|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 10, 2017 17:16:35 GMT
Why don't SC just confirm £152K has been misappropriated, they may as well be upfront now?
Assuming somebody has helped themselves to the money, then there seems little chance of that ever being recovered.
Surely the club now needs to take some controlling interest in the SC, if they expect fans to keep handing money over to them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 17:21:29 GMT
Why don't SC just confirm £152K has been misappropriated, they may as well be upfront now? Assuming somebody has helped themselves to the money, then there seems little chance of that ever being recovered. Surely the club now needs to take some controlling interest in the SC, if they expect fans to keep handing money over to them. I expect they are taking their disclosure advice from the police if the enquiry is ongoing.
|
|
|
Post by perryfenwick on Feb 10, 2017 17:41:39 GMT
These figures as Severncider said are up to June last year. It is quite obvious that this has been known about at least since November as that is when the AGM should have taken place. So for all we know the money, or at least some part of it has been recouped. By the way, for those on here who demand an explanation over and above certain limits, either go to the AGM or stay quiet. If the police tell you to say nothing, you say nothing. My bet is that most of the moaners on here probably are not members. If you were I guess you would be a little more respectful. It is obvious that we will have the right to ask what safeguards were or were not in place with regard to the operation of the various accounts, and this will come out in due course. We all know that some on here are better at running the supporters club. So here is your chance. ANY VOLUNTEERS? Obviously all members have no prior engagements ahead of a meeting re-arranged at very short notice. I'd imagine, also, that a good percentage of members and non-members alike are wondering how this can happen and how (presumably) one person can move (presumably) significant sums of money without detection. I don't think there's much ingratitude at all, unless you see people asking legitimate questions as ingratitude. Stinks of the old "well, Nick spent his money, if you don't like it, buy the club" attitude that we had from many up to last year. If you see anyone having a pop at the loyal volunteers who sell 50-50 tickets, organise coaches etc., do call them out by all means, but asking questions about this very worrying situation, even if they're questions that can't yet be answered (not all people will know about Police disclosure etc.), isn't disrespectful or ungrateful. An organisation that has a clear flaw in its' governance structure is open to questioning. PS if anything the Government do upsets you I do hope to see you standing for Westminster in 2020 based on your attitude.
|
|
|
Post by gasstrictband on Feb 10, 2017 17:53:24 GMT
I'm going to Santa Suzanna by concord
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Feb 10, 2017 17:54:38 GMT
These figures as Severncider said are up to June last year. It is quite obvious that this has been known about at least since November as that is when the AGM should have taken place. So for all we know the money, or at least some part of it has been recouped. By the way, for those on here who demand an explanation over and above certain limits, either go to the AGM or stay quiet. If the police tell you to say nothing, you say nothing. My bet is that most of the moaners on here probably are not members. If you were I guess you would be a little more respectful. It is obvious that we will have the right to ask what safeguards were or were not in place with regard to the operation of the various accounts, and this will come out in due course. We all know that some on here are better at running the supporters club. So here is your chance. ANY VOLUNTEERS? Obviously all members have no prior engagements ahead of a meeting re-arranged at very short notice. I'd imagine, also, that a good percentage of members and non-members alike are wondering how this can happen and how (presumably) one person can move (presumably) significant sums of money without detection. I don't think there's much ingratitude at all, unless you see people asking legitimate questions as ingratitude. Stinks of the old "well, Nick spent his money, if you don't like it, buy the club" attitude that we had from many up to last year. If you see anyone having a pop at the loyal volunteers who sell 50-50 tickets, organise coaches etc., do call them out by all means, but asking questions about this very worrying situation, even if they're questions that can't yet be answered (not all people will know about Police disclosure etc.), isn't disrespectful or ungrateful. An organisation that has a clear flaw in its' governance structure is open to questioning. PS if anything the Government do upsets you I do hope to see you standing for Westminster in 2020 based on your attitude. If you read what I said again you will see that there is little if any difference in what we both said. The s/c has obviously been told what it can and can't say, so until the AGM that will be it. That said, I can't see why we cannot be told how the accounts were operated i.e. Double signatures for monies out or transferred, and interim audits with no advance warning. Hopefully that will all be disclosed on Thursday. But no point asking about who and why and where, as this will be met with a ' I am unable to comment ' response.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Feb 10, 2017 17:55:04 GMT
I'm going to Santa Suzanna by concord I own it.
|
|
|
Post by trojandog on Feb 10, 2017 17:56:20 GMT
£152k could not have been sitting in a Tesco bag waiting to be nicked, it would have been in a bank account. The BRSC statement states "misappropriation of funds" not 'theft', suggesting it is missing from the bank account. The BRSC 'Club Rules and Constitution' lays down that four members of the Executive Committee:
BRSC Chairperson BRSC elected BRFC Director BRSC Treasurer BRSC Secretary
are "officers for signatory purposes (see rule 7)". Rule 7 states "All cheques will be signed by TWO BRSC officers". Therefore, unless forgery has taken place, two people had to authorise removal from the bank account.
