So... we not only have the problem of potential loss of confidence in the integrity of DK if the mud sticks re the SO collapse / possible fraud... but we also have a possible claim on some of the money invested in the Albion by KG... is that a fair summary?... if so, then this is a nightmare...
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Dick Knight betting scam on front page of Argus...........
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
I said all this on Monday and making glib statements such as Dick Knight made on Tuesday will not instill confidence.
A statement from the club telling us exactly what Kevin Griffiths shareholding and loans to the club are would be a start.
A statement from the club telling us exactly what Kevin Griffiths shareholding and loans to the club are would be a start.
The Auditor
New member
b.w.2. said:
If there is a case to answer for KG - it is possible all his assets will be valued and become property of the investigation administration to make up any shortfall
The Large One
Who's Next?
It ought to be be listed in the most recently published club accounts...Ernest said:
As you've never had confidence in Dick Knight anyway Ernest, and refuse to do so, this episode is hardly going to affect your views. So what are you moaning about? Your sanctimonious head-shaking every time Dick Knight or Martin Perry spoke at the recent fans' forum did have a few people around you giggling into their hands like errant schoolchildren. It was quite funny.
The Auditor
New member
The Large One said:It ought to be be listed in the most recently published club accounts...
As you've never had confidence in Dick Knight anyway Ernest, and refuse to do so, this episode is hardly going to affect your views. So what are you moaning about? Your sanctimonious head-shaking every time Dick Knight or Martin Perry spoke at the recent fans' forum did have a few people around you giggling into their hands like errant schoolchildren. It was quite funny.
Last filed account 30 April 2003 ...not sure when KG got his shares ... next accounts dont need filing until end of Feb 2005. If abbreviated accounts have been filed they give little information (thats their purpose..comply with the law but give little away)
London Irish
Well-known member
EXCHANGE PUNTERS OFFERED SECOND DEAL
By PA Sport Staff
A second rescue package for customers of Sporting Options has been put forward by betting exchange iBetX.
Sporting Options went into administration at the beginning of the week and Betfair were quick to put forward an offer which would mean most punters regaining their money.
iBetX are now offering their own deal as the exchanges vie to attract Sporting Options punters.
All customers of the failed exchange, on opening an account with iBetX, will receive a minimum of £1,500 credited to their account, or up to 25% of their total account balance, whichever is the lowest.
Customers can receive the remainder of the money through commission-sharing with iBetX.
By PA Sport Staff
A second rescue package for customers of Sporting Options has been put forward by betting exchange iBetX.
Sporting Options went into administration at the beginning of the week and Betfair were quick to put forward an offer which would mean most punters regaining their money.
iBetX are now offering their own deal as the exchanges vie to attract Sporting Options punters.
All customers of the failed exchange, on opening an account with iBetX, will receive a minimum of £1,500 credited to their account, or up to 25% of their total account balance, whichever is the lowest.
Customers can receive the remainder of the money through commission-sharing with iBetX.
BensGrandad
New member
London Irish said:
Much as I appreciate the fact that some of the clients will be re-imbursed to cover some of their losses it still does not negate the fact that money went missing during a given period
If I had a barmaid who nicked £100 out of the till on Monday and I called in the police the fact that her husband gave me the money back on Friday would not stop her being prosecuted. This is not to even suggest that DK knew of the disppearance of the money it is just an example of the principles.
dougdeep
New member
BensGrandad said:
Let's wait until we know some facts, before we start comparing hypotheticals shall we.
To pick up on KGs assets being taken if a fraud is proven - yes his shareholding in BHA will probably be included, but not devalued. Any investigators wouldnt involve themselves in mudslinging, so there would be no effect on us. The only risk is a reputational one, and while minimal, people will play on it.
To give a hypothetical - instead of getting beaten senseless by this, we should instead walk away with an uncomfortable headache.
To give a hypothetical - instead of getting beaten senseless by this, we should instead walk away with an uncomfortable headache.
Last edited:
BensGrandad
New member
dougdeep said:
I accept what you are saying but it appears that the view on here by some is that it will make no difference to us as DK was a non executive director and received no payment for his services and to add to this the fact that people are to be re-imbersed so that there would be no financial loss and I was merely trying to point out that the police or any other authority will use the maxim that the fact that the money has been made up uis not a defence.
I would agree it is very much a case of 'suck it and see'.
BensGrandad said:
Fair enough - it does seem like there is a case to answer, and that will be the case regardless of rescue packages (which are great PR for the companies offering them).
My point is that BHA and SO are very seperate - any links between them are legitimate, innocent and therefore the club is OK.
The only potential nastiness here is if KG had given the club a loan, and it was found to be funded by the clients monies at SO. Again, this would be easy to spot, a pain in the arse to sort out, and unbelievably stupid. Again the club would not be at fault as the deal would have been made in good faith.
PS - i dont know if there is a loan. Its just been hinted at previously.
aftershavedave
Well-known member
Faldo said:
compare this:
i am a director of a business.
in law i have responsibilities as a director.
my company goes tits up.
i say "nothing to do with me, i was only a figurehead"
lthe law says it doesn't matter what responsibility you absolved yourself from, as a director, you are de facto responsible
so it doesn't matter what you think your responsibilites are, it's what the law says they are.
aftershavedave
Well-known member
Faldo said:
a chairman is chairman of the board of directors, and therefore must also be a director. whether exec or non-exec is of no consequence
Faldo said:
I don't see that. There is no legal standing as "non-executive" Director, every Director has the same fiducery duties, the term "non-executive" tends to apply to those Directors who have no executive management role within the business on a day-to-day basis. As the Chairman of a company is the head of a Board of Directors, it is very difficult to argue that you had no involvement with the business.
Anyway, it has already been established that he was a Director of the Company and resigned the position some weeks ago. The fact that he has recently resigned does not absolve him of responsibility for any wrong doing during his time in office. It could suggest that he knew or became aware of wrong doing within the business and decided to get out before the sh*t hit the fan.
It would seem that there is some way for this matter to run, and given the high profile of betting at the moment, it is unlikely to be allowed to be brushed under the carpet. What ever way you look at things, it is not good for the club to have a Chairman who is associated with this matter. Even if his only error was that of bad judgement and allowing himself to be "figurehead" of a company that he was not certain was legitimate.