HOME PAGE | FACTFILES | QUOTES | COMMENT FORM |

Today is the final 'banking' day of our financial year.....The final accounts will show a figure of £4740.10 as sponsorship (the total amount less the VAT) but our debtors would show an equivalent amount.
October 29, 2004: e-mail to Barrie Stuart-King; cc Peter Freeman.

Barrie - As things stand at the moment, I thought that you ought to know that we are showing a loss on the year of about £51,500. This does not include the cheque for £2875.55 to Weatherby's (which, I think, only you and I are privy to).
November 3, 2004: e-mail to Barrie Stuart-King.

As promised, here is a schedule of the payments that I know about to be made by ACU&S over the next few months.
(There follows a schedule showing 17 payments all of about £2,900 each to be made between 29.10.2004 and 25.9.2005)
November 8, 2004: e-mail to Barrie Stuart-King; cc to P Freeman and Martin Reed.

As requested I have today posted invoice number 0304/87 dated 27 October 2004 in the sum of £100,000 plus VAT to the National Association of Clubs & Leagues Cricket Conferences at the CCC address.
Issuing this invoice has had a beneficial effect on our end-of-year accounts - if you don't look too closely at the debtors.
November 11, 2004: e-mail to Barrie Stuart-King; cc to P Freeman and M Reed.

As part of their normal procedures, we have been requested by our auditors...to ask you to confirm direct to them the balance due to us at 31 October 2004.
The balance outstanding was £117,500.00......we shall be grateful if you will do this even if the account has since been settled.......your kind consideration in this matter would be gratefully appeciated.
Letter 14.1.2005, on ACU&S letterhead, sent to NACLCC at the CCC office. Unsurprisingly, Stuart-King signed and returned it with alacrity. The account had not ben settled, of course. Nor was it, ever.

At present the bank balance is just shy of £11,000...........
January 26, 2005: e-mail to P Freeman: cc to B Stuart-King, M Reed, D Harman.

I have just purchased a shredder to deal with some of the more 'sensitive' accounts documents. May I have your authority to claim back the cost......
January 28, 2005: e-mail to B Stuart-King.
(Reply: "Absolutely - a very good investment.")

Leaving aside the monies due from....the VAT repayment...the items on the BACS list...mean that, by 28 February 2005, there will be just £1,000 left in the current account.......Things are beginning to look dodgy.
February 7, 2005: e-mail to Barrie Stuart-King.

I issued an invoice for £100,000 plus VAT on 26 October 2004 in anticipation that the monies would be received within a fairly short period.....No monies have yet been received but I anticipate that the major proportion will be received by the end of this month with the balance within a further two months. this staged payment has been agreed with the sponsors. They were in fact willing to pay the entire amount in one payment had this been required.
February 14, 2005: e-mail to Keir Hopley; copied to 63 others, including Frank Kemp, ECB, and for no known reason to Chris Austin, Treasurer of Richmond CC, who has never heard of Chris Rawson. It was sent to him at his Government e-mail address. He confessed great surprise.

Much as I would like to let everyone know their name, I can't at present....The sponsors want to make a formal announcement of their intentions with the media...in attendance to maximise publicity.....the cost of the kits (valued at around £1500 each)...made available to many instructors (over 100, I think)...have been borne by sponsors....They have cost the Association nothing.
February 15, 2005: e-mail to Peter & Rita Tomlin.

Further to our recent telephone conversations, I am pleased to enclose Credit Memos in respect of the two outstanding invoices, one in the name of NACLCC Ltd and the other in the name of NRCC.
The issue of these two credit memos means that NACLCC Ltd nor NRCC have any payments outstanding to the Association.
May 27, 2005: letter to Barrie Stuart-King, NACLCC. Sent to 9 Tudor House, Heath Road, Weybridge.

Turning now to invoice 0304/87 dated 26 October 2004. I actually prepared the invoice originally on 31 October 2004. There followed considerable debate - both by e-mail (copies can be provided) and by telephone about it. There were several aspects to the discussion:-

1. Should the invoice be issued?
2. Should the invoice be included in the final accounts for the year ending 31 October 2004?
3. Should it be backdated a little?

This discussion ran on for several days before conclusions were reached. Yes, it should be issued as everybody felt that payment was imminent. Yes, it should be included in the Final Accounts for the same reason. Yes, for purely presentational reasons it should be backdated to 26 October 2004.............
The Final Accounts for the year ending 31 October 2004 have now been formally approved by a majority vote at the recent AGM. Consequently they should not now be open to further question or scrutiny. Why does the Association bother to have the accounts formally accepted at the AGM? If the accounts were demonstrably incorrect, the members at the AGM ought not to have approved them. (!!!)
May 28, 2005: From a statement to General Council by Chris Rawson, Elected Councillor / Assistant Treasurer (Accounts).
(Forgive us for asking but, if you had already prepared the invoice on 31st October, why did you send an e-mail to BS-K on the 3rd November saying that there was a deficit of £51,500 when the invoice transformed that into a surplus?
If you were all in discussion about it at that time, you would not have needed to send that e-mail, surely?
And does it not contradict what you told Keir Hopley just three months earlier?)