their rocker. The way I look at it is if there is more smooth than rough I can live with it and so far that has been the case, but if the fell out of Trinity tomorrow I'd only be slightly shocked - that's RL for you.

There is nothing wrong with starting this thread and bringing it into light. The information is out there in the public domain anyway and without any clarification from the club over what the causes are then people will always speculate. But whether its a case of can't pay or won't pay it does not reflect well on the club. Those that say that ccj's don't matter and its just business practise is under playing the situation slightly. It effects anything that the club tries to do financially and has massive consequences on confindence with other companies who deal with them. So far we've heard its disputes with a kit supplier, a former dual reg club and now a dodgy pieman (something else which was hushed up). Maybe there are good reasons why the club can't comment and they may well be in the right but if they don't explain what the situation is then they can hardly be surprised when the speculation mounts. And that will also not be helped by our main sponsor going belly up.

Agree, it's embarrassing to jump to conclusions without knowing the story imo.

Weve had the clubs side of the story

Seems like they cant use the "address excuse"for this one.

The 4 CCJ’s referred to in the “Embarrassing 2” thread all relate to disputes with suppliers over the quality of the “service/supply”. You will notice that 3 of the Judgements refer to NORTHAMPTON (one has been settled). Apparently this is a recently established “On-line” Court which makes it easy for any claimant to seek a Judgement by supplying information “on-line” and a Judge passes Judgement. The issue is whether you are aware of the claim being brought. You may recall that a well known Castleford poster made an issue of the fact that Spirit of 1873 Ltd had changed it Registered Address recently. The change of address (to the Club’s Accountant) was to ensure that if such claims were made the Club was made aware of them and could act accordingly.

It’s worth noting that if a CCJ is awarded against you there is no requirement to pay up immediately, you may continue to dispute payment and/or still negotiate payment. It’s only when a High Court Writ is awarded against you for the dept that you are compelled to pay or have goods removed by High Court Sheriffs to repay the debt.

As I have said the CCJ’s relate to disputes with suppliers and the Club is not unduly concerned about payment. It’s only the adverse publicity that is a concern but I guess the Club is not going to pay up when it disputes the amount owed.

On a positive note the Club is trading healthily and we are actually owed more than we owe but as any business knows cash flow is always going to be an issue – you need your debtors to pay you in order for you to pay your creditors and it is often a very difficult balancing act. Who knows, we may be seeking CCJ’s against our debtors.

Sounds like CCJ no. 7 has arrived, another 8.5K apparently.

Could you list them and tell us what services or products haven't been paid for?
I can then decide if i'm worried or not, as they may just be cheeky sods lobbing them in and hoping for the best.

23/02/2013 NORTHAMPTON CCMCC £8,489 Judgement 3YJ11996 -
21/02/2013 NORTHAMPTON CCBC £4,877 Judgement 3XJ80257 -
30/01/2013 NORTHAMPTON CCBC £3,938 Judgement 2XJ22270 -
19/01/2013 WAKEFIELD £10,001 Judgement 2YL54167 -
08/01/2013 NORTHAMPTON CCBC £9,932 Judgement 2XN29534 -
29/11/2012 NORTHAMPTON CCBC £5,878 Satisfied 2JM29828 31/01/2013