HOME PAGE | FACTFILES | QUOTES | COMMENT FORM |

Last year when our auditors, ISP, looked at the Debt Guarantee letter, which proved to be of far less value than the paper it was written on - £117,500.00 less in fact - they should have been on their guard, remembering an acrimonious correspondence they had with Barrie Stuart-King that began on 28th January 2000.

Extracts of this are shown below.

Letter One

Dear Mr. Savage,

I write on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Brian Malloy and John Proctor, each of whom is a formally-nominated candidate standing for election as, respectively, Chairman, General Secretary and Treasurer, at the Annual General Meeting of the Association due to be held at Lord's Cricket Ground on 25 March.

We understand that, in addition to acting as the Association's auditors, you also accept full professional and legal responsibility/liability for receiving and counting the postal ballots received from Members prior to the AGM.

We should be grateful if you would confirm to us, in writing, the procedure you adopt upon receiving the postal ballots. For example, do you open each one individually immediately it is received, or do you store/retain them all, unopened, to be counted and collated after a specific time on a formally notified closing date?

If the latter:

• What will be the closing date/time this year for the return/receipt of the postal ballot papers?
• On what date will you undertake the count, if different?
• Are independent invigilators present to oversee the counting?
• When and to whom within the Association do you notify the results of the Counts?

Your prompt response would be appreciated.

Letter Two

Mr. Norman Taylor (a Partner in the firm) responded on 4th February confirming that Mr. Savage would respond within a week. Clearly this was not good enough for BSK who responded on 11th February thus:

Dear Mr. Taylor,

On behalf of my candidate colleagues, Brian Malloy and John Proctor, and myself, I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 4th February.

We place on record our concern and dissatisfaction at both the nature of its contents and the manner in which your company has failed to respond to our enquiries. In addition to its appointed role as independent auditors of the Association of Cricket Umpires & Scorers, ISP has also accepted full legal responsibility/liability for administering the AGM postal ballot and, in this capacity, your response has not been that of a professional firm.

Having administered previous postal ballots on behalf of the Association, we fail to understand your inability - or is it reluctance? - either to explain the procedures you adopt on receipt of ballot papers, or to answer the five simple, reasonable, questions posed, namely:

1. Do you open each envelope immediately it is received, or do you retain them all, unopened, to be counted and collated after a specific time on a formally-notified closing date?
2. If the latter, what will be the closing date/time this year for the return/receipt of the postal ballot papers? (NB: One quick telephone call ascertained that it is the 15th March; although quite why the cut-off should be 10 days before the AGM, merits question).
3. On what date will you undertake the count, if different?
4. Are independent observers present - or permitted to be present - to oversee the counts?
5. When and to whom within the Association do you notify the results of the counts?

My first letter to ISP requesting this information was dated 18th January. I/we received neither the courtesy of an acknowledgement, nor the information requested. BT Directory Enquiries not having a listed telephone number under the name of ISP in Edgware, I obtained it from the Institute of Chartered Accountants, who also identified for me the names of the Partners.

In the absence of a response from ISP, I telephoned to ask which Partner was responsible for the ACU&S Account. The telephone receptionist to whom I spoke told me that, in fact, Mr. Savage was the man I needed to speak to, but he was busy. I left my name and telephone number with a request that he call me back.

Mr. Savage did not return my call. Accordingly, on 28th January, I wrote him an identical letter to that sent on 18th January, 10 days earlier. Again, Mr. Savage did not respond, although he did find the time to register and complain about my/our letter to an ACU&S Executive Officer!

On 7 February, I received your letter dated 4 February carrying the one cryptic sentence …"I refer to your letter dated 28 January 2000 addressed to our Mr. Savage, and will respond to your points raised within the week" … Meaning, I take it, by today, 11 February? It was not in my mailbox this morning.

It begs the question: why do you need yet ANOTHER week before being able to respond?

Whatever the reason - and we draw our own conclusions - your unprofessional handling of this matter has, inevitably, raised serious reservations in our minds as to ISP's allegiance and impartiality. In your reply, you may wish to take the opportunity to assuage these doubts.

Under the circumstances, please be advised that we shall be seeking the appointment of two neutral observers to attend the count/s - one, a solicitor, representing the interests of my colleagues and myself and the other, of their choice, representing the interests of the other parties involved. Naturally, both will be sworn to respect the absolute confidentiality of the count until the results are officially declared on 25 March.

In the meantime, I continue to await your written response.

Yours sincerely BARRIE STUART-KINGM
CC: Keir Hopley, General Secretary, ACU&S

Compare and contrast this demand for urgent action on the part of the Auditors with BSK's vacillation in dealing with the Committee of Enquiry (Section 4.8).

