HOME PAGE | FACTFILES | QUOTES | COMMENT FORM |

What was said, who said it, and what the Report of the Pearson Comiittee found - with relevant paragraph numbers. Plus one or two comments from others.

AGM Minute 2. "Referring to the unedifying mass e-mailing which had preceded the AGM, the Chairman said it has done considerable damage to the reputation of the Association."

5.7.1. BSK has suggested that the Ace sponsorship was jeopardised by an e-mail campaign in late January 2005.
a) Whilst we have seen some of these defamatory e-mails, we have been shown no evidence to support this allegation of intereference.

As it happens we would query the word 'defamatory' but we will let that go. We would love to be shown some evidence, though. Sadly, we never seem to get shown any proof.

AGM Minute 17. "With regard to paragraph 23, the Chairman spoke of the introduction of laptop computers and digital projectors for training and examination. He apologised for delays which had occurred, but advised members that the most recent roll-out, which was to have taken place earlier that month, had been cancelled when the sponsor had pulled out after receiving copies of some of the mass e-mails to which he had referred earlier."

5.7.1. BSK has suggested that the Ace sponsorship etc.............(see above)

Further, 5.4.7 says that "the Finance Board were not informed of the name of the sponsor until 8th March 2005."
How were we supposed to have known it in January? Show us proof.

AGM Minute 26. "Replying to a question by Mr C Puckett, the General Secretary confirmed that there was no debt on the Association relating to the payment of laptops and computers, and no agreements had been entered into which could leave the Association exposed to serious debt in the event that sponsorship failed to materialise."

Mr Puckett had arrived at the meeting with a copy of a letter dated 10.2.2005 from ING, relating to Agreement number 10197332-2, and an overdue rental payment of £3,015.34, threatening court proceedings and repossession. Refer also to 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8 in the Pearson Report.

AGM Minute 27. There being no further questions, the Chairman reported that the sponsor of the laptops and projectors, which was, fortunately, still in the frame, had declined to support the supply of the final 30 units because somebody had sent the company a set of the e-mails that had been flying around.......

5.4.7 and 5.7.1. Again.

Show us the proof. The ex-chairman's word is just not good enough on its own. After all, they must have proof or they would not keep on about it. Would they?

.........He reiterated that in respect of the laptops and projectors the Association had no liability...............

Again, see paragraphs 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8. And 5.4.4. is worth reading, too.

.........explaining that when the deal had originally been set up the laptops and projectors would be supplied, the Association would be the beneficiary and the sponsor would pay direct. Following a subsequent VAT inspection the Association had faced being categorised as 'partially exempt', so the arrangement had been changed to the Association paying and then invoicing the sponsor for that amount plus VAT.....

In an e-mail on 12.12.2005 which went to Colin Pearson, amongst others, Colin Edwards said "At the Institute roadshow in York, Barrie apologised for the lack of laptops and projectors in the North East, North West and Scotland regions. We are even now waiting for them to arrive. This was, he said, due to an impending VAT inspection and the fact that the Association did not want the VAT man to see the equipment going through the books."
However, in an e-mail on 15.2.2005 to Peter Tomlin, Assistant Treasurer Chris Rawson said, "I should, perhaps, also have pointed out that the cost of the kits (valued at around £1500 each) of PC projectors and laptops that have been made available to many Instructors (over 100, I think) around the country have been borne by sponsors. Unfortunately, this direct sponsorship will not be reflected in the Association's accounts." We suppose one of these stories must have been right. Except, of course, that we did not actually have a sponsor. Oh, well.

.............the arrangement had since reverted back to the original, whereby the sponsor would pay the supplier direct and the Association would be the net beneficiary. To that end, the Association had received a set of final settlement figures from those companies which it had been invoicing and so was out of that loop and back to the Post Office loop.........

Had it not all been used up earlier?
On Saturday 23.3.2002, at the AGM, Mr Keith Smith said in Minute 13, "the most significant thing during the Association's past year had been sponsorship, most significantly that from the Post Office. Although not reflected in the Association's accounts as hard cash, by March 2003 the Post Office would have invested £200,000 in the Association's activities."
The message from the Chairman in the Annual Report for 2001/2 referred to developments over the past two years "thanks solely to the generous £200,000 sponsorship we received from the Post Office."
Why was there no announcement of a new deal with them?