It is interesting that the BRSC statement uses the term "probable misappropriation", not "possible":
Probable - likely to have occurred or prove true. Possible - something that could happen or prove true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 18:14:08 GMT
I'm going to Santa Suzanna by concord Stay out of the casinos.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Feb 10, 2017 18:20:52 GMT
£152k could not have been sitting in a Tesco bag waiting to be nicked, it would have been in a bank account. The BRSC statement states "misappropriation of funds" not 'theft', suggesting it is missing from the bank account. The BRSC 'Club Rules and Constitution' lays down that four members of the Executive Committee: BRSC Chairperson BRSC elected BRFC Director BRSC Treasurer BRSC Secretary are "officers for signatory purposes (see rule 7)". Rule 7 states "All cheques will be signed by TWO BRSC officers". Therefore, unless forgery has taken place, two people had to authorise removal from the bank account. It is interesting that the BRSC statement uses the term "probable misappropriation", not "possible": Probable - likely to have occurred or prove true. Possible - something that could happen or prove true. No idea how often the constitution is updated but the original wording was probably drafted way before online banking was invented. Like many small businesses, clubs, associations, trusts etc, processes, controls and security measures often give way to convenience over time. You can have annual statements and opt for paperless so it's not hard to see how something like this can go undetected for a long period of time. If this is an inside job then yes, control systems should be challenged but, at the end of the day, it will be down to a massive breach of trust. I hope the details and person(s) responsible are divulged at some stage. May the culprit be banished to Matty Taylor's new drinking hole and ostracised for eternity.
|
|
|
Post by perryfenwick on Feb 10, 2017 18:25:07 GMT
Obviously all members have no prior engagements ahead of a meeting re-arranged at very short notice. I'd imagine, also, that a good percentage of members and non-members alike are wondering how this can happen and how (presumably) one person can move (presumably) significant sums of money without detection. I don't think there's much ingratitude at all, unless you see people asking legitimate questions as ingratitude. Stinks of the old "well, Nick spent his money, if you don't like it, buy the club" attitude that we had from many up to last year. If you see anyone having a pop at the loyal volunteers who sell 50-50 tickets, organise coaches etc., do call them out by all means, but asking questions about this very worrying situation, even if they're questions that can't yet be answered (not all people will know about Police disclosure etc.), isn't disrespectful or ungrateful. An organisation that has a clear flaw in its' governance structure is open to questioning. PS if anything the Government do upsets you I do hope to see you standing for Westminster in 2020 based on your attitude. If you read what I said again you will see that there is little if any difference in what we both said. The s/c has obviously been told what it can and can't say, so until the AGM that will be it. That said, I can't see why we cannot be told how the accounts were operated i.e. Double signatures for monies out or transferred, and interim audits with no advance warning. Hopefully that will all be disclosed on Thursday. But no point asking about who and why and where, as this will be met with a ' I am unable to comment ' response. I think the difference was your "any volunteers" comment. You don't need to be volunteering yourself as the new chairman in order to say that something's gone clearly wrong. But I think 99.99% of supporters, members or not, realise the value of the volunteers out selling this and that on a Saturday.
|
|
Marshy
Proper Gas
Posts: 14,129
|
Post by Marshy on Feb 10, 2017 18:32:47 GMT
I'm going to Santa Suzanna by concord Good luck with that 1. Don't forget to check the tyres and the fuel tanks?
