From Wikipedia: "In January 2010, the FSA confirmed that they had begun legal proceedings against the four directors[9] who were involved in the irregularities. In March, the AADB excluded Ian Storey, former financial controller, from membership of his professional body ICAEW.[10] In 2013 the FCA has closed the case because of "procedural problems", clearing Patrick Cryne, Stephen Graham, Timothy Whiston and John Whelan from wrongdoing.[11]" I feel sure you will want to retract your previous statement.
Article here that Wikipedia are using as on of their sources. It's not exactly black and white is it? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23409533
If this is reference to me saying this, then you have completely misunderstood. Which is not surprising. Still waiting for examples of these shameful comments. Ta.
Can I just say - that as Barnsley fans we should just concentrate on things relating to the club. It's difficult enough to understand what's happened and is happening at the club - without delving into things that's nowt to do with us - and importantly are too complexed for the regular punters on here to understand and therefore give judgement on.
There was an investigation dropped by the accounts professional body if my memory serves me well. If you think what Isoft did was Okay then I hope I never have to do any business dealings with you or invest in any business you may have. Ask the Irish NHS about it.
A spokesman for the FCA said legal argument arose when old file notes dating back to 2009 were disclosed to the defence, resulting in procedural problems that could not be resolved. The jury was discharged and the FCA decided that it would not be in the public interest to pursue a second retrial. Not guilty verdicts were formally entered against all four men. Tracey McDermott, FCA director of enforcement and financial crime, said: "This is of course a disappointing outcome. "The problems that have arisen in this case result from a particularly unusual set of circumstances, which are unlikely to recur." FCA's chief executive Martin Wheatley said: "This decision not to seek a second retrial does not undermine our determination to bring and prosecute difficult cases." We can draw our own conclusions. Btw - before anyone claims this is libellous, these are established facts which are in the public domain.
Agree on that. Non of it really matters now, we have the owners we have and as a fan I am more concerned/interested in where we go now.
To your knowledge, has anyone ever tried to buy the club prior to the current owners? I'm not sure he's had much choice but to hang on to it.
Well said. But why are you still raking over old coals and wishing for a book from Mr Cryne when you're now acknowledging that this stuff is none of our business? Because for me thats nail firmly bashed on head.
There was an Italian consortioum a few years ago that were interested but never came up with a concrete offer.
They found it impossible to present a case that anyone had any confidence would produce a guilty verdict. However, the basis of British justice is that a man is innocent until proven guilty, those men are innocent. Any accusation to the contrary may land you in bother.
They are established facts, and the person who wrote those facts was very careful about how he worded his article. He was careful not to place any inference on those facts because he knew that placing inferences lands you in bother. BTW - have you got around to answering my question yet?
Same as always mate. Apart from the odd rumour or enquiry, nothing to suggest that Patrick Cryne has fended off offers for the club. I'm pretty sure he would have preferred to engage in negotiations when he was in much better health, had the right offer come in.
No it wasn't. He didn't make the original trial due to ill health but a not guilty verdict was entered by the judge against all defendents. Don't let facts get in the way of proclaiming his "dogdy dealings" though.