Band of brothers

first_imgWould you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.last_img


Family First launches High Court appeal against being stripped of charitable status

first_imgStuff co.nz 26 September 2017Family First Comment: Hold your horses, Charities Board!Controversial conservative lobby group Family First is appealing against being stripped of its charitable status by the Charities Registration Board.The board’s decision was made public in August. It was the second time it had tried to deregister the group.“Family First will appeal this decision as far as we need to because of the threat it places on us and other charities and their freedom to speak and advocate on behalf of their supporters in a civil society,” national director Bob McCoskrie said in a statement on Tuesday.The group has lodged an appeal in the High Court at Wellington to fight the deregistration.McCoskrie said the group had also successfully applied for an order that the board be restrained from deregistering the group until the appeal was heard.The board can direct charities to be removed from its register when they do not advance a charitable purpose for the public benefit and it is in the public interest to remove them.The group promotes traditional family values, is anti-abortion and considers marriage to be only between a man and a woman.“The board considers that Family First has a purpose to promote its own particular views about marriage and the traditional family that cannot be determined to be for the public benefit in a way previously accepted as charitable,” a statement from the board last month read.In 2013, the board made the decision to remove the group from the Charities Register because it did not advance exclusively charitable purposes.Family First appealed against that decision to the High Court.In June 2015, the High Court directed the board to reconsider its decision in light of the 2014 Supreme Court Greenpeace judgment and its own judgment.https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/97276959/family-first-launches-high-court-appeal-against-being-stripped-of-charitable-statuslast_img read more


The Osasuna manager says he did not draw up Flefield’s contract

first_imgThe former financial director and current manager of Osasuna, Ángel Ardanaz, has denied that it was he who prepared the contract for the Flefield company with which the club justified the cash mismatch of 1.4 million euros at the end of the 2013/2014 season , ensuring that it seemed “strange” that this payment was made per box.Ardanaz has testified at the trial against six former directors of Osasuna, three former Betis players and two real estate agents accused of crimes of misappropriation, corporate, false business document, falsification of annual accounts and sports corruption for the supposed match size.During your statement He stressed that former Angel Vizcay “has lied” by ensuring that it was he who drew up this contract and He indicated in this regard that at the time this document was delivered to the auditor, Adolfo Suárez, he was on vacation.He pointed out that the first time he saw this contract was when he was requested in a future audit, already after Vizcay left, and that he located it on the former manager’s computer, ensuring that he had never accessed this equipment before and this time he did it with a password that he had left behind. Regarding these payments, he said he found it “strange” to be made by cash and that the problem of lack of justification be solved in a few days, although he explained that He did not ask for explanations because there were documents prior to his arrival at the club that he did not know and at no time thought that the bills could be false. Regarding a refund of 125,000 euros signed by him and Vizcay, he said that he explained that he was destined to repay a loan and that the then president, Javier Zabaleta, was aware of it, although he did not verify it.As noted, It was not until the completion of the audit, in June 2014, when he became aware of this cash mismatch of 1.4 million euros, which meant that “or there were no supporting documents or money was missing.”This matter, he indicated, was discussed at the meeting held in August at the request of the auditor Adolfo Suárez between the management team and the Board of Directors, also coming himself, the then accountant, Tomás López and the lawyer Miguel Martínez de Lecea.As he explained, The main theme of this meeting was the viability of the club and if Osasuna was to make a bankruptcy proceedings or a payment for their assets, although the auditor stated that there was a mismatch in the accounts, asking the president to leave the room to discuss the matter privately.At this time, he recalled, former manager Ángel Vizcay set out to explain what had happened with that money, but Luis Ibero told him that “he did not want explanations” but a solution, since the Board, which had recently entered Osasuna, did not He had intervened in the problem.Ardanaz said that when he went to work in the club in accounting “there was a tremendous traffic jam” and noted that only “simple bank movements” were counted but “the rest was not done.”In this sense, He made reference to the fact that at the end of the accounting year Social Security was unpaid and there were complaints from players for non-payments, two issues on which, he said, focused their efforts to avoid relegation to Second B, as this put the continuity of the club in serious danger.last_img read more