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Feb 10, 2017 18:57:11 GMT
£152k could not have been sitting in a Tesco bag waiting to be nicked, it would have been in a bank account. The BRSC statement states "misappropriation of funds" not 'theft', suggesting it is missing from the bank account. The BRSC 'Club Rules and Constitution' lays down that four members of the Executive Committee: BRSC Chairperson BRSC elected BRFC Director BRSC Treasurer BRSC Secretary are "officers for signatory purposes (see rule 7)". Rule 7 states "All cheques will be signed by TWO BRSC officers". Therefore, unless forgery has taken place, two people had to authorise removal from the bank account. It is interesting that the BRSC statement uses the term "probable misappropriation", not "possible": Probable - likely to have occurred or prove true. Possible - something that could happen or prove true. No idea how often the constitution is updated but the original wording was probably drafted way before online banking was invented. Like many small businesses, clubs, associations, trusts etc, processes, controls and security measures often give way to convenience over time. You can have annual statements and opt for paperless so it's not hard to see how something like this can go undetected for a long period of time. If this is an inside job then yes, control systems should be challenged but, at the end of the day, it will be down to a massive breach of trust. I hope the details and person(s) responsible are divulged at some stage. May the culprit be banished to Matty Taylor's new drinking hole and ostracised for eternity. I would have thougt any online banking still would require authorisation. No one can make a payment where i work with out the financial controller okaying it
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Feb 10, 2017 18:57:57 GMT
£152k could not have been sitting in a Tesco bag waiting to be nicked, it would have been in a bank account. The BRSC statement states "misappropriation of funds" not 'theft', suggesting it is missing from the bank account. The BRSC 'Club Rules and Constitution' lays down that four members of the Executive Committee: BRSC Chairperson BRSC elected BRFC Director BRSC Treasurer BRSC Secretary are "officers for signatory purposes (see rule 7)". Rule 7 states "All cheques will be signed by TWO BRSC officers". Therefore, unless forgery has taken place, two people had to authorise removal from the bank account. It is interesting that the BRSC statement uses the term "probable misappropriation", not "possible": Probable - likely to have occurred or prove true. Possible - something that could happen or prove true. No idea how often the constitution is updated but the original wording was probably drafted way before online banking was invented. Like many small businesses, clubs, associations, trusts etc, processes, controls and security measures often give way to convenience over time. You can have annual statements and opt for paperless so it's not hard to see how something like this can go undetected for a long period of time. If this is an inside job then yes, control systems should be challenged but, at the end of the day, it will be down to a massive breach of trust. I hope the details and person(s) responsible are divulged at some stage. May the culprit be banished to Matty Taylor's new drinking hole and ostracised for eternity. As it seems only one position on the executive is not in place, I would bet this has been done by one individual. Therefore, as mentioned above, subject to forgery, which would make the banks potentially liable, I agree with Bluebeard that the most likely cause is online banking. Someone somewhere had lost sight of the security of two signatories being required for major movement of funds, so it will be interesting to find out who allowed this to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Feb 10, 2017 19:04:56 GMT
I find it a bit sad to be honest. I hope this doesn't effect the good people on the ground tomorrow doing good work for us all.
|
|
|
Post by pilninggas on Feb 10, 2017 19:08:57 GMT
Perhaps someone's gone to watch Sabadell in the sun on a permanent basis.
|
|
|
Post by Gasshole on Feb 10, 2017 19:19:10 GMT
I'm going to Santa Suzanna by concord I'll pick you up at the airport in my new Bentley. Truffle anyone?
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Feb 10, 2017 19:45:55 GMT
This is another one of those money threads where everyone's got an opinion but nobody has a clue what's going on. It's just like the UWE threads the debt threads and the Taylor contract too. f**k it let them sort it out and sing my heart out for our team tomorrow !
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Feb 10, 2017 19:47:40 GMT
No idea how often the constitution is updated but the original wording was probably drafted way before online banking was invented. Like many small businesses, clubs, associations, trusts etc, processes, controls and security measures often give way to convenience over time. You can have annual statements and opt for paperless so it's not hard to see how something like this can go undetected for a long period of time. If this is an inside job then yes, control systems should be challenged but, at the end of the day, it will be down to a massive breach of trust. I hope the details and person(s) responsible are divulged at some stage. May the culprit be banished to Matty Taylor's new drinking hole and ostracised for eternity. I would have thougt any online banking still would require authorisation. No one can make a payment where i work with out the financial controller okaying it Yea of course it would require authorisation. Most businesses have a range of access permissions and dual password / passcode systems set up. it's not unheard of though for passwords and passcodes to be shared. Avoids stress when the appropriate people aren't around when wages need to be processed.
|
|
|
Post by gasstrictband on Feb 10, 2017 19:49:08 GMT
I will be in the Bristol room from 2.15 giving away £50 pound notes
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Feb 10, 2017 20:02:56 GMT
This is another one of those money threads where everyone's got an opinion but nobody has a clue what's going on. It's just like the UWE threads the debt threads and the Taylor contract too. f**k it let them sort it out and sing my heart out for our team tomorrow ! There are several people who know exactly what has gone on but are unable to divulge information for obvious reasons.
|
|