AGM Minutes 30 ii, iii, iv and xi. Headquarters Administration up by 87.16% at £17,097; Regional Administration increased by 36.55% to £8,473; General Administration costs increased by 21.31% to £34,039; Training income down by 19.53% at 33,808 but expenditure up by 142% at £43,302.

An e-mail to the Finance team on 12.12.2004 from Stuart-King ended with, "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." (!!!)

AGM Minute 30, xii. There was a surplus for the year of £40,730 compared with the deficit of £6,614 the previous year.
"Report of the Auditors to the Members of The Association of Cricket Umpires & Scorers, 31st January 2006.

The Association sustained a deficit of £76,936 in the year ended 31st October 2005. the sponsorship of £100,000 from the National Association of Clubs and Leagues Cricket Conferences Limited during the year ended 31st October 2004 did not materialise. The adjusted results for the year ended 31st October 2004 would have been:-

Just what we were trying to get through to the auditors and last year' AGM in March 2005!

AGM Minute 36. The Treasurer opined that unless anyone had been personally involved in negotiating high-level, long-term funding - particularly sponsorship funding - they could have no idea of how difficult and how complex it was. He added that obtaining and retaining such levels of funding for an unincorporated, volunteer organisation such as ACU&S was doubly difficult, which was why the mutually-agreed commitment was set up.

The mutually-agreed what?

AGM Minute 37. Stating that officers would have liked to have launched the sponsorship in January or February - indeed, had understood it would be - or failing that at the AGM, the Treasurer said that was what the Chairman had been pushing hard for over the past few weeks. Following a conversation with the sponsors the previous day, officers were waiting for the contracts to be drawn up. Once contracts were received they would have to be reviewed and passed to the Association's lawyers.

Indeed. Busy day for the Chairman. Made redundant by CCC one minute and chatting to sponsors the next.

AGM Minute 38. Concluding his explanation as to the missing sponsorship, the Treasurer said the association did have a fallback position that could be activated in the highly unlikely event that it all went belly up.

Highly unlikely, indeed. That would be liquidating all the investments, then. ("Regettably it proved necessary to liquidate our equity investments during the year." Treasurer's Report 2004/5. Also, "Shortcomings in our financial control were identified." What a way with words he has, so he does).

AGM Minute 40. Mr P Ray, making it clear that he did not wish to imply negligence or anything else......

I admit it. I lied. I actually thought they were all guilty as charged.

AGM Minute 46. Referring to Post Office sponsorship, the Chairman said that had been a much more informal arrangement than the one about to be signed up to, which would be much more embracing; indeed, the contract would be about 22 pages. The previous day he had specifically asked the new sponsor whether this was a go or not? The reply had been an unequivocal 'yes'.................

But then the kissing (and embracing) had to stop. So sad.

AGM Minute 53. (The Chairman)..............The Association had not yet signed up to any quid pro quos. Concluding, he emphasised that if the agreement was not going to happen he and his colleagues would not be sitting in front of the members, adding that he had a very good team that was working with him, three of whom had seen the working documents of the negotiations.

Yet none of them has resigned apart from Stuart-King!

AGM Minute 90. Speaking as a representative of the East Surrey ACU&S, Mr P Turner referred to a wide circulation of e-mails which had accompanied the election for Chairman, initiated and continued by supporters of the challenger and which had been characterised on their side neither by logical argument nor passionate debate.......

We thought it had been. Ho, hum.

.............the most disgraceful episode that he and his colleagues had ever been fortunate enough to witness............

Should you get out more?

.............which..........amounted to behaviour unbecoming of the Association and which had brought the Association into disrepute.

Our mistake. We had thought it was presenting false accounts that had done that. Not to mention the failure to pay on time which resulted in threats to foreclose.

...........He concluded by offering his association's extreme thanks to Mr Stuart-King for all his hard work over the past three years.

No comment.

AGM Minute 96. Responding to the earlier comments by Mr Turner, Mr P Ray admitted he was part of the group that had been referred to but denied that he had put anything malicious in any e-mails he had sent. He had been disturbed by the Accounts and so had decided to communicate with one or two like-minded individuals in the Thames Region and one or two outside it. He had no idea how any sponsors could have got hold of any of the e-mails because he and his colleagues had not communicated with them, indeed did not know who they were.

And we have yet to see the smallest shred of evidence to the contrary. Where's the proof, Mr Turner? Mr Bastable? Mr Fielden? Mr Brandon? Mr Rawson? Mr Say? Mr Bennett? Mr Jones? Anybody?