By Tony Attwood
PKF is a firm of accountants engaged by Tottenham Hotspur, a club which until 1965 was part of the county of Middlesex. In that year it moved (along with the rest of the county) into London.
They (PKF) have been asked to look further into issues of Olympic Stadium stuff. Somehow they got hold of telephone records and other spicy bits and pieces, and supposedly gave them to Tottenham.
It has been revealed in court that PKF have agreed to reveal to West Ham all that they picked up. It has also been revealed that they were only employed by Tottenham after Tottenham lost in their bid to get the stadium as their own.
After losing that bid (much to the annoyance of some Arsenal fans who created a jolly ditty about the need for Tottenham to run off to Stratford because “north London is ours” – what with Arsenal having been in north London from 1913, with Tottenham only joining them 52 years later) Tottenham launched appeals of such magnitude that the government was frightened that they would be left holding the stadium forever, and so were forced to scrap the whole “who wants a stadium?” gameshow.
Among the items that found its way to Tottenham via PKF are Karen Brady’s mobile phone bills showing details of each and every call that has been made during a set period.
PKF has said they don’t know where the record come from. The court has ruled that the records have been “unlawfully obtained”.
Tottenham Hotspur, a football club, deny any wrongdoing.
PKF have said: “Neither West Ham nor Karen Brady have made any claim against PKF. They have asked us to supply information which is confidential to our client, Tottenham Hotspur. Tottenham Hotspur [has] indicated that it no longer objects to us providing this information and we will now happily do so.”
The Olympic Park Legacy Company will issue a new tender document for the Olympic stadium any time now, in order to avoid a further investigation by the EC West Ham are expected to be bidding again, and Orient are expected to launch a legal challenge. What Tottenham will do remains to be seen.
“He is accused of concealing a signing-on fee for a midfielder.
“He spoke only to confirm his name and the case was adjourned until 15 April when he is due to enter a plea.
“Mr Storrie, of St Helen’s Road, Hayling Island, Hampshire, was given unconditional bail.
“He had been expected to enter a plea at the hearing, but the case was adjourned.”
One wonders why. Anyway, that is on the internet as of today, and so can’t be considered prejudicial to Arry’s trial (otherwise it would have been taken down). (Actually if you live n Hayling Island, could you pop round and see if Mr S is at home?)
“There will be a plea and case management hearing in the Harry Redknapp, Milan Mandaric and Peter Storrie case at Southwark Crown Court. The defendants are charged with various counts of cheating the public revenue.”
Now that is a matter of public record, and indeed still showing on the internet so again it can’t be prejudicial to the case. Anyone can read it.
But by the time the Guardian ran the story of the upcoming court case on 12 November 2011 Mr Storrie had vanished from the plot – as if he had never existed, never been part of the game, never been charged, never pleaded, never worked at Portsmouth, never nothing. He has become a non-person.
Except on the internet where there are lots of tales. I even get people writing to me saying that Mr Storrie has been tried and they know the result. But if they do, they know more than I, because I went searching the internet today and could find bugger all. (And anyway, these stories are typical football stories – all inside information and no facts or evidence to back it up).
Anyway, Mr Storrie had been expected to plead in January but did not. Then in March there was a plea and a case management hearing. Then Mr Storrie vanishes. Can we make anything of this, without drawing in any knowledge or supposition which can not legitimately drawn in and which might prejudice the trial?
All we can say is that logically one of these things happened…
1. At the meeting in March Mr Storrie was teleported away to another planet by Captain Kirk of the Starship Enterprise and the meeting was abandoned pending Mr Storrie’s return from the Planet Zonk.
2. Mr Storrie claimed that he was an itinerant jellyfish and demanded that his case be heard by his peers.
3. Mr Storrie’s lawyer said that Mr Storrie was an angel and as such could only be tried by God. God said fine, but he was rather busy trying to sort out the problems caused by the Japanese earthquake, and would deal with things when He has a moment.
4. Mr Storrie turns out never to have existed and was merely a figment of Arry’s imagination. (Now that one I would believe).
5. Mr Storrie is a quantum entity and therefore exists in multiple states and so is guilty and innocent at the same time rather like Schroedinger’s cat.
6. Mr Storrie is, in fact, a cat.
Of course the jury will judge Arry on the facts presented to them in the case, and if they are not told about that report on the CPS and BBC web sites then they will not have Peter Storrie in the case at all. Although that might be a bit strange since he was there. But I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know “strange” in the way the law does.
But here’s a thought. Wouldn’t it be amusing if the prosecution said to Arry, “So, Mr Redknapp, would you always say you are an honest person?”
“Yes,” says Mr Redknapp.
“And when you said in late 2011 that you never questioned or abused referees. were you being honest then?”
“Yes, I was,” says Mr Redknapp.
“Then, Mr Redknapp, what do you have to say to the report on Untold Arsenal which highlighted a number of occasions in which you have significantly questioned the integrity and/or competence of various referees.”
“OK gov, its a fair cop,” says Mr Redknapp. “I done the Baker Street heist and the Shepherd’s Bush market job, but I plead insanity on account of having been the only person in history to have managed and destroyed both Portsmouth and Southampton football clubs within the space of two years and instead of being persecuted like this I should have a knighthood.”
That would seem about right.
Next week, is the pope a hedgehog?