Dick Knight betting scam on front page of Argus...........

[London Irish]

unlike you bog irish

Well done - you keep the level of this discussion at the level you are comfortable with

All the other points you raise have been answered countless times. FFS when an original thought pops into your head, let us know, until then take a leaf out of Ernest's book and PUT UP OR SHUT UP ON THE DICK KNIGHT SMEARS.

 

[London Irish]

Having read that post from the Croner website, reading between the lines, I think it's saying if Dick knew there was a problem and did nothing, he's got a case to answer.

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

The most important word for any smear merchant.

or as Liam Brady put it: "If my granny had balls, she'd be my grandad". Canvey Island v Brighton HA, 12/11/95.

Thank you, Liam.

AS LI said, non-execs haven't really been punished over the years for mistakes but again reading between the lines, I think things are beginning to change in that respect.

No. The author is putting forward a lively argument about how the balance of responsibilties SHOULD change - it's a well-argued piece but utterly theoretical and pointless for our present discussion. The piece is somewhat dated because the key principles now embraced by companies are contained in Derek Higgs' Combined Code of Corporate Governance, which has now become the standard guidance for the modern behaviour of companies. It states clearly the view of the responsibilities of non-execs and that's the reason why I highlighted it in my earlier reply to smear merchant 3Gulls.

 

[timbha]

interesting intellectual debate (in parts). I doubt that the (SO) parties involved have even heard of Higgs, let alone worry about his guidance on corporate governance, which is guidance to listed companies and adopted by most well run organisations. Would SO be considered to be a well run organisation?

Just to correct a point made by LI - auditors (internal and external) cannot be expected to detect fraud. If during their investigations they discover a fraud they are obliged to investigate and report. However, it is not in their remit to actually detect fraud - imagine the law suits that would be floating around post Maxwell, Polly Peck, BCCI, etc, etc - although their work programme should be designed to reasonably detect fraud (ie if it was systemmic, widespread, etc) but not a one off fraud, or where for eg directors deliberately collude/set out to fleece the clients.

Non execs are just as culpable as execs - not knowing is not an excuse although the level of accountability will depend on what a reasonable non exec could reasonably be expected to know.

Bottom line is, SO is alleged to have used its clients' money for the wrong reasons. This is against the law

 

[London Irish]

Just to correct a point made by LI - auditors (internal and external) cannot be expected to detect fraud. If during their investigations they discover a fraud they are obliged to investigate and report. However, it is not in their remit to actually detect fraud

Erm........thanks. I think the language I used was to "check if there was any funny business", which I fully accept, now that you've gone to the bother of correcting me, is not the accurate legal terminology Establishing that the accounts represent a "true and fair" representation is I think the correct language in defining the job of the auditor. Can we locate the relevance of these definitions because I fear we are wandering from the point. Auditors will easily spot if there is a large amount of money missing from one account which should be in another. A non-executive reviewing company strategy at a board meeting will not. That's the original point I was making, although it was a long time ago now!

interesting intellectual debate (in parts). I doubt that the (SO) parties involved have even heard of Higgs, let alone worry about his guidance on corporate governance, which is guidance to listed companies and adopted by most well run organisations.

Again, you're doing me the immense favour here of isolating my comments on Higgs from the context I raised them. Yes, I agree that Higgs is mandatory only for listed companies, but it does establish best-practice principles for the functioning of all non-executives. My point was not that Higgs applies rigidly to SO as you seem to think I said, instead, I raised Higgs in the context of answering the theoretical question posed by SussexHoop over whether there was modern pressure to turn the non-executive from a watchdog to a bloodhound. Now again, we are in danger of wandering from the point, so let me bring it right back. The quote from Higgs I used was relevant to the situation that Dick Knight found himself in reviewing the progress of SO at board meetings, and it's worth repeating one more time: 'The board should be supplied in a timely manner with information in a form and of a quality appropriate to enable it to discharge its duties."

(Afters, I wasn't implying that unlisted companies held seperate boardroom meetings - I was merely querying the likelihood of fraudulent activity being part of a board's discussions - ie. not at all likely, is it?)

not knowing is not an excuse although the level of accountability will depend on what a reasonable non exec could reasonably be expected to know.

This really is the relevant part of your post, timbha, and although your formulation here is a little convoluted, I understand and agree with the point you are making.

But my challenge to you is this - and it's the crux of this entire matter. Unless you have any evidence that Dick Knight was in possession of any knowledge that would have "reasonably" led him to suspect fraud and then do nothing about it, I suggest you stop implying that it is legitimate to debate whether he possibly colloborated at whatever level with a fraud.

Such a debate is a disgrace to this messageboard and will only be indulged in by people who care little about casually smearing a man's reputation with zero evidence at hand.

 

[The Auditor]

[

But my challenge to you is this - and it's the crux of this entire matter. Unless you have any evidence that Dick Knight was in possession of any knowledge that would have "reasonably" led him to suspect fraud and then do nothing about it, I suggest you stop implying that it is legitimate to debate whether he possibly colloborated at whatever level with a fraud.

Such a debate is a disgrace to this messageboard and will only be indulged in by people who care little about casually smearing a man's reputation with zero evidence at hand. [/B]

Thats right but.....free speech and your personal view of DK will make "stories" like this run and run.

The matter is not easily resolved and the speculation will continue until the investigation is complete and the findings disclosed.
As I've said before DK is innocent until proved guilty but that wont stop the mud slinging

 

[BensGrandad]

In every walk of life there are always the people who adopt the attitude of, rightly or wrongly, 'there is no smoke without fire' and as said by The Auditor on here this will prevail until an investigation has been carried out and conconcluded.

I hope for the clubs sake that DK is exonerated from any blame and proved to be completely innocent.

 

[The Auditor]

IN Fridays Argus Martin P says that most of the directors loans were converted into shares some time ago .....so no direct call on funds held in the albion although Mr Griffiths shares may be claimed by the adminstrator/liquidator of SO.

 

[b.w.2.]

Despite LI's reservations and usual rudeness to anyone who has an opposing view, I think this thread has teased-out some interesting points... I agree that DK is innocent until proven guilty, and very much hope that he will have his name cleared... however, all the while that this saga drags on, and my educated guess is that it will drag on for years, there is a risk that potential investors in our club will be put off by his association with a failed and potentially fraudulent operation...

And I am still concerned that we may lose some or all of Mr Griffiths money...

Bad news, no matter how much the rose-tinted-spectacle-wearing brigade may chose to dress it up...