Letter Three

On 14th February, Ian Segal, Senior Partner of ISP, was moved to write to BSK in the following terms.

BY POST AND EMAIL

Dear Mr. Stuart-King,

I write to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 11th February 2000 addressed to my Partner Norman Taylor. I am replying to your letter in my capacity as Senior Partner of ISP.

I take most seriously the comments you have raised in your letter. I respond to the points raised as follows:

1. You state "we place on record our concern and dissatisfaction.." Please will you clarify who is meant by "we". Does this comment relate solely to yourself or are other parties also dissatisfied?
2. My firm have responded to your enquiries in a timely manner.
3. You state that ISP have also accepted full legal responsibility/liability for administering the AGM postal ballot. I wish to point out that my firm are the Appointed Agents of the Association of Cricket Umpires and Scorers. Our terms of reference are set out in our letter of engagement.
4. I take exception to your comments that "your response has not been that of a professional firm". This is incorrect and inflammatory.
5. There is no inability or reluctance upon my firm to answer the points you have raised. As I understand the position, you are not an elected member of the Committee of the Association of Cricket Umpires, although again I understand that you are standing for election. Mr. Taylor has spoken with the present Treasurer of the Association of Cricket Umpires and Scorers, Mr. Reed who has authorised us to correspond with you.
6. In his letter of 9th February 2000, Mr. Taylor clearly explained the answers to the five "simple, reasonable, questions posed". In order to avoid any doubt, I repeat Mr. Taylor's responses to clarify the position:-
   a) Each envelope is opened immediately it is received. The ballot papers are immediately date stamped. Your comments regarding our procedures if each envelope is not immediately opened are therefore not appropriate
   b) As advised, the closing date for the ballot is 15th March 2000. This is printed on the ballot form. The cut off date of 15th March being 10 days before the AGM in accordance with the instructions of the Association of Cricket Umpires and Scorers Committee.
   c) As a matter of efficiency, the results of each ballot paper are recorded either on a daily basis or as advised above when a suitable batch is ready for processing. The results are recorded on a separate result sheet at this time. On 16th March 2000, the results will be totalled and the result ascertained.
   d) ISP are independent observers, up until now there have been no other independent observers present at the count. However, should you wish other observers to be present, then subject to the approval of their costs, this is not a problem as far as ISP concerned (sic).
   e) The results of the ballot are sent to the Administration Manager of the Association under sealed cover for presentation at the AGM. The results are dispatched immediately after the count i.e. 16th March 2000.
7. I cannot trace receipt of a letter you refer to dated 18th January 2000. You state that this was sent again on 28th January 2000.
8. Thank you for drawing my attention to the fact that BT Directory Enquiries do not have a listed telephone number under the name ISP in Edgware. I have now taken this matter up with BT.
9. I apologise for Mr. Savage not returning your call in January 2000. If in future you wish to speak with anybody regarding ACU then please speak with my secretary Anita Blackman who will ensure that I call you back.
10. Mr. Taylor (rather than Mr. Savage) did speak with the ACU&S Executive Officer regarding the tone of your letter. This was not a complaint.
11. As far as I can see from the file, Mr. Taylor's letter of 9th February 2000 deals with all of the points raised and was despatched within one week of 4th February 2000. There has therefore been no need for "YET ANOTHER week before being able to respond".
12. As mentioned above, I take exception to your use of the word unprofessional and trust that you will now withdraw this. Also, your comments regarding serious reservations in your minds as to ISP's allegiance and impartiality are totally inappropriate, inflammatory and matters that I take exception to. Please now formally withdraw these in writing.
13. Subject to your agreement with the Executive of ACU&S, I am more than happy that you appoint two neutral observers, indeed, in view of the comments in your letter, I think I will insist on this to ensure your satisfaction as to our impartiality. I also require your written apology for the totally inappropriate remarks that you have made.

Yours sincerely,
Ian H. Segal
Cc K. Hopley

On 16th February BSK responds to Mr. Segal's letter thus:

Letter Four

BY POST AND FAX

Dear Mr. Segal

I write subsequent to your telephone call to me on Monday morning and receipt of faxed (not e-mailed) copy of your response letter also on/dated 14th February. I address the points in your letter in the same chronological sequence:

