swc123 Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Anyone who wants to see just how qualified (or not as the case may be) our new chief exec is they only have to apply to companies house for the audited accounts of his former company.Not quite the high flyer that was bandied about by Clueless and Miller. What exactly will the annual accounts show me that can indicate that Mr Clark is not qualified for this role? I may be being naive but I thought that all they would show me were the financial returns for one particular company Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 his company failed to supply the last lot of account or had done up to the time he was appointed. see i was not being mean others are starting to notice the same thing. but is he coming back or should he go that is the question. to be or not to be that is the question or any other misquoted Shakespeare that you can think of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeplanter Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 What exactly will the annual accounts show me that can indicate that Mr Clark is not qualified for this role? I may be being naive but I thought that all they would show me were the financial returns for one particular company In summary: This publically available informations shows that as at 31 March 2008 the company had a net worth £3,444. The company owed third party creditors £49,628. Mr Clark owed the company £40,701. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 get onto the present should he stay or should he go. a company with a net worth of 3k does not match with his claimed multi million pound contracts. how can he owe the company 40k when his company owes 49. either he is a bit of a fibber or there is some thing wrong with his buissness. i hope he has repaid the 40k so that the company creditors could get there money. but this arguement matters nothing now. its wether he can form a positive working relationship with the council and his staff. if he can't set plans for doing so then it should be bye bye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 In summary: This publically available informations shows that as at 31 March 2008 the company had a net worth £3,444. The company owed third party creditors £49,628. Mr Clark owed the company £40,701. It would seem from the accounts that Mr Clark has drawn near enough every penny he can from the company, regardless of whether there are profits to cover it, possibly to the detriment of the people to whom it owes money. It is not unusual for company directors to use their company money for their personal expenditure but this example seems very reckless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 It shows that his buisness accumen is less than brilliant.It shows a willingness to spend other folks money on himself.It shows he is not the man we were led to believe when he was appointed.It also means that if the council were missled he can be sacked without recourse, but if the council were aware of his dismal performance as a company director then we should sack them without further delay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 i like point 4. the cheaper the better. mr clarks friend did he ever claim to be a member of rics. my father in law was a member and i thought it was normal for a person to be a member of their professional body. if he was not then his mate needs looking at too. was he also a partner of the firm mr clark was. if so any number crunching would need to be done again. by an independent consultant. but who thinks they can make up and play nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Any news from the meeting today? I can not see it saying anything else except what the police had to say, that it can not be proven as one persons word against another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penfold Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2009/10/14/clark-poised-for-return-to-work-as-councillors-throw-out-wills-complaint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MitzyMu Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Well there we go what a surprise !!!!! Mr Clarke appears to have used one of his nine lives and got away with his alleged behavior. However one thing we need to irradicate at all levels in the council members and employees is "bully boys" (I have personal experience of this) and lack of total objectivity. I hope Mr Clarke learns from this and realises he lives in a goldfish bowl culture in Shetland. His every move will now be watched, not something he thought of probabley when he came up here. And not a good start to his time with the SIC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 ^^ He should have known what to expect, he wasn't exactly still in nappies last he left here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlady Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 And they all lived happily ever after ....... till the next time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomblands Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Well there we go what a surprise !!!!! Mr Clarke appears to have used one of his nine lives and got away with his alleged behavior. I don't think you can "get away" with anything "alleged". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 And they all lived happily ever after ....... For a few seconds, according to the Shetland Times report.Shetland Times report.[ Yet another example of Wills inability to perform his duties. Surely even those with the most rose tinted views will see through it all this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moorit Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 The Shetland times says., After deliberating for 80 minutes, the nine councillors present dismissed the complaint having decided to accept the panel’s recommendation that there was insufficient evidence. Dose this not imply he is guilty but there was just not enough evadence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.