Revelations

[WEMBLEY OF THE NORTH]

In days gone by they would have been sent down..........

 

 

 

 

down under, to Australia

 

 

Not saying our aussie friend from Perth arrived there in those circumstances.

 

I wouldn't wish them on Australia, now Winson Green, Strangeways, Stafford, Parkhurst, well that's another matter:ohmy:

[KEV.WILLIE]

IMO he his just as guilty in all this KEV.

 

Exactly, he seems to be Teflon in all that goes on at Vale!

[billbee33]

When I went up there on Monday Oliver made a point of telling me that he and others have been doing something constructive for the club.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

Melv; did you miss hear him, did he say doing something destuctive for the club, and not constructive.

[Burslem Academicals]

Always said Perry Deakin was a temporary CEO....

 

So Bluesky was to invest over 24.9% and get three Directors which is against the clubs articles....therefore the Board is illegal.

Couple of points...firstly Mo and Mark have seperate fortunes and are not a consortium but two individuals wanting to invest 24.9% which was within the clubs rules.....secondly all of the deals entered into to asset strip future revenue streams must now be void as the Board was not legal.....and finally to decieve for financial gain is called fraud in usual business practice.

Not just Deakin,Miller,Oliver and Lloyd are involved in this but also

Lodey and also as Directors Bratt and Adams.

[Warren]

“A statement by the Chief Executive that he has invested in the club and purchased £100k of shares inevitably has a very significant influence on the decision making of other shareholders and the club's other stakeholders. It is a lot of money in a personal context and indicates, as someone with an intimate knowledge of the business, confidence in the future of that business and new investment. I think therefore the fact this has all turned out to be untrue is quite unbelievable because it was inevitable the pack of cards would fall down and all would be revealed, so why mislead or show ill judgement at best.

 

I think what has happened ticks every box under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 (Fraud by False Representation) and shareholders should complain far and wide to seek redress, disqualify from office and hold to account.

 

2 Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a

representation as to the state of mind of—

(a) the person making the representation, or

(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it

(or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device

designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without

human intervention).

[WEMBLEY OF THE NORTH]

“A statement by the Chief Executive that he has invested in the club and purchased £100k of shares inevitably has a very significant influence on the decision making of other shareholders and the club's other stakeholders. It is a lot of money in a personal context and indicates, as someone with an intimate knowledge of the business, confidence in the future of that business and new investment. I think therefore the fact this has all turned out to be untrue is quite unbelievable because it was inevitable the pack of cards would fall down and all would be revealed, so why mislead or show ill judgement at best.

 

I think what has happened ticks every box under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 (Fraud by False Representation) and shareholders should complain far and wide to seek redress, disqualify from office and hold to account.

 

2 Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a

representation as to the state of mind of—

(a) the person making the representation, or

(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it

(or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device

designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without

human intervention).

 

See you in court lads.

[Mellor!]

“A statement by the Chief Executive that he has invested in the club and purchased £100k of shares inevitably has a very significant influence on the decision making of other shareholders and the club's other stakeholders. It is a lot of money in a personal context and indicates, as someone with an intimate knowledge of the business, confidence in the future of that business and new investment. I think therefore the fact this has all turned out to be untrue is quite unbelievable because it was inevitable the pack of cards would fall down and all would be revealed, so why mislead or show ill judgement at best.

 

I think what has happened ticks every box under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 (Fraud by False Representation) and shareholders should complain far and wide to seek redress, disqualify from office and hold to account.

 

2 Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a

representation as to the state of mind of—

(a) the person making the representation, or

(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it

(or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device

designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without

human intervention).

 

Could it be made a police matter?

[Burslem Academicals]

If this is a Police matter for the fraud squad then they will want to interview the lot....not just Deakin and Miller along with Hank Julicher but also Lloyd,Oliver,Adams and Bratt not to forget Lodey the club secretary and the clubs solicitors.

