The Weekly Round-Up: 28.10.05

Working late and spending long nights away from home are all part and parcel of modern business, as is the need to walk a treadmill of interminable corporate entertainment.

For some this actually means late nights and long pining evenings away from loved ones, going through the motions of hospitality and endlessly ingratiating yourself to yet another hand you have to shake.

But for others it means packing your best pulling pants, staying up late in strip clubs and leaving your wedding ring in the hotel room.

Possibly falling into a camp closer to that latter scenario was the CEO of US IT services firm Savvis, whose name has been dragged through the media mud this week.

'Why, what had he done?' the Round-Up hears you ask, sensing a salacious titbit (no pun intended... as you'll see further on).

Well, he'd taken three contacts to a New York strip club and spent the evening there consorting with 'dancers'.

Shock - and indeed horror! Or to put it another way: 'So what?' as anybody who subscribes to the 'boys will be boys' school of thought might respond, knowing such things go on.

Well, Robert McCormick, CEO of Savvis, allegedly ran up a bill of $241,000 on his company credit card in said club and is now resolutely refusing to pay the bill, according to the understandably aggrieved bean counters at American Express who have initiated legal proceedings in an attempt to recover the funds.

However, Savvis claims that McCormick, who is currently on unpaid leave, has been the victim of fraud... possibly because that's far easier to claim than trying to get your head around how four men might have run up a bill of a quarter of a million dollars in a strip joint.

According to Savvis, McCormick made no attempt to charge the money back to his employer... which may have been more laudable had he paid it himself and left it at a simple: "I'll take care of my AmEx bill this month" rather than leaving it unpaid in his company's name.

But there is a principle here. Savvis insists its CEO has been defrauded and as such shouldn't have to pay the money.

Certainly given that McCormick doesn't now actually own the strip club and in fact has nothing to show for his evening there it could easily be argued that he certainly didn't get his money's worth.

But that's a world away from actually proving money was criminally charged to his account.

"We firmly believe that Mr McCormick was the victim of fraud," said the deputy general counsel for Savvis (which sounds a little like her boss, the general counsel, possibly said 'Here, you can handle this one' before running for the hills.)

But a spokesman for the New York nightspot, called Scores, denies any accusations of that nature.

In fact, Scores apparently makes customers confirm and agree their bill every time it climbs by another $10,000 and even employs such measures as fingerprinting customers (would be interesting to see where that ink ends up) and phoning up their credit card companies as the charges mount.

One issue likely to come to light during the inevitable legal wrangling which will ensue in this instance is the unresolved case of Tauhidul Chaudhury. (Thank you to the New York Daily News for unearthing this juicy precedent... and for referring to McCormick as a 'Lap Dunce'. Nice.)

Chaudhury single-handedly ran up a bill of $129,626 at Scores during one seven-hour booze-fuelled flesh-fest. A lawsuit filed by Chaudhury claimed that although he was "clearly and obviously intoxicated" the club continued to serve him drinks.

The Round-Up's favourite detail is that at one point, the lawsuit claims, Chaudhury's inebriated condition became so grave he had to be taken into a private room.

To have a lie down, we presume.

Much of the cash went on $5,000 tips issued to 15 lucky dancers as well as the $5,000 fee to hire a 'Presidential Room' which comes with a personal wine steward, maitre d' and waitress - who were also generously tipped.

(The Round-Up thinks it says something of a country's scandal-chequered premiership that its strip joints have 'Presidential Rooms'.)

Of course, Chaudhury aside, the most important precedent in the case of McCormick v Scores may be that people who are caught doing something a little sleazy tend to deny it vehemently, especially if admission will set them back the best part of $250,000.

The case continues, as clearly does the scepticism. Somebody is lying but the Round-Up would never dare presume which side of the argument is guilty of doing so.

Moving on from such sequinned titillation ... some government bungling should calm racing pulses a little.

This week saw the launch of the latest government-backed campaign to get us all computing more safely online - called appropriately enough 'Get Safe Online' (not to be confused with 'Be Safe Online' which was a totally different campaign - and not aided by the fact the latest campaign missed the word 'Safe' out of the subject line of their launch press release).

The problem with this initiative is that before it had even launched silicon.com had discovered two serious flaws in the planning.

First, it came to light the organisers at the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit had failed to communicate their message to the most important potential participants - the ISPs who handle the internet traffic for UK homes and businesses.

A spokesman for the Internet Service Providers Association told silicon.com the industry body had actually shown some interest and approached Get Safe Online but had been knocked back quicker than a shot of cheap tequila.

And then we heard that the organisers of Get Safe Online had given similar short shrift to anybody who was unable to pay a £150,000 fee for a founder's sponsor package or £50,000 or £100,000 for a lesser sponsorship package.

AOL and antivirus firm Sophos have both told silicon.com such a fee was a barrier to joining the initiative. While silicon.com appreciates the need for this project to fund itself, making signing up cost-prohibitive for companies or individuals who can bring a lot to the discussion will not benefit internet users in the UK.

