Just seen this on the BBC:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, following a six-week inquiry, forensic accountants from Moore Stephens have concluded there is no evidence to suggest that Knight had any influence over the OPLC's internal stadium processes or that she had access to any sensitive material or papers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the argument has been done to death but there are many questions unanswered. One of these might be how a "Director" of the OPLC has no input into the bidding process or access to any sensitive papers. We might then ask what she does do for her money (no not the £20,000 she got from West Ham, the money the OPLC presumably pay her).
So either the bidding process is flawed or they are paying a Director for not doing anything important, neither of which paint them in glory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, following a six-week inquiry, forensic accountants from Moore Stephens have concluded there is no evidence to suggest that Knight had any influence over the OPLC's internal stadium processes or that she had access to any sensitive material or papers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the argument has been done to death but there are many questions unanswered. One of these might be how a "Director" of the OPLC has no input into the bidding process or access to any sensitive papers. We might then ask what she does do for her money (no not the £20,000 she got from West Ham, the money the OPLC presumably pay her).
So either the bidding process is flawed or they are paying a Director for not doing anything important, neither of which paint them in glory.
