It doesn't sound good. But I'd like to see what all the real facts are.
So true.
Once again it sounds like a 'fishing expedition' as an article.
"ummm - Ozzy was investigated for fraud while a member of parliament" - trying to make it sound like it was a parliamentary issue. Oops - turns out it was an accusation by a builder who claimed that Ozzy stole one of his cheques and forged his signature. Claims which were flushed down the toilet by the police.
Oh - but Ozzy used to be a police officer, and was in 'daily contact' with the investigating officer (how long did this investigation take? 2 days? Did Ozzy speak to the guy on the first and last day of the investigation?)
That part of the article is a bunch of trumped up hogwash - using something that somebody was accused of, and yet innocent, to try and set up what comes next.
And what comes next is something about lending a player money? Even though the opening sentence tries to imply that Ozzy owed that player money.
The sale of jersey thing: $9k was collected in December 2009 and 'cashed in' March 2009. From the highly speculative notions put forth in the article so far, we might fairly assume late december and early March --> so a 2.5 month lag, which included peak holiday time.
I've no idea what the heck Ozzy was doing flogging jerseys off anyway? No idea how he got his hands on the $9k - but for a distributor of a company's product to return their profits 2.5 months later would be a fairly normal mode of operations surely?
The only 'damning' thing in this article is the same base fact as the original article raised: $35k in personal expenses on company card and the loan from Spags. That just sounds dicey!
