New Stadium Details And Discussions

[MattyP]

I don't get how we are clearly in the wrong.

If I asked you to find someone for me and you took it upon yourself to this through hacking into bank records etc. It wouldn't be my fault. So by the same token if we have asked an accountancy firm to look into the accounts of West Ham and it's directors, we are not the ones accountable for how they go about it. This is nothing like the News of the World scandal, where the company themselves undertook those actions.

You can get away with that argument, a company cannot.

The Bribery Act came into effect this year and companies are responsible for ensuring adequate procedures are in place to prevent corrupt practices within their ranks or by third parties acting on their behalf.

Whilst the act only became effective from July this year, an individual was convicted today under the act and was sentenced to spend up to six years in prison, for "crimes" that spanned before the act became effective.

Companies face unlimited fines for breaches of the act and directors could get prison sentences.

 

[we_all_loved_freund]

And then litigation began, and we were.

What is your point and how is this wrong??

Do you expect somebody to defend themselves without being allowed to see the evidence against them? Strange argument...

from the submissions we have seen, we have said that we never asked PKR to obtain any evidence illegally; a position which is supported by PKR.

The position of ourselves and PKR is that the evidence was obtained without our knowledge or consent and we were not in possession of that evidence until these proceedings.

Unless there is a smoking gun to show that were are being disingenuous with regard to our position, there is little that anybody can say we have done wrong.

 

[worcestersauce]

The whole idea of the porn barons and their former centrefold protege holding the moral High ground seems feintly ridiculous.

 

[StartingPrice]

I don't want us to be in the wrong, but clearly we are—or at least, that's how it's going to be perceived by the wider public. I'm just amazed at the number of people shrugging this off as if it's absolutely nothing, particularly given the way the News International phone tapping scandal snowballed.

As said above, there is a country mile between obtaining the phone records of an innocent murdered school girl, on the one hand, and those of porn Baron football Guv'nors who are subverting a public body on the issue of a multi-million pound deal, involving public money, on the other.

The NI phone tapping scandal is what's making some people blow our involvement in this thing out of all proportion.

 

[spud]

You can get away with that argument, a company cannot.

The Bribery Act came into effect this year and companies are responsible for ensuring adequate procedures are in place to prevent corrupt practices within their ranks or by third parties acting on their behalf.

Wet Spam, the OPLC, Newham Council etc should be in a shit-load of trouble then.

 

[spud]

I don't want us to be in the wrong, but clearly we are—or at least, that's how it's going to be perceived by the wider public. I'm just amazed at the number of people shrugging this off as if it's absolutely nothing, particularly given the way the News International phone tapping scandal snowballed.

You might not want us to be in the wrong, but you clearly have an extreme dislike of Daniel Levy and are always prepared to assume the worst about him.

While I'm not a lawyer, I would imagine that the terms under which we employed PKF (and their specific instructions) are key here. The simple fact is that we don't know what they were. In the absence of that information, we are told - by both the club and PKF - that the club did not request this information and that it was only provided by PKF when Brady brought a civil action.

Personally, I couldn't give a flying fuck what the 'wider public' thinks; it will think what the red tops tell it to think. The fact is that - on the available information - Spurs have neither requested, nor benefitted from, a criminal act. No criminal activity. No loss of moral high ground.

That's good enough for me.

 

[SpurSince57]

What is your point and how is this wrong??

Do you expect somebody to defend themselves without being allowed to see the evidence against them? Strange argument...

No, but I do wonder why we should need to see the phone records themselves in order to present a defence.

from the submissions we have seen, we have said that we never asked PKR to obtain any evidence illegally; a position which is supported by PKR.

We're not going to say anything else, are we?

The position of ourselves and PKR is that the evidence was obtained without our knowledge or consent and we were not in possession of that evidence until these proceedings.

Matty's just saved me from pointing out that for PKF to claim that they didn't ask anyone to obtain the records is no longer a defence in law. There is no dispute that the records were obtained, and the only way they could have been obtained is illegally. By extension, we should have kept a better eye on PKF.

Unless there is a smoking gun to show that were are being disingenuous with regard to our position, there is little that anybody can say we have done wrong.

Which is what I posted myself a page or two back. Yes, it's highly unlikely that anyone will be able to prove we acted illegally, or that we incited anyone to act illegally on our behalf. A lot of people are going to be thinking, 'Yeah, sure Levy didn't know anything about it,' though.

 

[we_all_loved_freund]

Which is what I posted myself a page or two back. Yes, it's highly unlikely that anyone will be able to prove we acted illegally, or that we incited anyone to act illegally on our behalf. A lot of people are going to be thinking, 'Yeah, sure Levy didn't know anything about it,' though.

We probably didn't need to see the evidence, but of course you would inspect it!?! The question turned 180 degrees shows how inconsequential your point is; if we had have done the deed, why would we need to see the evidence after litigation has started? Your point is completely irrelevant; it is just normal litigation disclosure.

