Where transparency exists accountability inevitably follows.
This is an extract from a post on SFM from 2015. The subject was Transparency and Slow Glass
The message then was that football governance has to catch up in realising that football has to become more transparent in its dealing with supporters and so more accountable to them.
That transparency is already here via social media because of the ability to share, but the light of truth is constrained by Slow Glass.
Slow Glass from a short story by Bob Shaw slows down the light passing through it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_of_Other_Days
In the story and others, you have Slow Glass of different thickness in terms of the time it takes for the light to emerge.
You have Glass a day thick/long to Glass ten years thick/long and more.
Resolution 12, if measured from the Celtic AGM in 2013 when it was tabled and adjourned, has taken 6 years for the light of truth to emerge, although it could have happened sooner had main stream media removed the dust of PR that slows the light, but light is inexorable and it is emerging at an archive of events since 2011 that can be read at
https://www.res12.uk/
It is in two parts.
Part One relates to events in 2011/12 including a very interesting link between UEFA Licence 2011 and the commissioning of Lord Nimmo Smith to investigate use of EBTs with side letters by Rangers FC where non-disclosure benefited Rangers FC in 2011 AND 2012.
Part Two concentrates SFA activity (or lack of it) from 2014 to date as result of the adjournment of Resolution 12 in November 2013 that provided shareholders with the authority to seek answers.
The archive has been constructed in chronological sequence to help readers understand better the detail and separate what took place in 2011/12 which is in the past, from the SFA handling of shareholders legitimate enquiries from 2014/15 to date, which remains current and is a mirror of SFA performance in respect of the national football team.
Many narratives will emerge as a result of the transparency, some Celtic related, but a system of governance, that is accountable in some way to supporters as stakeholders in the game, can only benefit the supporters of all clubs and they are encouraged to read through the archive.
As Phil Mac Giolla Bhain has written here in respect of Celtic and the SFA
accountability has to be the outcome of transparency to wipe the face and soul of Scottish football clean.
How that is achieved will be up to Scottish football supporters everywhere to take forward via their Associations and Trusts, in collaboration with the clubs they support, but it does seem to me, and I know others with more legal experience, that the SFA would find it difficult to resist a challenge to their refusal to engage with people (in this case minority shareholders of member clubs) who are affected by decisions that they make.
As SFM is about Scottish football, and I have always been quick to criticise RFC/TRFC, I must admit I am having increasing unease about my own club and Lawwell's leadership in particular.
Under Lawwell's watch CFC has – generally – discreetly and professionally – and very successfully – gone about its business.
Like many though, I have been disappointed in the delaying tactics and then the lack of action on Res.12, raised by fans and shareholders.
The more recent process to appoint a permanent manager I find both confusing and a bit alarming.
But, perhaps most pertinently, I have growing unease over the handling of the Celtic Boys Club child abuse.
The SMSM is reporting today that a public figure did not get any acknowledgement of his recent letter on this matter: CFC has stated that they 'couldn't reply for strong legal reasons'.
CFC could – and should – have had the courtesy to at least acknowledge the letter, if only to follow up with another letter confirming that legal advice restrained the club from commenting further.
To not respond at all looks like CFC just doesn't care about the young in our community. Totally at odds with the ethos of the club itself.
I fully appreciate that Lawwell is probably getting advice not to apologise publicly so as not to admit liability.
But to try to continue denying any responsibility or liability whatsoever for criminal activity at Celtic Boys Club just doesn't seem right, IMO.
CFC could – without admitting liability – be proactive and e.g. create a victims' fund. At the very least it would be a positive gesture. It could even negate any future legal actions, which 'might' be preferable for all concerned?
Lawwell gets plenty of criticism for being too prudent with CFC's money – and I just hope this doesn't affect his judgement on 'doing the right thing'.
StevieBC 31st May 2019 at 08:15 & John Clark 31st May 2019 at 13:06:
I've learned a new word today — Columbarium. It's a place where cremated remains are stored & memorialised.
I've read that part of Memorial Walls' intention was to provide several hundred places within the garden to enable families of deceased fans to have their loved ones remains' placed within the environs of Ibrox at an initial cost & then a yearly charge for upkeep.
