I wonder how long it will take. And I also would like to see BFC be upfront about what the implications could be.
The implications would be that Cryne may not be able to support us financially as he has done in the past. But we've known about this for long enough, and the club have taken action by ensuring we live within our means and are self sufficient this season and going forward. We're already feeling the implications as we have players on a fraction of some that have left recently, and we're not able to spend big in the transfer market. I don't think we'll see any major chances to BFC if Cryne's case doesn't go well, other than a continuation of the austerity on the budget front. Next season will be extremely challenging especially if both Sheffield clubs come up with Charlton, as all 3 will have much bigger budgets than us.
I think we can also be positive about the prospect of some fringe (or useless) players contracts expiring. So if we're breaking even this season and saving again on the contracts of Gray, McEveley and Doyle. Plus saving on the "very good wage offer" put to Jacob and the tribunal fee, thats a fair few pennies to be allocated to players with a bit more quality.
You would have to be surprised if something isn't in place already. Then again.... It is BFC we are talking about.
The trial of four former directors of Manchester-based healthcare software company iSoft is expected to begin this week. The four face a charge of "conspiracy to make misleading financial statements". The Financial Services Authority said in 2010 that it had begun criminal proceedings against chairman Patrick Cryne, ex-commercial director Stephen Graham, former chief executive Tim Whiston and ex-finance director John Whelan. If found guilty, the four men each face up to seven years in prison. The trial is reported to follow a three-and-a-half year probe by the FSA. In 2006, iSoft announced that the FSA would investigate possible accounting irregularities uncovered by the firm, which was engaged in a £2.6bn upgrade of computer systems for the NHS. The controversial project was one of the world’s largest IT infrastructure initiatives. The listed software company it had been hit by a string of problems and profit warnings relating to the upgrade, sending its shares crashing as it attempted to secure its short-term financial future. The company, now based in Banbury, Oxfordshire, was bought by Australia's IBA Health in 2007. It changed its name to CSC on April 1 and is now part of CSC's Healthcare Group. An FSA spokesman confirmed the trial was due to start. Read more at: http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...manchester-software-firm-isoft-to-go-on-trial
I read somewhere on the web last week (Guardian report I think) that it is the biggest investigation ever undertaken by the FSA - I reckon they think they have a watertight case otherwise that's a lot of wasted effort. I reckon he might be expecting the worst, hence the reason why we pulled our belt in a year ahead of others - it's to try and ensure that we don't fall down the plughole if Cryne is having a break at HM's pleasure for the next few years. i.e. this is our ITV digital moment, version 2 - only this one was expected so they've planned for it. The thing I am not sure of is where we stand if the penalty includes claims on his assets to get the money back - are we isolated in a trust so we can't be touched, or would we be included in any claim and belong to "the country"?. We could be "the people's club". Do you reckon George's Osbourne would then fund a couple of decent players?
The problem is that it is extremely difficult to prove that someone acted fraudulently in these kind of situations - that's probably why there is such a low win rate. And why I think they they must have a damn good case this time if they have put so much effort into it. Purely on the known facts relating to the share price, it sure looks like one hell of a coincidence at best as all of them bailed out when the share price was massively over-egged, and not long later it was a tiny fraction of its price at its peak, when it became known that those contracts weren't all that they were cracked up to be.
From the little that I've read, the case hinges on a contract with the Irish Government that was delivered but put into the accounts before it was actually signed , making that financial years figures better than they actually were. The main iSoft accountant has been barred from practising for a number of years already, I'd blame it on him if I was them