The Bribery Act is a very new piece of legislation; nobody really knows how it is going to be interpreted by the Courts (I doubt that it would in any way cover the present scenario). In any case, I doubt they will be relying upon the Bribery Act considering it is a Civil case.

People can think what they want, what does it matter? Some people probably still believe the Queen killed Diana; what does it matter? People will form opinions, no matter what evidence is presented.

 

[MattyP]

Wet Spam, the OPLC, Newham Council etc should be in a shit-load of trouble then.

No doubt they are, but I couldn't give a shit about any of them. I (and I'm sure everyone on here) do give a shit about Tottenham.

As for the Bribery Act, whilst I'll happily admit that it is new, no-one knows exactly how it will be applied and that I'm not a lawyer (though have had briefings from them), the possibility of unlimited fines does concern me, especially as it could (and I emphasise could) get extended to people working on behalf of Spurs.

 

[worcestersauce]

Why do people ask why do we need to see the records to mount a defence, it's a silly thing to say, the records are evidence being used against you so of course you should see them, not least because you don't know whats in them and there may be something that supports your case such as confirmation that you don't know they exist or that Ms Brady sent them to private detectives herself, that ones unlikely I guess but who knows otherwise without seeing them.
What we do know is that someone on the OPLC was a bed partner of someone leading the West Ham bid and was receiving money from the this leader of the West Ham bid before and after the successful bid, that we do know, talk about moral high ground.

 

[we_all_loved_freund]

No doubt they are, but I couldn't give a shit about any of them. I (and I'm sure everyone on here) do give a shit about Tottenham.

As for the Bribery Act, whilst I'll happily admit that it is new, no-one knows exactly how it will be applied and that I'm not a lawyer (though have had briefings from them), the possibility of unlimited fines does concern me, especially as it could (and I emphasise could) get extended to people working on behalf of Spurs.

Are the Police actually investigating anything to do with the allegation?

Please don't think I'm being facetious, I genuinely don't know if the police have said they are investigating.

 

[we_all_loved_freund]

Why do people ask why do we need to see the records to mount a defence, it's a silly thing to say, the records are evidence being used against you so of course you should see them, not least because you don't know whats in them and there may be something that supports your case such as confirmation that you don't know they exist or that Ms Brady sent them to private detectives herself, that ones unlikely I guess but who knows otherwise without seeing them.
What we do know is that someone on the OPLC was a bed partner of someone leading the West Ham bid and was receiving money from the this leader of the West Ham bid before and after the successful bid, that we do know, talk about moral high ground.

This

 

[JimmyG2]

To lose a Manager would look like misfortune:
to lose a a Manager and a Chairman would look like carelessness.

I hope there are no smoking emails in the filing cabinet.
I'm sure our tracks are well covered but if it looks like a duck.....

 

[MattyP]

Are the Police actually investigating anything to do with the allegation?

Please don't think I'm being facetious, I genuinely don't know if the police have said they are investigating.

Second man arrested yesterday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/nov/17/west-ham-olympic-stadium-oplc?newsfeed=true

 

[spud]

To lose a Manager would look like misfortune:
to lose a a Manager and a Chairman would look like carelessness.

I hope there are no smoking emails in the filing cabinet.
I'm sure our tracks are well covered but if it looks like a duck.....

Innocent until proven guilty, my friend......and that should also be our assumption.

There are many posters who assume that we requested that PKF obtain Brady's 'phone records and are able to disguise the fact. Why the hell should we? The whole Olympic Stadium process has been so shambolic, and clearly managed by idiots, that there is almost certainly no need to break any laws in order to obtain incriminating - or at least compromising - evidence of incompetence and/or corruption.

My assumption is that PKF - or an employee thereof - did this off his or her own bat, and it has absolutely bugger all to do with THFC. The rest is all smoke and mirrors from Brady and the Dildo Brothers to draw attention away from their own shabby dealings.

 

[SpurSince57]

We probably didn't need to see the evidence, but of course you would inspect it!?! The question turned 180 degrees shows how inconsequential your point is; if we had have done the deed, why would we need to see the evidence after litigation has started? Your point is completely irrelevant; it is just normal litigation disclosure.

The Bribery Act is a very new piece of legislation; nobody really knows how it is going to be interpreted by the Courts (I doubt that it would in any way cover the present scenario). In any case, I doubt they will be relying upon the Bribery Act considering it is a Civil case.

People can think what they want, what does it matter? Some people probably still believe the Queen killed Diana; what does it matter? People will form opinions, no matter what evidence is presented.

To make it appear that we hadn't?

Brady's action is at present only against PKF/Hill, whom Spurs engaged to—well, we punters don't know precisely what the 'club' engaged them to do, do we? All we know is that, in the course of whatever it was they'd been commissioned to do, they somehow managed to acquire Brady's phone records. We've had two arrests already, and those are liable to result in criminal, not civil proceedings, for all we know this could be only the tip of the iceberg.

I may be over-reacting, but I'm simply amazed that so many people can so blithely shrug off not only this, but the possibility that matters could get a good deal worse. 'They won't be able to pin anything on us, so who cares?' Great attitude.