And speaking of security - shame on the antivirus companies who this week put out some spurious warnings about 'bird flu', which we're not even going to outline here. (Though don't worry, nobody was suggesting your PC can get avian flu.)

Also, hang your head in shame the company who put out a press release warning about an increase in zombies at Halloween.

You see, it's very clever, zombies are compromised PCs which are used to relay spam or viruses remotely. But, and here's where the clever word play comes in, they are also brain-dead creatures who emerge from the grave and... well, write press releases it would seem, around this time of year.

"The consequences of encountering a zombie attack can be critical to the business environment... "

At this or any other time of the year we presume, though we're just glad the company peddling this old toot didn't look for the Thriller angle.

"It's close to midnight and something evil's lurking on the web..."

But there's still time...

And still on a horror theme (albeit loosely) it's over to Romania - if not actually Transylvania - where the government is setting out its credentials for being allowed to join the EU.

One senior Romanian government type told the Today Programme on Radio 4 that a lot of Microsoft employees are Romanian and therefore the company should be allowed into the EU. (Microsoft bought antivirus company GeCad there in 2003.)

Erm... OK.

Perhaps he was relying on the fact that the logic underpinning his argument would be so obscure that anybody listening would simply assume they didn't get it... before writing to their MEP demanding Romania be let in to join the top table.

Either that or he thinks Microsoft is based in the EU... or he totally missed the fact that the EU and Microsoft have had a strained relationship of late and misjudged the effect such name-dropping might have.

And finally, the most bizarre spam scam ever has been circulating this week. It truly is the crowing glory of the 419 scam world. But at the heart of this email isn't an opportunity to launder millions of dollars from a Lagos bank account of a deceased Nigerian millionaire or pick up the winnings from the Spanish lottery (having never entered El Gordo) but rather something more spectacularly irrelevant than anything we've ever seen.

The email begins: "I know you must be very surprised to be reading from me, considering the fact that you don't know the identity of the person writing you, but be rest assured that I am writing you with good intentions."

Nothing odd there - this is a fairly standard opening for many such scam emails.

It continues: "I am Mrs Nancy Doyles, the president and owner of Doyles Football Club, a club side based in Dublin, Republic of Ireland."

But somehow the Round-Up doubts that - though appreciates the attempt to pick a genuine Irish name, which we suspect owes something to a pub sign they've seen. (They do get everywhere those 'Paddy Doyle's'-style Irish theme pubs. For the record the Round-Up has drunk in many real Irish pubs and bars and has never seen a bike on the wall.)

"I got your e-mail contact address from an internet directory here in Bangkok Thailand, while browsing the web, searching for talented, fit and skilled young football stars... "

Seems reasonable.

"Doyles Football Club is a club side I inherited from my late husband, Mr Patrick Doyles."

(She just couldn't resist the obligatory, and in this case totally unnecessary, 'recently deceased' angle could she.)

"For best results for the team, I hired the services of an experienced English coach that has been a former assistant coach in a Premiership side in London and our aim is to be at the top of the Irish league and onward gradual progress to the Premiership. This feat can't be achieved without the help and assistance of young football stars," she adds.

No, that feat can't be achieved without completely rewriting the FA rule book and allowing Irish clubs to play in the Premiership...

"The team is currently in Bangkok, Thailand on a 2 months training and trial tour of Thailand," she adds.

This really should be the first give-away for anybody who knows football. Or footballers. If Mrs Doyles really is running a football team bound for the Premiership she should really know better than to take them to Bangkok. Doesn't she read The Sun? Doesn't she know what these delinquent athletes get up to?

They'll all be in jail before they've kicked the first ball.

Furthermore, what's she still doing in Thailand? Doesn't she realise the season started some time ago... they're not going to get to the Premiership by staying in the Far East and forfeiting matches.

Anyway, she continues: "Reason for contacting you: If you can play active football well please contact me."

Nancy Doyles then outlines some minimum requirements before adding that players must all report to the training camp in Thailand (can you see where the sting may come... airline tickets, hotels, transport, administration fee, maybe?)

She continues: "So far we have gotten 8 players from Africa, 5 from South America, 4 Asians and 3 Europeans, 1 American has confirmed his flight ticket and will join the rest of the team next week."

So they actually have almost as many Irish players as the actual Irish national team then.

The Round-Up liked the bit about the American being on his way - it provides that extra human touch.

"The selected players will return to the team's base in Dublin, and must sign a compulsory one year contract with the team. The dropped players will be compensated and they will return to their home country with their return tickets."

So there's nothing to lose then.

Nice. The Round-Up is polishing its football boots as we speak.

Does anybody want anything bringing back from Thailand? (No, Robert 'Savvis' McCormick, that offer doesn't extend to you.)

Until next week, here's some news: