| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) 18:55 - Aug 12 with 7351 views | RAFCBLUE |
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/businessman
Fact checking will soon be an Olympic Sport. Below is the fact check of the Andrew Curran statement released by Alexander Jarvis as reported.
He went on: "The club is certainly not a 'cash cow, far from it. It's got no money and without significant investment, the club will run out of money before the end of the year.
At its last published set of accounts, RAFC made a profit of £1.36m and generated positive cash of +£360,463. RAFC held a cash balance of £764,178 out of net assets of £1,522,925.
The statement that the club will run out of money before the end of the year (31 December 2021 is therefore) false. As Alexander Jarvis will know, the club had to submit to the EFL a submission of their business plan for the year showing how the club would be run solvently.
"The board has already confirmed it has no intention or means of putting in the funds required to sustain the club for the foreseeable future. (These include) a substantial outstanding loan (which) is secured against the stadium; HMRC payments are in arrears, and players have been sold below market value.
This is not true. On 16th June, Simon Gauge confirmed that the club planned to consider an EGM to raise share capital in the club in support of it being a fan owned club.
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2021/june/simongaugeelectedchairman/
The second part is contradictory to the first point; how can players have been sold below market value (which itself is an opinion of the buyer and the seller) and the club have no cash?
"We have made an offer to the current chairman to provide immediate funds to pay off these debts, increase the playing budget and buy players for the best possible opportunity of achieving promotion back to League One this season."
This is contradicted by evidence on www.rochdaleafc.co.uk and comments made at a public fans forum by a number of board members.
"We estimate this to be a requirement of around £500,000 immediately, with a further £500,000 in January. This offer has not been accepted."
This statement cannot be correct. Having sold Humphreys and Rathbone in August - how does Jarvis conclude a further £500,000 is needed in August? We have further home games and only limited outgoings in the next 19 days.
"It is clear our acquisition of shares in Rochdale AFC cannot under any circumstances be likened to the situations at Bury and other clubs which have been left weakened from owners."
The EFL are the ones to consider that having had to publicly expel bury football club. They are the experts here.
"If anything the board will be the demise of Rochdale AFC if they continue to act in the manner in which they have been."
This is actually defamatory. Here Jarvis is alleging that the current Board of Directors are not running the club in the best interests of fans or shareholders which it is their duty to do under EFL rules.
"Furthermore, we have paid in excess of £1 million to date in consideration for shares, due diligence and legal costs."
This point on financial quantum cannot be fact checked. The club have however said that they have not yet received any share transfer forms from any shareholder which are required to be presented at a Board meeting.
"So, alluding to the fact we intend to use Rochdale AFC as a cash cow for our own benefit is factually incorrect and completely untrue. There simply is no cash to ‘milk’."
Again untrue. There is cash from the EFL, from recent player sales, from previous transfer sell-ons and other monies controlled by the club.
He said that the 'rumours, misinformation and speculation on social media and the forums' which Mr Lloyd describes as 'jarring' were the result of 'several individuals breaching the non-disclosure agreement which is in place between ourselves and the club, a matter which we will address legally with those individuals in due course. The most important item on our agenda as it stands is ensuring that Rochdale AFC exists past 2021'.
This is untrue and again contradictory. In claiming there is a non-disclosure agreement hasn't Mr Jarvis and Mr Curran breached that by talking to the Manchester Evening News and previously the Daily Telegraph?
The link to publicly available information relating to Rochdale Football Club, as filed at Companies House can be found here:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00111019/fili |  |
| |  |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 19:05 - Aug 12 with 7306 views | RAFCBLUE |
ADDENDUM:
What is rather helpful about Alexander Jarvis is what he has now disclosed.
If he is truthful in his statements then the consortium he has arranged including Andrew Curran and Darrell Rose has committed:
1) Over £1,000,000 "paid in excess of £1 million to date in consideration for shares, due diligence and legal costs."
2) "£500,000 immediately, with a further £500,000 in January."
I'm no mathematician but that is £2m. That's a good number to quote back at the EFL on the sources and sufficiency of funding, particularly if the club is NOT a "cash" cow as £1m would broadly pay for 4 months activity.
Curran is therefore £2m short.
Secondly, Alexander Jarvis has just admitted - in the press - that he and Curran have breached the EFL rule 5.4(b):
5.4 Any Club, Relevant Person or other Official of a Club who (whether intentionally, negligently or recklessly) causes, allows or permits any Person to acquire Control of the Club in breach of Rule 3.3 shall be guilty of misconduct and will be liable to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Regulations. Without limitation to the foregoing, any act of the Club, any Group Undertaking and/or any Relevant Person or Official thereof which recognises:
(a) any Person as meeting the definition of Relevant Person;
(b) any form of transfer (legal or beneficial) or any trust or joint ownership arrangements in relation to any share and the rights which may be exercised by a shareholder, without having first having complied with Rule 3.3 in full, it will constitute a breach of these Rules by that Club, Relevant Person or Official.
And that is because Rule 3.3 in full states:
"3.3 No Person may acquire Control of a Club and no Club may permit a Person to acquire Control of it until such time as:
(a) The League provides confirmation that all Persons that are required to do so have complied with the process set out in Rule 3.1(a)(i) and no such Persons are liable to be disqualified as a Relevant Person;
(b) The League provides confirmation of its satisfaction with the information provided pursuant to Rule 3.1(a)(ii); and
(c) The Club and any Person proposing to acquire Control have acceded to any powers and/or accepted any conditions imposed pursuant to Rule 3.2."
The EFL I am sure will tomorrow take a very dim view of Alexander Jarvis spreading disinformation and they must now charge him and Mr Curran with misconduct. | |
| |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 19:13 - Aug 12 with 7256 views | IOMDale |
These pricks need to be sent packing within the next week by the EFL. I know there’ll undoubtedly be legal wrangling in the background but surely it’s better for the EFL to declare Curran and Rose grossly unfit now and then use the masses of supporting evidence to counter the inevitable legal challenge. |  | | |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 19:32 - Aug 12 with 7140 views | fermin |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 19:05 - Aug 12 by RAFCBLUE |
ADDENDUM:
What is rather helpful about Alexander Jarvis is what he has now disclosed.
If he is truthful in his statements then the consortium he has arranged including Andrew Curran and Darrell Rose has committed:
1) Over £1,000,000 "paid in excess of £1 million to date in consideration for shares, due diligence and legal costs."
2) "£500,000 immediately, with a further £500,000 in January."
I'm no mathematician but that is £2m. That's a good number to quote back at the EFL on the sources and sufficiency of funding, particularly if the club is NOT a "cash" cow as £1m would broadly pay for 4 months activity.
Curran is therefore £2m short.
Secondly, Alexander Jarvis has just admitted - in the press - that he and Curran have breached the EFL rule 5.4(b):
5.4 Any Club, Relevant Person or other Official of a Club who (whether intentionally, negligently or recklessly) causes, allows or permits any Person to acquire Control of the Club in breach of Rule 3.3 shall be guilty of misconduct and will be liable to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Regulations. Without limitation to the foregoing, any act of the Club, any Group Undertaking and/or any Relevant Person or Official thereof which recognises:
(a) any Person as meeting the definition of Relevant Person;
(b) any form of transfer (legal or beneficial) or any trust or joint ownership arrangements in relation to any share and the rights which may be exercised by a shareholder, without having first having complied with Rule 3.3 in full, it will constitute a breach of these Rules by that Club, Relevant Person or Official.
And that is because Rule 3.3 in full states:
"3.3 No Person may acquire Control of a Club and no Club may permit a Person to acquire Control of it until such time as:
(a) The League provides confirmation that all Persons that are required to do so have complied with the process set out in Rule 3.1(a)(i) and no such Persons are liable to be disqualified as a Relevant Person;
(b) The League provides confirmation of its satisfaction with the information provided pursuant to Rule 3.1(a)(ii); and
(c) The Club and any Person proposing to acquire Control have acceded to any powers and/or accepted any conditions imposed pursuant to Rule 3.2."
The EFL I am sure will tomorrow take a very dim view of Alexander Jarvis spreading disinformation and they must now charge him and Mr Curran with misconduct. |
What is the definition of Relevant Person for these purposes?
I am not sure how Curran etc meet the definition implied by that. To me the rules says that the relevant currently in charge of the club cannot sign off transfers which would give control of the club to others before they have been approved by the EFL. I thought this was what the Chairman said in an interview or at the forum.
Does Relevant Person extend to the person looking to take charge as well? It is not clear to me from these extracts that it does.
Going back to their statement, to me that shows that they have no understanding of this club and its fanbase. They seem unaware that the culture of this club has been sustainability on its own resources rather than vast sums of money from dubious sources being pumped in to fund overpaid players. That might have worked at Bury with their arrogance about their true place in the pyramid but I think we are far more realistic. Yes, we want promotion like any other fanbase but not at any cost and selling out to these wideboys is a price too high and has no guarantee of success.
Without these chancers hanging over us we could get on with building a fan-owned club (or at least one with a board with genuine fans on it), with transparent communication etc. Please just go away and let us pursue our vision! Why do you care what we do anyway? |  | | |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 20:24 - Aug 12 with 6932 views | RAFCBLUE |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 19:32 - Aug 12 by fermin |
What is the definition of Relevant Person for these purposes?
I am not sure how Curran etc meet the definition implied by that. To me the rules says that the relevant currently in charge of the club cannot sign off transfers which would give control of the club to others before they have been approved by the EFL. I thought this was what the Chairman said in an interview or at the forum.
Does Relevant Person extend to the person looking to take charge as well? It is not clear to me from these extracts that it does.
Going back to their statement, to me that shows that they have no understanding of this club and its fanbase. They seem unaware that the culture of this club has been sustainability on its own resources rather than vast sums of money from dubious sources being pumped in to fund overpaid players. That might have worked at Bury with their arrogance about their true place in the pyramid but I think we are far more realistic. Yes, we want promotion like any other fanbase but not at any cost and selling out to these wideboys is a price too high and has no guarantee of success.
Without these chancers hanging over us we could get on with building a fan-owned club (or at least one with a board with genuine fans on it), with transparent communication etc. Please just go away and let us pursue our vision! Why do you care what we do anyway? |
‘Relevant Person’ means in respect of any Club any individual Person (and not any Entity) operating the powers that are usually associated with the powers of a director of a company incorporated under the 2006 Act (as a Company limited by shares or by guarantee). Further, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following individuals shall in any event be deemed to qualify as a Relevant Person Relevant Person:
(a) a director as defined by Section 250 of the 2006 Act;
(b) a shadow director as defined by Section 251 of the 2006 Act;
(c) a person registered as a director or secretary of the Club with the Registrar of Companies;
(d) a person for whom a Form AP01 (to be filed with the Registrar of Companies) has been completed in relation to the Club;
(e) a person who has been elected to become a director of the Club at a meeting of the board of directors of the Club;
(f) a person who has been elected to become a director of the Club at a meeting of the members of the Club;
(g) a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the persons constituting the management of the Club are accustomed to act;
(h) any Authorised Signatory;
(i) any duly appointed signatory (as that term is utilised in Regulation 46.1);
(j) any 'chief executive' officer, 'general manager', 'chief operating officer' or any other person undertaking any duties which would objectively be considered to be equivalent to those roles;
(k) any person appointed by those with Control over the Club to represent their interests in the management of the Club; and
(l) a person who has Control over the affairs of the Club,
All prospective owners are caught by Point (l) | |
| |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 23:12 - Aug 12 with 6599 views | Stourdale |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 20:24 - Aug 12 by RAFCBLUE |
‘Relevant Person’ means in respect of any Club any individual Person (and not any Entity) operating the powers that are usually associated with the powers of a director of a company incorporated under the 2006 Act (as a Company limited by shares or by guarantee). Further, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following individuals shall in any event be deemed to qualify as a Relevant Person Relevant Person:
(a) a director as defined by Section 250 of the 2006 Act;
(b) a shadow director as defined by Section 251 of the 2006 Act;
(c) a person registered as a director or secretary of the Club with the Registrar of Companies;
(d) a person for whom a Form AP01 (to be filed with the Registrar of Companies) has been completed in relation to the Club;
(e) a person who has been elected to become a director of the Club at a meeting of the board of directors of the Club;
(f) a person who has been elected to become a director of the Club at a meeting of the members of the Club;
(g) a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the persons constituting the management of the Club are accustomed to act;
(h) any Authorised Signatory;
(i) any duly appointed signatory (as that term is utilised in Regulation 46.1);
(j) any 'chief executive' officer, 'general manager', 'chief operating officer' or any other person undertaking any duties which would objectively be considered to be equivalent to those roles;
(k) any person appointed by those with Control over the Club to represent their interests in the management of the Club; and
(l) a person who has Control over the affairs of the Club,
All prospective owners are caught by Point (l) |
The sentence of interest in this article for me is:
The EFL has been provided with information on the ultimate beneficial owner, along with proof, source and sufficiency of funds. “Quoted by Andy Curran”
This suggests that Andy Curran and Darrel Rose are not the investors but the two people who would be proposed as board members.
This then begs the question of who would be the ultimate beneficial owner, Surely not Lee Power given his issues at Swindon.
Who are these two fronting for? The similarities to the Al-Jezeera documentary are staggering. |  | | |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 23:30 - Aug 12 with 6558 views | DaleFan7 |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 23:12 - Aug 12 by Stourdale |
The sentence of interest in this article for me is:
The EFL has been provided with information on the ultimate beneficial owner, along with proof, source and sufficiency of funds. “Quoted by Andy Curran”
This suggests that Andy Curran and Darrel Rose are not the investors but the two people who would be proposed as board members.
This then begs the question of who would be the ultimate beneficial owner, Surely not Lee Power given his issues at Swindon.
Who are these two fronting for? The similarities to the Al-Jezeera documentary are staggering. |
The ultimate beneficial owner would be Morton House, the company they are using for the takeover. | | | |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 00:24 - Aug 13 with 6475 views | Sandyman |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 23:12 - Aug 12 by Stourdale |
The sentence of interest in this article for me is:
The EFL has been provided with information on the ultimate beneficial owner, along with proof, source and sufficiency of funds. “Quoted by Andy Curran”
This suggests that Andy Curran and Darrel Rose are not the investors but the two people who would be proposed as board members.
This then begs the question of who would be the ultimate beneficial owner, Surely not Lee Power given his issues at Swindon.
Who are these two fronting for? The similarities to the Al-Jezeera documentary are staggering. |
Andrew Kirk Curran has stated on several occasions he doesn't want to be a board member, he just wants RAFC as a drinking club for him and his mates and that he may become a fan eventually. A likely story.
There was a rumour going round that he wanted some car paint sprayer mate of his from Manchester to be an RAFC board member but that is just gossip. |  | | |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 00:26 - Aug 13 with 6472 views | 49thseason |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 23:12 - Aug 12 by Stourdale |
The sentence of interest in this article for me is:
The EFL has been provided with information on the ultimate beneficial owner, along with proof, source and sufficiency of funds. “Quoted by Andy Curran”
This suggests that Andy Curran and Darrel Rose are not the investors but the two people who would be proposed as board members.
This then begs the question of who would be the ultimate beneficial owner, Surely not Lee Power given his issues at Swindon.