Yes, I'm aware people form opinions on the basis of fuck all. There's ample evidence of that in this thread. Arsenal got public funding for the Immigrants because the Dear Leader said so. BoJo told the Dear Leader that it would be OK to rip up the running track.

 

[SpurSince57]

Innocent until proven guilty, my friend......and that should also be our assumption.

There are many posters who assume that we requested that PKF obtain Brady's 'phone records and are able to disguise the fact. Why the hell should we? The whole Olympic Stadium process has been so shambolic, and clearly managed by idiots, that there is almost certainly no need to break any laws in order to obtain incriminating - or at least compromising - evidence of incompetence and/or corruption.

My assumption is that PKF - or an employee thereof - did this off his or her own bat, and it has absolutely bugger all to do with THFC. The rest is all smoke and mirrors from Brady and the Dildo Brothers to draw attention away from their own shabby dealings.

So it's really amazing that someone did just that, eh? And your assumption is that it was PKF or one of their employees. Hey, I bet you're the first to come to that particular conclusion!

And it has bugger all to do with THFC? Would that were so. Actually, it has rather a lot to do with THFC, because PKF/Hill were acting on Spurs' behalf, and if they, one of their employees or a third party engaged by them broke the law, Spurs are culpable in that they failed to make clear the rules under which PKF should operate.

 

[spud]

So it's really amazing that someone did just that, eh? And your assumption is that it was PKF or one of their employees. Hey, I bet you're the first to come to that particular conclusion!

And it has bugger all to do with THFC? Would that were so. Actually, it has rather a lot to do with THFC, because PKF/Hill were acting on Spurs' behalf, and if they, one of their employees or a third party engaged by them broke the law, Spurs are culpable in that they failed to make clear the rules under which PKF should operate.

So I am wrong because I assume that this act was undertaken by an over-zealous employee of a firm Spurs employed - under terms which have not been made clear. Yet you are right because you assume that Spurs failed to clarify the terms that we do not know.

As is often the case, we do not know the rights and wrongs of this, but we all form an opinion anyway. I have done so and so have you. It's therefore a bit rich for you to criticise another poster for forming an opinion based on 'fuck all' information.

My starting point is simply that I am more inclined to believe the (presumably) sworn statements of both Spurs and PKF than the media-amplified demented ramblings of Karen Brady. This opinion may have been influenced by the fact that I am a Spurs fan. You seem to consider Daniel Levy to be a pathalogical liar, and therefore believe the opposite of any official club statements.

To each his own.

 

[Tottenham_OZpur]

You might not want us to be in the wrong, but you clearly have an extreme dislike of Daniel Levy and are always prepared to assume the worst about him.

Been browsing this interesting thread for a while now and I am getting the same feeling myself, but kept it to myself incase I was wrong, but if others see it...

Prob because Levy dared move us out of NL I guess, but who knows, but I think some people will hold a grudge over that, obviously those against it, no matter how much good he has done.

All the 'our dear leader' comments for example, seems like they weren't in a positive light to me, unless I am taking it the wrong way, not always easy to tell on the net.

But I know this, Levy is the best chairman in my lifetime as a Spurs fan and one of the best in the top flight easily, the fact I actually see supporters of other clubs praise him and how Spurs are run, including from our rival fans in some cases, says it all really.

Edit* But we are all entitled to our opinions, even if we don't agree with them :wink:

 

[SpurSince57]

So I am wrong because I assume that this act was undertaken by an over-zealous employee of a firm Spurs employed - under terms which have not been made clear. Yet you are right because you assume that Spurs failed to clarify the terms that we do not know.

As is often the case, we do not know the rights and wrongs of this, but we all form an opinion anyway. I have done so and so have you. It's therefore a bit rich for you to criticise another poster for forming an opinion based on 'fuck all' information.

My starting point is simply that I am more inclined to believe the (presumably) sworn statements of both Spurs and PKF than the media-amplified demented ramblings of Karen Brady. This opinion may have been influenced by the fact that I am a Spurs fan. You seem to consider Daniel Levy to be a pathalogical liar, and therefore believe the opposite of any official club statements.

To each his own.

Did I say you were wrong? I did not. I merely thought your revelation 'that PKF - or an employee thereof - did this off his or her own bat' invited a comment along the lines of 'No shit, Sherlock'. Why not read what I actually wrote? However, your claim that 'there is almost certainly no need to break any laws in order to obtain incriminating - or at least compromising - evidence of incompetence and/or corruption' is fatuous in the extreme, given that no one appears to dispute that the records were obtained illegally. PKF/Hill and Spurs are just denying any knowledge of this. However, PKF/Hill have yet to explain how these documents fell into their hands—a mystery well-wisher, perhaps?—and how it was they failed to hand them over to the police immediately. After all, that's what you do with obviously stolen property, isn't it?

But, spot on, I tend not to have an unquestioning belief in anything that comes out of the 'club'.