Whatever one's moral or ethical feelings are about the concept (I'm against, BTW), it would seem to be a guaranteed money-maker. I wonder what made RIFC/TRFC change their minds?
StevieBC 31st May 2019 at 13:25
strong legal reasons’.
……………
And we will leave it at that.
It appears to me that there is a concerted and orchestrated attack on CFC and their supporters ,as if a whistle had been blown . No way are they to be allowed to enjoy a successful , record breaking season . And Mr Lawell didn't appear to be properly briefed and his PR team impotent in his televised presser . Mibbes the news for TRFC/RIFC from their recent spat with SDI is going to be far worse than feared , hence the need to cow their enemies . Or could even be far better than they hoped , and are now ripping into their rivals with abandon . In my opinion , the only way to lance this boil is a full judicial inquiry , encompassing all sports and clubs in Scotland . It's always been my view that anyone who knew about the abuse anywhere , and said or did nothing , is culpable along with the perpetrators .
General meeting at ibrox June 19, 2019
https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2019/05/Circular-FINAL21561323_1.pdf
……………..
From what i may have seen The retail damages to Ashley will be known by the 18.
Busy June.
From what i can remember you need 28 days to call an EGM, but i can’t remember how long to call a general meeting.
John Clark 31st May 2019 at 13:06
Certainly, I thought at the time that the proposal to use a bit of otherwise apparently not particularly useful ground for such a purpose was a creditable one.
But I was struck by the incongruity of a club which was really toiling to find the wherewithal for daily running expenses and having to borrow from its directors, being so improvident as to contract for a million quid of expenditure on a, basically, unnecessary project at a time when it was by no means certain that the club would continue in existence long enough for folk to enjoy it if and when completed!
There seems to be a kind of lack of rationality in many of the decisions taken by TRFC Ltd, decisions that almost certainly had to be authorised by the Chair of RIFC plc.
………………..
We have seen this smoke and Mirror trick before from down ibrox way.
Finances are fantastic.
No Debt.
Envy of the world.
Cash rich.
Ashley has gone.
A standing section.
etc.
…………….
The ibrox fan base has been let down by so many broken promises and the memorial one is just another in a long line of Bluster to make things look better than they are down ibrox way.
Don’t get me wrong king has upheld some of his promises.
Reduce the celtic fan numbers at ibrox.
The orange tops.
It is the promises that cost money the ibrox boards can’t keep.
Jingso.Jimsie 31st May 2019 at 15:41
'..I've learned a new word today — Columbarium. '
================
In the grounds of a local parish church near my son in Brisbane, there is a beautiful garden, the main feature of which is a wall. This turned out to be a wall with little compartments for the reception of urns containing the ashes of deceased former parishioners or the loved ones of present-day parishioners.
I'm not particularly well-travelled and I had not come across that before, and it took me some minutes of reflection before I saw it as merely an adaptation of the millennia-old Christian [and perhaps of other religions] practice of burying the dead in ground near the physical church they had attended!
And it makes some kind of sense for those for whom supporting a football club has been their religion and the stadium their place of worship.
I'm pleased that such walls have such a nice name as 'columbarium'
Cluster One 31st May 2019 at 19:16
Your great link to the move by the RIFC Board to remove the fear that loans might be called in if the lenders were for any reason to be spooked, thus absolutely ruining TRFC Ld.
_____
I hadn't quite realised that over £14 million has been needed to the boat barely afloat. A few sudden deaths among the 'individual' lenders whose heirs might wish to, or have to, call in the loans, or demands from the boards of institutional investors whose shareholders might wish to see some better return on their money, might see TRFC Ltd suffering an insolvency event!
I like this wee para: "The Rangers Football Club Ltd (“TRFC”) agreed a 3-year contract in April 2018 for manufacture and supply of Rangers kit and training gear. It is envisaged that this contract will significantly enhance the revenue generated for TRFC from this area of the business but entering into the contract has led to litigation with SDI Retail Services Limited. "
Fair dos, not a word of a lie there. But also no indication of what the financial consequences of losing that litigation might be.
Again, the appeal to sentiment and fan devotion of the small shareholder ,with the votes of Club 1872 already in the bag, no doubt, and with the endorsement of a non-shareholder ( is that the same Alistair Johnson what nodded his head?)