Who are these two fronting for? The similarities to the Al-Jezeera documentary are staggering. |
You are right about the similarities to the Al Jazeera programme. One interesting thing that came out was that one Keith Lindsay Hunter, former disgraced policeman, was looking to get into the football club acquisition game. Hunter lives in Woodford Green, the same pace as Denise Courtnell. He probably knows about her convictions and who she is friendly with from his tame police "researchers". It wouldnt have taken him long to figure out one of her companies could be a front for an "investor". He probably knows Jarvis too from his claims about being a "football broker". All he needed was a malleable club chairman ( if rumours are to be believed) and a dickhead director who was busy touting for an investor and he had all the pieces on the chessboard.
In fact , who would bet against Kilpatrick asking Bottom to find someone to buy his shares in exchange for a wedge and Bottom spilling the beans about Kilpatrick wanting out quickly. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 00:28 - Aug 13 with 6470 views | DorkingDale |
Blimey RAFCBLUE your absolute tenacity & commitment has been phenomenal, but I have to admit that my head is beginning to hurt now..... | | | |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 07:31 - Aug 13 with 6230 views | NorthernDale |
What gets me, is that they must know by now, that the fans don't want them or their dodgy money near the club, so why persist in their attempt to take over the club? They must realise, if they succeed, it will a constant battle with the fans and like Swindon, with the fans boycotting the games to a great degree, so I repeat why seek to take over a club they are not wanted by the fans, if only for someone dodgy dealings, one thing I would predict is that if they succeed, the club will be in debt and potentially out of business within a few years, because these shysters would destroy out club. Just look at 'Supreme-O-Construction' which Mr Curran was a director and now insolvent, what history the other directors of the company have, the list of dissolved companies is shocking, a Mr Ferrugia for example has been a director of 6 businesses and all now dissolved or closed, another is a Mr Dingwall whose as been a director of 11 businesses all closed (including a payroll company). These people make their income by becoming directors, building up debts in terms of wages or money to themselves and then dissolving the businesses, just like a certain Mr Steve Dale. Are these the sort of person or people we want connected to our club, because we would end being another Bury FC.
So Jarvis, Curran and Rose if you are reading this, please get the message 'we do not want you,your dodgy friends and dodgy money at out club', so just bugger off to somewhere else. [Post edited 13 Aug 2021 8:28]
| | | |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 08:30 - Aug 13 with 6143 views | DaleiLama |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 00:26 - Aug 13 by 49thseason |
You are right about the similarities to the Al Jazeera programme. One interesting thing that came out was that one Keith Lindsay Hunter, former disgraced policeman, was looking to get into the football club acquisition game. Hunter lives in Woodford Green, the same pace as Denise Courtnell. He probably knows about her convictions and who she is friendly with from his tame police "researchers". It wouldnt have taken him long to figure out one of her companies could be a front for an "investor". He probably knows Jarvis too from his claims about being a "football broker". All he needed was a malleable club chairman ( if rumours are to be believed) and a dickhead director who was busy touting for an investor and he had all the pieces on the chessboard.
In fact , who would bet against Kilpatrick asking Bottom to find someone to buy his shares in exchange for a wedge and Bottom spilling the beans about Kilpatrick wanting out quickly. |
Just my twopennorth but I doubt Hunter would get out of bed for the sums potentially on offer at Dale. 3% of a PL club isn't 3% of Dale. That's why Jarvis is being used. A PO box in Liverpool and the spare bedroom at his mum's house is lower cost and more in-keeping with the m.o. of the hostiles who appear to be boracic. You get what you pay for and in this case it's someone who has left breadcrumbs wherever he's gone and will sing like a canary when invited to. |  |
| |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 08:38 - Aug 13 with 6120 views | DaleiLama |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 00:28 - Aug 13 by DorkingDale |
Blimey RAFCBLUE your absolute tenacity & commitment has been phenomenal, but I have to admit that my head is beginning to hurt now..... |
Is it just me who imagined RAFCBLUE's home office to have mug shots pinned to the walls, company named all over the walls, post-it notes stuck everywhere and pins with thread everwhere linking relevant items?
