Accountability, Transparency, & Brave Sir Robin

Avatar By

Hoopy 7October 6, 2016 at 21:02 ‘..I am 100% convinced Sevco …

Comment on Accountability, Transparency, & Brave Sir Robin by John Clark.

Hoopy 7October 6, 2016 at 21:02
‘..I am 100% convinced Sevco are in arrears and that HMRC is waiting to pounce at the right moment.’
_______
And I think it’s important to keep in mind that this blog is not about the possible collapse into Administration of a particular football club, but about making sure that if ‘Administration’ turns into’ Liquidation’, the Football Authorities do not even ATTEMPT to act as they disgracefully acted when RFC were Liquidated, and a brand new club was deemed to be the same as a still’ living-dead’ club, in a totally absurd Alice-through-the-looking-glass phantasmic way.
That is, the blog is about:
the cheating of a now liquidated club,and
the fact that that cheating was not picked up by people who were in a position of authority and knew about the cheating, and
the fact that when the cheating became an issue there was denial and misinformation in quantities to protect and defend that cheating, not least by the SMSM, and
the fact that when that did not save the cheating club from legal, commercial, and football death, a most horrendous and perfidious deal was struck by the Authorities with a charlatan to create a myth
and so on.
Essentially, this blog is about Truth. The Football Authorities have lied already.
We must not acquiesce in that lie.
And we most certainly will make bloody sure that they do not even begin to think of lying again to preserve the new club, if it happens to die , like the club that it ludicrously claims to be.

John Clark Also Commented

Accountability, Transparency, & Brave Sir Robin
I mentioned the other day that I had emailed the Gambling Commission about the leak of the allegations against JB.
This is the reply I received this morning.
Today at 8:12
“Dear Mr Clark Thank you for your email below. Your email was passed to Mr Moyes who has asked me to respond to the points you have raised regarding alleged leaks to the press.
In terms of our remit, the Sports Betting Intelligence Unit (SBIU) which sits within the Commission develops intelligence packages to support regulatory or criminal proceedings where evidence of match-fixing or the manipulation of events is identified. The SBIU works closely with Sports Governing Bodies, Law Enforcement and betting operators to ensure the integrity of sports betting in Great Britain. More details about the approach we take are available here: SBIU
We are also part of the Sports Betting Integrity Forum which brings together these parties to discuss issues relating to betting integrity at a strategic level.
With regards to publicity around ongoing cases, the Commission’s position is that we do not comment (unless there are exceptional circumstances) as doing so may prejudice investigations and, as you have outlined, would be unfair to named individuals in the absence of investigations being concluded and facts established.
Whilst we do not have any powers to prevent leaks from other parties that may be involved, we would of course take a dim view of any operators who chose to leak such information.
We engage frequently with betting operators, and the other parties involved, and expectations around the confidentiality of information that is exchanged is made clear to all of those we work with.
There is no intention to change the Licence Conditions that are in place currently for betting operators but this is kept under constant review.

Kind regards Andrew Turton
Information Manager________________________________________________Gambling CommissionVictoria Square HouseVictoria SquareBirminghamB2 4BP Tel. 0121 230 6618Fax. 0121 230 6720


Accountability, Transparency, & Brave Sir Robin
CrownStBhoyOctober 12, 2016 at 23:49
‘..For those who can’t see Phil’s latest:’
______
Thanks for that, by the way,CrownStbhoy.


Accountability, Transparency, & Brave Sir Robin
HomunculusOctober 12, 2016 at 17:02
‘..As I understand it all they needed was the Court of Session’s leave to appeal, once that was granted then the appeal would be heard in the Supreme Court.’
_______________
Not that I doubted you for even a second, Homunculus, but I felt the need to find th legislative basis ( been some far-reaching changes introduced by the Courts Reform(Scotland)Act 2014:
and the basis for your correct view is here:
“Appeals to the Supreme Court
117 Appeals to the Supreme Court
In the Court of Session Act 1988, for section 40 (appeals to the Supreme Court: appealable interlocutors) substitute—“40    Appeals to the Supreme Court
(1)An appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court against a decision of the Inner House mentioned in subsection (2), but only—
(a)with the permission of the Inner House, or
(b)if the Inner House has refused permission, with the permission of the Supreme Court.
(2)The decisions are—
(a)a decision constituting final judgment in any proceedings,….
…………..
………..”
So, if the Inner House gives permission, then the appeal has to be heard.
Glad we got that sorted!
( This must bore the pants off some posters, but it’s a good discipline to do what we criticise the SMSM for not doing -checking our facts!)


Recent Comments by John Clark

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
My brother and I, auld men now that we are, meet occasionally for a pint or three.
We tend to pay homage to our late dad by visiting one of the pubs he used as a young man afore the war ( he lived in digs near Partick Cross) , or one of the pubs he used when we were kids during his working life at what  used to be Glasgow Corporation Tramways Parkhead depot,  or the pub he used in Tollcross in his retirement days.
So I feel for the patrons of what had been Annie Miller’s pub in Ropework lane.
If and when the new owners of the premises tart it up gaily as a feeder bar for their adjoining sauna, I expect that it will no longer be a ‘Rangers’ pub,a place of shared enjoyment of football memories and celebration of former days of glory.

