Actually that's not quite true Otter. The Telegraph have got more that they wanted to print on a number of other managers but were restricted/prevented from printing the stories. All evidence that was collected has also been handed to the police (rather than the FA).
Good post. I only hope that Gino is able to evidence that he had access to sufficient resources elsewhere at that time. We'll be in the doo doo if he can't and a case is made that he leveraged the promise of the TV money to be able to trade.
Really? So I can hand Tesco's a forged £20 note but the law won't touch me as long as I also had a legit £20 in my wallet?
Not a good comparison - the EFL had not just exchanged a loaf of Allinson's, 2 pints of milk, a packet of mince and a bottle of Malibu for the forged letter.
I struggle to understand these confident souls that are suggesting that, because we had the money, there was no legal issue. Fraud/forgery, from memory, is not only committed when there is a loss to another party, the offence is committed when there is a gain to another through the use of the forgery - and it doesn't have to be a financial gain, either. It would be the same, I think, if someone forged a reference, even for an unpaid or voluntary role - regardless of whether or not it was a true representation of what the real reference might have said.
No one said it's not a legal issue, it plainly is. However if it was just to cover for an oversight it's a completely victimless crime and resultant penalties are likely to reflect this. Hard to imagine but even the Police might not be interested beyond their own costs.
Forget not that Gino got control of the club ... it could be interpreted as a gain even though there was never a question he wouldn't.
It would. But as I tried to explain in an earlier post the EFL rule in question doesn't seem to be about preventing people gaining ownership of a football club. It's not the Owners and Directors Test (formerly Fit and Proper Person Test), something presumably Gino had passed two years previously anyway. This rule just says if you can't meet their criteria certain sanctions will be applied to the football business of the club until the EFL are satisfied. So the purpose of the fake letter was to meet that test. Gino, through Hornets Investments, was always going to have his 100% shareholding whether the EFL agreed or not. He didn't gain ownership of the football club as a result of it. At least that's my take on it based on what I've read in the regs and read in the Telegraph.
So, an employee could produce, for example, a forged insurance certificate to his employer so he could be allowed to drive in the future - and not commit an offence? Forgery includes when it is used in deception, doesn't it? I think the fraud or deception is used to avoid the sanctions you suggest, too.
If he needed it to get the job it would be fraud, otherwise until he actually drives it's no more than a misdemeanor if even that. Many countries allow facsimiles of their currency but trying to pass it off as genuine is always a crime. Not that it isn't here too, the only real argument is that the job was Gino's whatever.
Of course, with such a letter, it is the passing it off with the intention to defraud or deceive that matters. Anyway, you may be right, you may be wrong, but it cant be good having our club being tarred with this type of thing, I think we are already targets to be shot at.
Like I said, the EFL may well have afforded it to our agent to enable them to tick a box, in reality it should never have come out.
The employee would be guilty of a specific offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 in those circumstances. But I don't think that's the law you had in mind when you gave the example.
By saying, if asked in court, that the letter was forged, but what was said in it reflected the true situation. It is ghat simple. Got to go now, just told a mod to FRO in a PM so don't expect to be posting on here again.
Loss and gain as defined within the act is as you rightly put, but it is worth mentioning there doesn't actually have to be a loss or gain in respect to charging practice. The intention is sufficient. It is also worth mentioning that most 'gains' can be calculated by some form of monetary value.
What is being argued is that all that matters is did we put the money in, which is 'yes'. This appears to be different to say applying for a job. If you lie on an application form you may subsequently be out on your ear when found out, even if you did your job well. This is because the probity of the promise itself is important. Those who are confident are arguing that it was not in this case. They may well be right.
Oliver Kay in the times wading in against naughty ol' Watford today. "Early reports suggested that Watford could face a points deduction or even expulsion from the Premier League if found guilty of a serious breach of regulations. " No mate, nobody else has suggested expulsion from the Premier League, you just made that up. Nice.
Expulsion from the Premier League? Hilarious. "Watford could face being disanded, their stadium demolished by bulldozers and their fans forced at gun point to support Luton if early reports are to be believed."
Thought this wasn't anything to do with the PL anyway? And where would we be kicked out to?! Sure the Championship clubs would love us back with our team of Internationals.
I think the fact that this story has been widely ignored since it's release probably tells you all you need to know...
Not really. The investigation will take a good month odd so at this time there is nothing more to report. Not sure where this will go to be honest. Do not believe for one minute we will get a points deduction as it stands but concerned there may be more to this than a dodgy person rushing a dodgy document through to ensure a takeover goes ahead. In the past I'd have banked on us being used "as an example" and an over the top penalty. Not sure we're quite such an easy target these days, at least I hope not.
Not sure it has been. Mazzari was asked about it in pre and post match interviews, the commentator mentioned it yesterday on the stream of the match, various papers have re-reported it and so on.