 | |
| |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 09:13 - Aug 13 with 6043 views | BigKindo |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 23:12 - Aug 12 by Stourdale |
The sentence of interest in this article for me is:
The EFL has been provided with information on the ultimate beneficial owner, along with proof, source and sufficiency of funds. “Quoted by Andy Curran”
This suggests that Andy Curran and Darrel Rose are not the investors but the two people who would be proposed as board members.
This then begs the question of who would be the ultimate beneficial owner, Surely not Lee Power given his issues at Swindon.
Who are these two fronting for? The similarities to the Al-Jezeera documentary are staggering. |
Yesterday evening I and Mrs BigKindo enjoyed a few beers in the Flying Horse with a few of my ex classmates from school in Rochdale in the 1950/60's. One attendee, a respected retired School Deputy Head residing in Wiltshire is, along with other members of his family, a holder of a season ticket/card at Swindon Town. We had a chat about the plight of Dale and Swindon, not just our joint relegations, but the unwanted involvement of outside parties who have been at Swindon and wish to be involved at Dale. The words in which he described Swindon's ex supremo, Curran's friend, Lee Power were at the very least interesting. The feeling among the Swindon fans is that had Clem Morfuni and the Axis Group not got control in late July and shown Power the door, then Swindon may not have started the season. |  | | |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 13:08 - Aug 16 with 5528 views | Marjorie_Plane |
Unexplained Wealth Orders
|  | | |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 13:16 - Aug 16 with 5485 views | SuddenLad |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 13:08 - Aug 16 by Marjorie_Plane |
Unexplained Wealth Orders
|
Terrific powers when used, but proving that someone 'is involved in serious crime' is the key to all that. If that cannot be proven, the powers can't be used. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 13:17 - Aug 16 with 5481 views | James1980 |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 13:08 - Aug 16 by Marjorie_Plane |
Unexplained Wealth Orders
|
Including Rolls Royce's and houses worth in excess of a million. | |
| |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 13:33 - Aug 16 with 5389 views | NorthernDale |
Question: how many honest and upstanding businessmen in the UK, need a minder for protection, I can understand people involved in organised crime needing a bit of muscle for protection, but a so called respectable business person Andy Curran.
Also the 'ultimate owner' could also mean damaged goods in the eyes of the EFL, Halsall and Bassini, who have both tried to take over local sides Bolton, Wigan and Oldham with in the last two years and have a record of seeking to taking over other clubs and leaving them in debt and Halsall is known to Jarvis and Bottomley. But as somebody as said it could be Morton House, but considering how secretive Mr Curran is about his sources of income, it could be any dodgy person. | | | |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 14:23 - Aug 16 with 5248 views | RAFCBLUE |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 13:16 - Aug 16 by SuddenLad |
Terrific powers when used, but proving that someone 'is involved in serious crime' is the key to all that. If that cannot be proven, the powers can't be used. |
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9098/
Not quite SL.
The change to the law basically reversed the burden of proof. If you are served with a Unexplained Wealth Order ("UWO" then you have to explain it how you funded those assets.
Take Andy Curran.
The National Crime Agency ("NCA") arrive tomorrow with a UWO - "How did you pay for that great big house in Ingatestone, Essex and a Rolls Royce Cullinan Andy?"
Once served the burden of proof rests with Andy Curran to prove he legitimately funded those assets - if that is the case then he keeps them; if not they belong to the Government. If an asset has finance on it (like a buy to let mortgage) the NCA also tell the bank concerned that the bank might be funding something that is about to get seized.
In doing the checks they will want to see bank statements, tax returns, accounting records of businesses and filed accounts. The NCA are like water in this regard - they get everywhere and every record is double checked against what you provide.
i.e. if you say that you've paid £10,000 in income tax, the NCA go the HMRC and check you have paid £10,000 in income tax.
