HOME PAGE | FACTFILES | QUOTES | COMMENT FORM |

I don't know what it is that makes me love you so,
I only know I never want to let you go.
'Cos you started something,
Oh, can't you see?
And ever since we met you've had a hold on me.
Its crazy, but its true,
I only want to be with you.
No matter, no matter what you do,
I only want to be with you
(Popular 1960's song by Dusty Springfield)

Chris Rawson has accused us of printing only selected sections of his emails in order to give a distorted picture. We do not want to deprive those who wish to see full exchanges and the following is the sequence of emails as it appeared on the CCC computer used by Barrie Stuart-King. It dealt with one of Chris Rawson's many resignations.

----- Original Message -----
From: M K Reed - ACU&S Deputy Treasurer
To: Peter Freeman
Cc:Charman, Mike ; Rawson, Chris ; Keith Smith ; Derrick Harman ; Barrie Stuart-King
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: More bills!
I am reading these emails from CNR with increasing concern. The subscription collection got us over the hump but we are now desperate (I don't think that is too strong a word) for the payment of the sponsorship money which has been promised and invoiced.
If we get to the Finance Board in January and there is still nothing received, I shall be proposing the suspension of all our PDB activities until further notice. Everything was clearly laid out in spreadsheets which were circulated in May/June of last year with the appropriate dates when it would be needed. We cannot continue to haemorrhage funds like this with still no sign of the sponsorship funding which we have often been told is to be received.
M K Reed

From: Barrie Stuart-King [mailto:barrie.stuart-king@club-cricket.com]
Sent: 12 December 2004 16:48
To: M K Reed - ACU&S Deputy Treasurer; Peter Freeman
Cc:Charman, Mike; Rawson, Chris; Keith Smith; Derrick Harman
Subject: Re: More bills!
Importance: High
Martin
It is a pity you were not at the Finance Board and EBGC meetings when this matter was discussed at length. With the benefit of hindsight - a wonderful aid to retrospective decision making - I should not have allowed myself to be swayed by the AT(A)'s panic and fears over the VAT visit and his pre-visit portents of the possible dire consequences of Partial Exemption (the Assoc could well have to pay back up to possibly £7K so we urgently need to be able to issue VAT invoices etc), into ask the funding Principals to change the contract funding/arrangements that I had already signed up to, to accommodate this; particularly as the Group MD agreed to my request without first consulting with the company MD concerned with whom I had signed the Agreement and who, at the time, was in the States.
Whilst I fully understand your concern at the AT(A)'s somewhat overly alarmist ..'More bills!'.. e-mail, I should like it equally understood that I am not sitting with my thumb up my arse watching the world - and/or the sponsorship funding - go by. It has been an extremely difficult three weeks having, first, to recover the situation (we very nearly lost the lot - the entire package!) and, second, to restore some vestige of personal credibility with a man who, very understandably, felt betrayed (his words) both by me and his Group MD over what he saw as a reneging on the deal he and I had signed up to and that he had begun to act on as a result!. Particularly IN THE KNOWLEDGE - NOW - THAT IT WAS, AFTER ALL, NOT NECESSARY!!
You will, I am sure, be pleased to know that I have a meeting in Leadenhall Street on Tuesday morning (14th) to review and discuss the proposed (now twice) re-amended Contract and the subsequent releases of funding tranches, including confirmation that the £17,500 VAT recovery will be paid before the end of the month. The £100K will not be transferred across until January.
For the record, and as I have discussed with the AT(A) during last week and this morning, I shall be arranging for £10K plus to be transferred by CHAPS into the ACU&S A/c early next week and, with this ING D/D payment covered, so end the present system; reverting back to the PO format.
The circulation and recycling of negative e-mails of doom and gloom only days after we have discussed the funding issues is neither helpful nor constructive; not to mention bloody irritating. A personal telephone call to me expressing your concern and seeking a personal update on progress would, I suggest, be/have been more appropriate. It would be nice if, just for once, the authors could address/consider why it could, should and will happen, rather than continually repeating doom-laden black prophesies of why iit can't or won't. And the old chestnut excuse for stating the self-evident if something did/does not happen that it is 'simply being realistic' doesn't, I'm afraid, wash with me. We had precisely the same scenario from the same individuals pre delivery and distribution of the laptops and projectors!
Having been a Projects Director on multi-million dollar offshore and onshore oil and gas projects for 20 almost 20 years with FULL profit and Loss responsibility and the prospect of liquidated damages penalty clauses of one million dollars per day if I failed to have the platform or production in operation on the date specified in the Contract, I perhaps have an advantage over you in the way I approach matters of - and delays in project funding.
Finally, just remember, that I have far more to lose than any other officer or board member of the ACU&S and I have absolutely no intention of giving the Jonahs and the 'I told you so brigade' any satisfaction whatsoever over this matter. I have also invested too much time, effort and belief into getting the Association moving forward on a stable financial basis to let it all go down the tubes. What better incentives could I have?
So, please, let's have less of the negativism and threats about proposing suspension of Association core activities. In addition, let's have fewer mass-circulation critical e-mails heralding doom and destruction and try, instead, to be positive. You could also try the more direct response route of asking/discussing/talking to me personally instead!
BS-K