Rangers have been given permission to turn an unused car park at Ibrox into a memorial garden.
The plans would see a memorial wall erected dedicated to supporters who lost their lives within the iconic stadium supporting the team that they loved
The club said they wanted to turn the unused car park at Copland Road into a True Blue garden of remembrance, which would have a wall, gates, fencing, public realm improvements and associated works.
Drawings for the ambitious plans also revealed the club want to include an Ibrox Disaster memorial within the garden.
Rangers have agreed to use car parking spaces reserved for players to compensate for the loss of 34 spaces to create the garden.
The garden will operate 8am to 8pm daily.
A decision approving the plans has now been announced by Glasgow City Council.
A planning document said: “The proposal was considered to be in accordance with the Development Plan and there were
no material considerations which outweighed the proposal’s accordance with the Development Plan.”
The work has to be carried out within three years.
Claire Wallace, general secretary of the Rangers Supporters’ Association, welcomed the plans.
She said: “This is a lovely place for fans to spend time and reflect.
“It is a fitting tribute to those who lost their lives in the Ibrox Disaster and I hope it is the first of many new developments around Ibrox and the surrounding area.”
March 16, 2018.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-create-memorial-garden-pay-12201948
………………………….
So the club sought permission to turn an unused car park at Ibrox into a memorial garden.and it was granted. The Rangers Supporters’ Association, welcomed the plans.
…………………
But today.
Rangers said the wall was “insensitive and inappropriate”.
A club insider said the plans, once examined, were not in the interests of fans.
led Rangers to conclude that such a project was inappropriate, would be rejected by supporters and result in commercial disaster.
Sorry other link for above.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-being-sued-11m-after-16229023
Cluster One 31st May 2019 at 19:16
'.From what i can remember you need 28 days to call an EGM, but i can’t remember how long to call a general meeting'
====================
The expression 'extraordinary general meeting' or 'EGM' is dying the death. All meetings are now 'general meetings' with the obligatory annual meeting being the Annual General meeting.
As it happens, the Articles of Association of RIFC plc say:
"Notice of general Meetings
Art 39.1 Subject to Art 39.2 general meetings …shall be called by notice of
39.1.1 in the case of an annual general meeting, at least 21 clear days and
39.1.2 in the case of any other general meeting
39.1.2.1 at least 14 clear days"
So the Company Secretary has been careful to allow just the minimum notice!
John Clark 31st May 2019 at 20:28
I like this wee para: “The Rangers Football Club Ltd (“TRFC”) agreed a 3-year contract in April 2018 for manufacture and supply of Rangers kit and training gear. It is envisaged that this contract will significantly enhance the revenue generated for TRFC from this area of the business.
……………….
“It is a fitting tribute to those who lost their lives in the Ibrox Disaster and I hope it is the first of many new developments around Ibrox and the surrounding area.”
March 16, 2018.
……………..
As i spoke of earlier smoke and mirrors, It looks as if a lot of it was going on in early 2018
John Clark 31st May 2019 at 20:54
………
Thanks JC.
Wasn't there more than one Ibrox disaster. Was this memorial rembering the deceased of both?
I'll have a look at the details of latest Debt for Equity swap later together with any implications, but King had previously advised at the TOP hearing that a share issue was planned for July this year. The GM date fits in with that plan.
On a skim read, it looks as if the bulk of the outstanding loans (£14m) are being converted.
Such a debt conversion would have have taken the Concert Party back into TOP territory, but it seems that they have already been in contact with TOP and have been given permission to proceed if the non CP shareholders agree to it at a General Meeting (that is what is described as the "whitewash resolution").
RIFC's last full year accounts (to June 2018) showed loans of £23.425m outstanding.
The September 2018 share issue converted around £11.63m of those loans
The proposed conversion will convert a further £14.165m, £13.365m of which will be accounted for by Concert Party and Directors interests (King, Taylor, Letham, Park, Scott)
The two conversions are greater that the 2018 balance of loans by approx £2.4m, which would suggest that they have borrowed at least that amount over the last year, but there is currently no indication of the balance of loans provided by other shareholders, such as Julian Wolhardt (Borita Investments and New Trace Ltd), so the borrowing requirement may have been greater. Their last accounts suggested that they needed £4m this year and will need a further £3.6m next season.