1. The opening sentences of my letters dated 28 January addressed to Mr Savage and to Mr Taylor dated 11 February clearly identify the "we" as my candidate colleagues Brian Molloy, John Proctor and myself.
2. I disagree. My first letter, which you say you have no record of receiving, was dated 18 January. It was identical in content - a duplicate - to that dated 28 January addressed to Mr Savage. I received no interim acknowledgement from Mr Savage advising that he had passed it to Mr Taylor for response, nor did he return my telephone call. Mr Taylor's letter, although dated 4 February, was not received until 7 February. In it, he promised a detailed reply …within the week"… i.e. by 11 February. Monday was 14 February; today is the 16th and his letter has still not been received in the post. During this period, however, Mr Taylor found the time to discuss with an Executive Officer of the Association, both the content of my letter and, I have to assume, a response.
   It was not until after you and I had spoken on the telephone on Monday morning that I received your faxed copy of a letter written by Mr Taylor - his promised response - which carries the date 9 February. That is the first indication we have received that he had replied. Put yourself in our position; seen from our side, we cannot relate this sequence of events to your claim to have responded in a timely manner. Had you not sent the fax copy of Mr Taylor's letter, we would still have been waiting for the mailed original.
3. I am not sure I understand this. I am not familiar with either your Letter of Engagement with the ACU&S or your terms of reference embodied therein, but having previously administered AGM postal ballots on behalf of ACU&S you have, de facto, agreed and accepted full responsibility for the conduct of them.
4. See (2) above. Before taking exception, you might contemplate that had either Mr Savage returned my first telephone call, or Mr Taylor picked up a telephone to discuss the matter with me, this subsequent chain of events would not have occurred.
5. You are correct. I am not an elected Member of the Executive Committee of the ACU&S, but I am a formally constituted candidate for the position of Chairman at the forthcoming AGM and it is in the latter capacity that I sought clarification from you of your procedures with regard to the counting of postal ballots. Quite why you needed Mr Reed's permission to talk to me about them, or to provide the information, I fail to understand; it is a straightforward matter of democracy (Caeser's Wife (sic)), not client confidentiality.
6. Received on 14 February by fax.
7. See (2) above.
8. No comment.
9. I am more than happy to do this.
10. That was not how it was reported to the ACU&S Executive Committee meeting last week.
11. I refer you again to (2) above.
12. Our straightforward request for clarification of your procedures seemingly having been ignored, what alternative conclusion could we come to? Under the circumstances, I do not accept that my comments at that time (prior to our telephone conversation) advising you of our personal reservations were either totally inappropriate or inflammatory. In hindsight, it was unfortunate that your failure to acknowledge or communicate with us on this subject coincided with our discovery of other factors - totally unconnected with yourselves - relating to this election. The combination reinforced our concerns and reservations.
13. In the light of your explanation that your firm's considerable workload during January/February was a major contributory factor in the delayed response; that you did not receive my first letter dated 18 January; and that, although we have still not received the original, Mr Taylor did pen a reply to our questions on 9 February, I am prepared to accept that my use of the word unprofessional may have been undeserved.
14. I welcome your agreement to the appointment of neutral observers and will write to the General Secretary of with regard to his/her preferred nominee. We know who ours will be. I believe such an arrangement will be in the best interests of all the parties concerned. As to your requirement for a written apology …"for the totally inappropriate remarks you have made", I am not sure, given the foregoing, what inappropriate remarks your demand relates to.

Finally, may I suggest that, in view of our mutual agreement in principle to the appointment of neutral observers, a more practical and convenient approach to the counting of the postal ballots would be to store them unopened until close of play on 15 March and to undertake the full count on 16 March in the presence of the observers. The AGM is on 25 March - 9 days later - so the final, sealed, results do not need to be forwarded to the ACU&S Administration Manager until nearer that date.

Yours sincerely,
BARRIE STUART-KING
cc: Keir Hopley

Letter Five

BY POST AND FAX 01932 851952

Dear Mr. Stuart-King,

I write to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 16th February 2000.

I do not propose to enter into any further correspondence with you concerning this matter. I am writing to Mr. Hopley at the ACU&S for his instructions.

Yours sincerely,
IAN H. SEGAL

Although this was the end of formal correspondence between the two parties, ISP did request confirmation that the BSK/Malloy/Proctor independent observer (who had mutated from a solicitor to Mr. Julian Laud - of Charterhouse Enterprises - to Matthew Davies - a Fire Officer and business acquaintance of Mr. Laud) was that person. BSK emailed the following:

Subj: ACU&S Ballot Count
Date: 15/03/00 11:27:23
From: BARRSKING
To: Norman.Taylor@ISPchartac.com

In response to your email received this morning, I confirm that Mr Matthew Davies is the authorised representative of myself, Mr Brian Malloy and Mr John Proctor, appointed to attend at your offices tomorrow, 16 March 2000 on our behalf.

Mr. Davies is not known to us in any capacity. He has been appointed on our behalf by Mr Julian Laud of our advisors, Charterhouse, subsequent upon our request to him to locate an alternative independent, neutral Observer when Mr Laud, our original nominee, learnt that he would be unable to attend tomorrow owing to extended business commitments in Oxford. (Contrast this with Q30 of the Open Letter to BSK)