Like the historic Rangers Football Club, Annie Miller’s is dead. Ceased trading in 2016. No longer exists as a ‘Rangers’ pub, any more than the Rangers Football Club of 1872 exists as a professional football club entitled to a place in Scottish Football.
That’s the reality.
There isn’t even a ‘Scottish Football Pubs Association’ prepared to create and propagate a lie  that ‘Annie Miller’s’ lives on, there have been no white or green knights/knaves rushing in to found ‘continuity Annie Miller’s’, no running-dog SMSM types betraying their avocation by propagating untruths……and.no convicted criminals begging, borrowing and making false promises about good times to come if only other folk will produce the readies…
Annie Miller’s is dead and gone.
Only a lie sustains TRFC Ltd.
And those who drank in Annie Miller’s know that.
And the evil men of the SMSM and the SFA know it, too.
May 2018 see them confounded, and their untruths exposed.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FinlochDecember 30, 2017 at 20:42
‘…Craig took a Corinthian and undisciplined club going nowhere fast, rooted it into a previously ignored community and has achieved some incredible health and social goals deep into that community using football as glue.’
________
Beautifully expressed, Finloch.

Football as a glue of ‘community’

Of community trust,

of basic honesty,

of the  Corinthian spirit,

of sporting integrity….

and of all the virtues that the SFA has so spectacularly abandoned, in its determination to insist that Charles Green’s Sevcoscotland is entitled to call itself the Rangers of 1872

That such an incredibly monstrous perversion of truth of any kind, never mind sporting truth, is being, and has been for 5 years, propagated by our Football Governance body and supported by the SMSM is stark evidence of a deep, deep corruption at the heart of our sport, and, worse, at the very essence of our ‘free’ Press.

in this little country of ours.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
And since I’m talking to myself while all you guys and gals are snoring your heads off, can I just mention that in the local newspaper this morning there was a piece about school sports.

It seemed to be about the ‘pick’ of the best players.

I didn’t have time today to read the whole thing ( and it’s too late to disturb the household to go looking for the paper!) but it seemed to be related to the use by ‘soccer’ teams of the American  Football  concept of who gets to pick the best player in the ‘draft’.

I have only the haziest understanding of that concept.

But in so far as it might relate to attempts to create genuine ‘sporting’ , on-field, equality of talent, it must have something to recommend it.

Even the Americans realise that in order to make money out of sport,there has to be some concept of genuine ‘sporting competition’

Auldheid reminded us, quite movingly, of the joyous nature of our game as we all experienced it.
We all knew instinctively what was fair, and what wasn’t.
Remember how our street game teams were picked?

The two ‘captains’ tossed for first choice.Whichever won the toss would pick the ‘best’ player. The other guy would pick ‘the second best’ and so on.

And, if it appeared that there was an imbalance ,or if there was an odd number of players, then it would be agreed that a ‘John Clark’ would play the first half for one side to give them the extra man, and the second half for the other side, to try to be fair in the use of that useless lump!

( who, I may say, was actually quite good at lifting the wee ba’ from the street up onto the pavement, one hand on the lamp-post outside the Thomson’s house on Cuthelton Street, and bringing it to the goal at the lorry entrance to the Domestos depot ( formerly Donald Clarke’s steel kind of place, which in 1947 sirened One o’Clock,with the siren they used ‘during the war!’)

And it is these kinds of memories that fuel my contempt
contempt for the cheating bast.rd of a knight of the realm who killed the RFC of my day

contempt for the SFA who, like some referees,not only did not ‘see’ that cheating but went further and assisted in that cheating

And who continue to propagate the lie that the football club that cheated its way to death by Liquidation is somehow the same club as a five year old creation that they themselves have lied into existence.

And as for the the whole lot of the successive boards of either Sevco 5088, Sevcoscotland, The rangers football Club Ltd, RIFC plc  how can they be described otherwise than as  scavengers of carrion? Feeding as they do on the dead flesh of a once proud football club?

It gars me greet…
Quietly and solemnly, into my glass of “Goose IPA, 5.9%, made from hops from Idaho” ( And actually quite surprisingly pleasant, reminiscent of McEwan’s pale ale.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
It’s 11.43 pm in Scranton,PA,  and we have just come back from being wined and dined  in tremendously good company in a friends-of-the-son’s home.

I am therefore in a cheerful frame of mind. (Mind you, sitting in the back seat of the car I had one of those A9 moments of absolute fear, when the driver overtook another car on a blind bend, before I realised we were still on a dual carriageway!)….

For one reason or another, it suddenly strikes  me that I don’t actually know ( or remember) when it was that the concept of ‘transfer windows’ was introduced, or why it was introduced.

On the face of it, it’s as much of a restriction of ‘trade’ on ’employers’, as the pre-Bosman situation was on freedom of employment was on ‘workers'(players).

Is there a decently worked out rationale for the concept?


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
easyJamboDecember 27, 2017 at 17:49
‘..I think that the document will only be a restatement of the resolutions that were approved at the AGM (Resolutions 10 & 11).’
_________
You’re perfectly right, of course, eJ: it was only the official recording  of the AGM resolutions.

I think I for one (in my general ignorance) tend to think that any plc of which a director has been taken to the Courts( in an unprecedented action by the Takeover Panel) would have every form or document that it submitted to Companies House rigorously examined, cross-checked, double-checked, treble checked ,even, in a way that ,for example, the SFA does not do with documents submitted to it by its trustworthy gentlemen members.

The Takeover Panel has a lot riding on how the Law stands in its approach to the Panel’s need for support in their regulation of rogues in the market-place.

So I tend to look at anything touching on RIFC plc that seems even a wee bit different as something worth exploring.

Largely tongue-in-cheek, of course: -we’re not likely ever to be told anything confidential by CH! But if they say something will appear, and then it doesn’t appear when promised, then it allows one to ask why. Keeps them on their toes!

And we know that when even the gentlemen of our free Press are not above behaving with less than complete honesty when it comes to TRFC Ltd/RIFC plc  there may (God forbid!) exist a ‘protective of companies’ mindset in CH, rather than a ‘get the baddies’ approach.

Who knows?


About the author

Avatar