----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Rawson, Assistant Treasurer
To: Barrie Stuart-King
Cc:Mike Charman ; Keith Smith ; Derrick Harman ; Geoff Lowden ; Martin Reed
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 5:39 PM
Subject: FW: More bills!
Barrie
All I have ever done is present hard facts. If the presentation of hard facts represents 'panic and fears', then I plead guilty. By the way the name of the AT(A) that you appear to have forgotten is Chris Rawson.
I strongly resent the implication that I have somehow misrepresented the VAT Partial Exemption position to Finance Board. The position was correctly stated - I mentioned the possibility at Finance Board that we may be able to apportion our outputs between that which related to exempt supplies (ie insurance) and that which related to zero-rated supplies (ie the provision of How's That?) and this is exactly what transpired.
You have also sought to misrepresent me on the question of the need to increase our taxable (ie VATable) income. This was not something new that I dreamt up after you had had initial meetings and come to the first agreement with the sponsors. I had been banging on about it for months and months.
The general tone of your e-mail indicates quite clearly that you are dissatisfied in the way in which I am undertaking the duties of the AT(A). In which case you have left me with little option other than to resign with immediate effect.
I would be grateful if you could make urgent arrangements for the collection of the books and records.
Chris Rawson

From: Barrie Stuart-King [mailto:chairman@acus.org.uk]
Sent: 12 December 2004 19:14
To: ata@acus.org.uk
Cc:Mike Charman; Keith Smith; Derrick Harman; Geoff Lowden; Martin Reed
Subject: Re: More bills!
Importance: High
Chris
My e-mail was a response to Martin's. It was in the format of 'reporting', but I do apologise for quite unintentionally referring to you as the AT(A) and not as Chris. Certainly I intended no discourtesy.
Let me say, first, that I have not sought to misrepresent you, nor have I inferred that you, in turn, misrepresented anything to anybody and I am not sure how you draw that interpretation from my e-mail. I'm afraid that after the three weeks I have had up to my neck - to the virtual exclusion of my 'day-job' responsibilities - in trying to salvage/save the entire funding packages that were oh so nearly totally lost because I had the already-signed Agreement changed in the light of your expressed concerns about Partial Exemption and its possible adverse implications/aftermath, I regret that Martin's e-mail and the re-cycled statement of a potential position that we already know, was the last straw.
I most certainly did not intend to imply - nor do I have - any dissatisfaction with the diligent way that you carry out the role of AT(A); quite the reverse in fact. However, what I do find prone to creating unnecessary alarmism (and panic in some!), particularly when circulated as an e-mail headed 'More Bills!' and 'The Worst Case Scenario', is the negative 'dire consequences' part of the picture that is portrayed without it being simultaneously counter-balanced by an explanation ofthe positive steps being taken to ensure that doomsday does not arrive.
I have no problem with the SWOT - Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats - approach provided the emphasis on Weaknesses and Threats is balanced equally by the Strengths and Opportunities in the same e-mail/correspondence so that the recipients understand the whole situation/scenario. This is particularly important if it is being sent to recipients that were not at meetings where the implications and options were fully aired and discussed. It paints an incomplete picture that inadequately represents the concomitant actions being taken to counter/resolve what is a strictly temporary situation. Alongside the Worst Case Scenario should be - equally detailed and spelled out - the other/alternative scenario that pertains as and when the delayed funding tranches are received into the account over a specified time-frame.
Under the circumstances, I trust you will reconsider your resignation if for no other reason than that I am not able to both produce the 3-year funding AND run the accounts detailing its subsequent allocations and disposal.
I shall call you tomorrow morning for a personal chat to try and clear the air.
Barrie