Here's a real example of one that happened in the last year:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/oct/07/businessman-to-hand-over-10m-fol
After Hussain was hit with the order, he complied, supplying a 76-page witness statement and about 127 arch lever files of documentary evidence.
However, Lewis said the evidence provided by Hussain actually bolstered the NCA case and investigators identified a larger property portfolio than was previously known.
You used to have to hold up a dodgy tenner to the light to check that it was real. It's all now got much more sophisticated and scientific. | |
| |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 14:52 - Aug 16 with 5188 views | SuddenLad |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 14:23 - Aug 16 by RAFCBLUE |
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9098/
Not quite SL.
The change to the law basically reversed the burden of proof. If you are served with a Unexplained Wealth Order ("UWO" then you have to explain it how you funded those assets.
Take Andy Curran.
The National Crime Agency ("NCA") arrive tomorrow with a UWO - "How did you pay for that great big house in Ingatestone, Essex and a Rolls Royce Cullinan Andy?"
Once served the burden of proof rests with Andy Curran to prove he legitimately funded those assets - if that is the case then he keeps them; if not they belong to the Government. If an asset has finance on it (like a buy to let mortgage) the NCA also tell the bank concerned that the bank might be funding something that is about to get seized.
In doing the checks they will want to see bank statements, tax returns, accounting records of businesses and filed accounts. The NCA are like water in this regard - they get everywhere and every record is double checked against what you provide.
i.e. if you say that you've paid £10,000 in income tax, the NCA go the HMRC and check you have paid £10,000 in income tax.
Here's a real example of one that happened in the last year:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/oct/07/businessman-to-hand-over-10m-fol
After Hussain was hit with the order, he complied, supplying a 76-page witness statement and about 127 arch lever files of documentary evidence.
However, Lewis said the evidence provided by Hussain actually bolstered the NCA case and investigators identified a larger property portfolio than was previously known.
You used to have to hold up a dodgy tenner to the light to check that it was real. It's all now got much more sophisticated and scientific. |
Thanks for the update. I had forgotten the 'reverse onus' principle. The powers are excellent, but very little used.
There needs to be a serious will on all interested parties (SFO/HMRC/NCA) to investigate and expose wherever possible, the financial status of all these people. Sooner or later,they will succeed in getting their hands on a football club and it will spell utter disaster for the club concerned.
From what I can gather only 2 cases have ever been successful in the British courts and the HMRC have never even used the legislation available.
As far as I can see, Gateley are reportedly the custodians of £1 million to be used in purchase of shares, for the purpose of buying RAFC.
If I were HMRC, (SFO/NCA/FCA) I'd already be drawing up the paperwork. Get on with it. [Post edited 16 Aug 2021 14:55]
| |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 15:12 - Aug 16 with 5107 views | DorkingDale |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 13:17 - Aug 16 by James1980 |
Including Rolls Royce's and houses worth in excess of a million. |
TBH James £1m is not much for a property in the Home Counties. I'm surprised he doesn't live somewhere more palatial..... | | | |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 15:17 - Aug 16 with 5082 views | James1980 |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 15:12 - Aug 16 by DorkingDale |
TBH James £1m is not much for a property in the Home Counties. I'm surprised he doesn't live somewhere more palatial..... |
Maybe there is a palatial villa on the Costa del Sol | |
| |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 08:48 - Aug 19 with 4662 views | UpTheDaleNotForSale |
seems to be a fair amount of press interest this week - lots of queries coming in on social media, so giving these threads a bump. |  |
| Twitter : @DaleNotForSale
Facebook : facebook.com/upthedalenotforsale |
| |
| ANDY CURRAN FACT CHECKED / WHY MORTON HOUSE MUST FAIL THE EFL TEST (PART 7) on 17:28 - Oct 28 with 3774 views | Sandyman |
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