[smada]

If this is a Police matter for the fraud squad then they will want to interview the lot....not just Deakin and Miller along with Hank Julicher but also Lloyd,Oliver,Adams and Bratt not to forget Lodey the club secretary and the clubs solicitors.

 

And surely thay must asll be removed from post with immediate effect (on full pay and conditions until a court case is held).

 

In the meantime an interim Board would have to be put in place to run the business.

[Warren]

Could it be made a police matter?

 

In my view yes. The offence is complete at the 'intends' stage. The shareholders have suffered loss because they have a smaller holding and a lower proportion of the asset base. They are also annoyed that the Chairman is taking a large salary and that seems to be the purpose of his election - self interest. If other rules have been broken in the constitution of the club or under the Companies Act etc, then that adds force to the argument that fraud has occurred.

 

A complaint to the police should lead to them considering an investigation. Another possible interested set of criminal investigators could be the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills Company Investigators if there are irregularities under the Companies Act 2006.

[zaza123]

In my view yes. The offence is complete at the 'intends' stage. The shareholders have suffered loss because they have a smaller holding and a lower proportion of the asset base. They are also annoyed that the Chairman is taking a large salary and that seems to be the purpose of his election - self interest. If other rules have been broken in the constitution of the club or under the Companies Act etc, then that adds force to the argument that fraud has occurred.

 

Is that an offence that could simply be reported to the police so that they would be duty bound to investigate without the complainer having to shell out legal costs up front?

[Warren]

If this is a Police matter for the fraud squad then they will want to interview the lot....not just Deakin and Miller along with Hank Julicher but also Lloyd,Oliver,Adams and Bratt not to forget Lodey the club secretary and the clubs solicitors.

 

Behind all this must lie conspiracy and an investigation needs to identify all the parties involved. I'm not sure where common law offences stand following the introduction of the Fraud Act but there are / used to be offences of conspiracy and also of misuse of office. That is before we start looking at neglect of duty type issues which might also attract sanction.

 

I think we need to stay focused on the main culprits though. What people should understand is that most of the big corporate frauds have occurred as a result of the actions of two groups of people mainly - the Chief Executive and the Director of Finance. I know that isn't quite so here, but the issue is these people have the authority to bully those below them in to doing things that run against normal controls - they override them. So the little people below can be looked upon sometimes as victims. But this is for an investigation to bring out.

 

Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 if the solicitors have found something unlwaful being done they will have submitted a suspicious activity report to the Serious and Organised Crime Agency under S330 of the Act and not told anyone because of the tipping off offence at S333A.

[Vale]

can I just say there is a very clear plan, all is in hand and can I ask that you leave it all to the SC legal team to advance at their own pace.

 

I and a small group of others are aware of that plan and we have full confidence in it and that is all that should be said on all the legal aspects right now

 

I do hope everyone understands

[Warren]

Is that an offence that could simply be reported to the police so that they would be duty bound to investigate without the complainer having to shell out legal costs up front?

 

Anyone can make a complaint to the police at no cost. The best people to do so are those with a clear financial interest - shareholders. But there are community interests here and say the whole supporters club could complain.

 

The police assess complaints they receive to determine whether they should investigate. One aspect of that is the credibility of the information received showing an offence has been committed. Another aspect is the credibility of the person making an allegation. Clearly the thing to do with a complaint to the Police is to provide them with a clear perspective that an investigation would be likely to result in charges and a successful prosecution. Like all organisations they have limited resources and have to deploy them sensibly.

 

In my opinion I have seen and heard more than enough here for a complaint to the police to be justified. The post above about the SC legal team is a good point. Credibility and knowledge are important here in taking this forward.

[Howjy04]

can I just say there is a very clear plan, all is in hand and can I ask that you leave it all to the SC legal team to advance at their own pace.

 

I and a small group of others are aware of that plan and we have full confidence in it and that is all that should be said on all the legal aspects right now

 

I do hope everyone understands

 

Good man ,thank you.