----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Rawson, Assistant Treasurer
To: 'Barrie Stuart-King'
Cc: Martin Reed ; Peter Freeman ; Geoff Lowden ; Mike Charman ; Keith Smith ; Derrick Harman
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 10:26 AM
Subject: RE: More bills!
Barrie
Please accept my apologies for not responding earlier.
Let me say firstly that I fully recognise not only your commitment to bringing the Association up-to-date but also the hard work and long hours that you put in in support of that commitment. I have always supported you in this aim and will continue to do so.
There are, however, one or two points on which I suspect we will never see eye to eye.

• In your second paragraph, you state 'I had the already-signed Agreement changed in the light of your expressed concerns about Partial Exemption and its possible implications/aftermath.'. This appears to imply that I only raised the issue of Partial Exemption after the agreement was signed. In fact, I had been voicing the issue of Partial Exemption virtually from the time I took over some 18 months ago.
• It was exactly for the reason of balance that I sent my e-mails out. I am a great believer in a 'level playing field'. Some of the 'positive' e-mails that have been sent out about sponsorship could have also been seen to have 'painted an incomplete picture' because the downside was never spelled out. I cannot accept your contention that the e-mails that I have circulated over the past couple of weeks are alarmist in any way - they are based on the actual current financial position. Senior officers and the Chairman of the Finance Board need to be aware of the situation. The one entitled ' A Worst Case Scenario' was circulated only after I had fully discussed the matter with Peter Freeman.
• I am opposed to spending money that is 'promised' rather than actually in our bank account. I sent you an e-mail about this in July 2004 pointing out that our funds were at their lowest level for years and expressing the opinion that it would be irresponsible to embark upon a series of seminars without the funding already being in place.Your somewhat demeaning response advised me, amongst other things, 'not to teach my grandmother to suck eggs' and that you were 'going to send a 6-months supply of 'Happy Pills''. You subsequently declined my offer to stand aside and let someone more positive take over. I have not altered my views on this issue - promises of future funding do not pay bills; hard cash does. An AT(A) can only deal with actuality when it comes to writing cheques.
• In the situation that we find ourselves at present, I find it difficult to align myself to your wish to delay payments for goods/services already invoiced. 'Can we delay VAT payment?' was a question that you posed recently.

From: Barrie Stuart-King, Chairman [mailto:chairman@acus.org.uk]
Sent: 13 December 2004 12:44
To: ata@acus.org.uk
Cc: Martin Reed; Peter Freeman; Geoff Lowden; Mike Charman; Keith Smith; Derrick Harman
Subject: Re: More bills!
Chris
As promised, I telephoned you this morning (at 11am - left voice-mail message), but a disembodied American voice told me you were 'away from the computer'.
Thank you for your e-mail, the content of which I have noted. As you say, there are the one or two points over which we shall have to agree to disagree. Notwithstanding, I am sorry that because of this you feel it necessary to confirm your resignation, particularly after the palpably hard work you have put in to modernising the Association's accounting procedures - for which I and the officers are particularly grateful. I will also place on record that I have nothing but the highest regard for your personal integrity in the way you have carried out the role of AT(A). Accordingly, I would ask you again to reconsider your decision to resign.
Should you not be willing do do so, your offer to continue with the book-keepoing aspects of the role until the end of January 2005 to give the Association time to identify a suitable replacement, is very much appreciated.
Barrie

From: Chris Rawson, Assistant Treasurer
To: 'Barrie Stuart-King, Chairman'
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 7:32 PM
Subject: RE: More bills!
Barrie
I've not been around much today so I have only just got your e-mail and am just about to dish up the dinner.
I will give the matter due consideration and contact you tomorrow morning - before your important meeting.
Chris

Needless to say, the evolutionary process still had a way to run before a backbone was formed. They are now back in harness together as fellow directors of Community Cricket Holdings Ltd.