buster. 5,199 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, Gaffer said: If a Dundee official has been offered anything like this to change their vote, it is BRIBERY. As far as I'm aware, bribery has been a criminal offence since 2010. Equally, organisations can be held criminally liable if they do not do what they can to prevent bribery. If this all turns out to be true, I'd like to see criminal cases coming up. Dundee, the SPFL, and the other clubs involved in any bribery should be up on charges against if evidence exists of this. To have something that will stick against the Teflon CEO (lawyer), the overweight lawyer and the organ grinder is asking a lot. That lot will not leave many submissible tracks. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc 280 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 4 minutes ago, buster. said: To have something that will stick against the Teflon CEO (lawyer), the overweight lawyer and the organ grinder is asking a lot. That lot will not leave many submissible tracks. In normal times when things could be done face to face between individuals with no record kept, I would agree with you Buster. But if this was all done via remote electronic meetings, emails and whatsapp then it's possibly to track it and verify who said what to whom and when it was said to establish the exact timeline. There are too many threads in too many places for just the SPFL to cover up. Somehow there has to be a push for an independent investigation and if that means the police coming in an seizing evidence while that investigation goes on then I'm all for it. If the SPFL really have nothing to hide ? then they would be open to scrutiny. We all know they have plenty to hide here. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,199 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 1 minute ago, Doc said: In normal times when things could be done face to face between individuals with no record kept, I would agree with you Buster. But if this was all done via remote electronic meetings, emails and whatsapp then it's possibly to track it and verify who said what to whom and when it was said to establish the exact timeline. There are too many threads in too many places for just the SPFL to cover up. Somehow there has to be a push for an independent investigation and if that means the police coming in an seizing evidence while that investigation goes on then I'm all for it. If the SPFL really have nothing to hide ? then they would be open to scrutiny. We all know they have plenty to hide here. Cyber champagne is on me if we really do have a submissible smoking gun big enough to win this battle. It´d make a nice change ! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,747 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Bribery springs to mind ... Failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery Section 7 creates the "broad and innovatory offence" of the failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery on their behalf. This applies to all commercial organisations which have business in the UK. Unlike corporate manslaughter, this does not only apply to the organisation itself; individuals and employees may also be found guilty.[21] The offence is one of strict liability, with no need to prove any kind of intention or positive action.[22] It is also one of vicarious liability; a commercial organisation can be guilty of the offence if the bribery is carried out by an employee, an agent, a subsidiary, or another third-party, as found in Section 8. The location of the third-party is irrelevant to the prosecution— according to David Aaronberg and Nichola Higgins in the Archbold Review, "therefore, a German business with retail outlets in the UK which pays a bribe in Spain could, in theory at least, face prosecution in the UK". Under Section 7(2), the commercial organisation has a defence if it can show that, while bribery did take place, the commercial organisation had in place "adequate procedures designed to prevent persons associated with [the organisation] from undertaking such conduct". Under the Act's explanatory notes, the burden of proof in this situation is on the organisation, with the standard of proof being "on the balance of probabilities".[23] Guidance was published by the Secretary of State three months before the Act came into force. The Guidance sets out 6 principles to be followed by business. They cover such topics as Proportionate Procedures, Top-level Commitment, Risk Assessment, Due Diligence, Communication (including training) and Monitoring & Review. The one firm conclusion to be drawn from the Guidance is that every commercial organisation that might be subject to the rigours of the Act needs to have a code of conduct in place that appropriately reflects the Guidance and to ensure its personnel are fully conversant with the risks and adequately trained. If it is then charged with the offence of failing to prevent bribery, it would be able to show evidence of the ‘adequate procedures’ which it will need in order to defend itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery_Act_2010#Failure_of_commercial_organisations_to_prevent_bribery But bigger legal brains than mine are required. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,627 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 I hope that we're getting decent legal advice on this and not relying on James Blair. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,747 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 8 minutes ago, Bluedell said: I hope that we're getting decent legal advice on this and not relying on James Blair. You would hope that Lady Hearts is on it too, with her legal team. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,724 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Bluedell said: I hope that we're getting decent legal advice on this and not relying on James Blair. My biggest fear! we don't have a great record with this guy!. I'm sure the no voters will pull together?. Edited April 14, 2020 by ian1964 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,199 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, ian1964 said: My biggest fear! we don't have a great record with this guy!. Over a long period, too much of the legal and PR advice has been amateur hour stuff and it has had a debilitating effect on the club. I don´t refer to the current situation. Let´s see what happens............ Edited April 14, 2020 by buster. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,948 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Below is the Dhaily Rhabble story. I assume that its lawyers have been over this with a nit comb, although, on the face of it, the biggest nit is Nelms. A sellik schlemiel. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/deals-dundee-chief-jon-nelms-21861369 Dundee chief John Nelms attempted to offer rival clubs sweetheart deals after his SPFL voting U-turn. Record Sport has seen an email sent by one leading SPFL chief executive to another, outlining the controversial dealings of the Dens powerbroker over the weekend. It includes details of a plan by Nelms to cut prize money to rival clubs, including neighbours Dundee United, and distribute it to sides facing the drop from League One and the Championship. Nelms also dangles the carrot of friendlies against top-flight clubs – and claims he has already arranged a match against one of the “big hitters”. Dundee secretary Eric Drysdale sent his club’s ‘no’ vote to the SPFL offices shortly before 5pm on Friday but league bosses insist it didn’t arrive until later in the evening. In the meantime, Nelms was alerted by the SPFL and told them not to consider his club’s vote cast. It would have led to the defeat of a resolution to call time on the season and distribute prize money to clubs. Nelms contacted another SPFL chief executive by telephone the following day, Saturday, and outlined the pressures he was put under the night before when it became clear his vote was still up for grabs. Nelms said he had already been contacted by “five teams [who] were quite vociferous around approving the resolution”. The SPFL club chief executive claims Nelms told him he was trying to broker a deal that would see prize money to promoted clubs Dundee United and Raith Rovers cut and offered to relegated outfits, particularly Partick Thistle and Stranraer. The email, sent on Saturday evening, added that Nelms appeared to be trying to “negotiate percentages of league fees from teams that may be promoted... to offer to relegated clubs”. Nelms also appeared to offer the chance to play lucrative pre-season friendlies with top-flight clubs and even claimed one had already agreed to a match at Dens when football starts again. The chief executive’s email added: “Also pre-season friendlies with ‘big hitters’ then added that one top-flight outfit 'were coming to him [Nelms] this year.’” Nelms did not respond to a request for comment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,948 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 As an addendum to the above, was Eric Drysdale of DFC previously involved with Raith Rovers, along with that loud mouthed hick town solicitor with two surnames, Hunter Gatherer, or somesuch? No friend to Rangers, then, and I doubt whether he has shed that coat, now. 0 Quote Link to post 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.