An additional impact on completion of the conversion to shares would be dilution of Club1872’s holding from 9.5% to 6.2%.
easyJambo 31st May 2019 at 22:59
'…but it seems that they have already been in contact with TOP and have been given permission to proceed if the non CP shareholders agree to it at a General Meeting ..'
=================
Well, after the easy ride he got from the TOP, it was not to be expected that they would refuse King permission !
I am inclined to draw an analogy, or a parallel, between the TOP and the SFA Board.
Each is a 'regulatory' body .
But each is made up of people of the same stamp as those whom they are supposed to 'regulate'.
CG shafted the SFA Board big time, while our clubs looked on, grateful for a share in the money received for the shafting.
Dave King very, very plainly , told the TOP to gtf and, in effect, they did! no 'contempt of court,' quite happy to accommodate him with his belated 'compliance', and now very ready to grant waiver to allow the loan conversion!
We need not look to the TOP for anything like Truth, any more than we can look to the SFA.
All is murky-murky absence of the very notion of Truth.
Might be understandable in the dirty world of 'business'.
Not at all understandable in the world of Sport and the basis on which sporting honours and entitlements are accorded
Wouldn't club 1872's constitution require them to vote against the Debt for Equity swap. I know, I know.
Isn't club 1872's only aim supposed to be to increase the fan shareholding in the club (Sic). From memory the dilution at the last swap wasn't too great because they had also loaned but this time the dilution is around a third.
Of course club 1872 would be able to increase their holding again and more cheaply if people are prepared to sell and they have the cash. The market cap cold not possibly continue to stand up a share price of 20p if the proposed swap goes through, indeed the share price in the last trade in the public domain (through JPJenkins) was at 18p.
easyJambo 31st May 2019 at 23:40
An additional impact on completion of the conversion to shares would be dilution of Club1872’s holding from 9.5% to 6.2%.
…………………
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1134566439778754561/photo/1
All going well then;-)
Highlander 29th May 2019 at 22:24
So, apart from Rangers board member Stewart Robertson, who, on his own, can hardly decide SFA/SPFL policy unopposed, who is it you are accusing of being a closet Ibrox season-ticket holder.
…………………………
Don’t know if he is a closet season ticket holder but he has urged the rangers (yes only the rangers,no other club) to try and end celtic’s dominance next season.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jduffin24/status/1134695452941705216/photo/1
easyJambo 31st May 2019 at 22:59
Such a debt conversion would have have taken the Concert Party back into TOP territory, but it seems that they have already been in contact with TOP and have been given permission to proceed if the non CP shareholders agree to it at a General Meeting (that is what is described as the “whitewash resolution”).
……………….
We, as Club 1872, need to be a strong position to support each one of those share campaigns. We want to protect our members’ investments and donations and show our members that we can do that. That is an important part of Club 1872.
Laura Fawkes: I think one of the key messages of this campaign is that this is a way to get money directly into Rangers. Last year we spent £1million and it was an amazing achievement, it took us beyond anything that any fans group had achieved at Rangers before. But, significantly, it proved what a group of Rangers supporters can do when they are united.
This time, we have an opportunity to spend £1million again but the difference being is that it goes directly into the club. We are looking to take Club 1872 from being a fans group to major investors so that when the call comes, and they will do through various share issues, we will be there and be ready to invest and step up in the same way as any of the current investors
Going forward, we have got an outlined plan for the next ten years as custodians of Club 1872 now and our job is to lay good foundations for any future boards coming in. For those ten years, our ultimate goal has to be to get to at least those 50,000 members. If we are at 50,000 and £10 per month on average, we are looking at £6million of investment every year and that is huge for Rangers.
BT: I think, as Euan said, we are in a tremendous position as the second largest shareholder, so why can’t be continue to be the second largest shareholder with a larger shareholding in the future? If we have managed to get to here, why can’t we build on that and continue to be at least the second largest shareholder, and be very influential?
https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/15898584.rangers-qa-club-1872-on-1million-share-issue-fundraising-drive-ashley-share-purchase-board-representation-and-fan-ownership/
………………
So it is all going well then for club 1872, or maybe not.
easyJambo 31st May 2019 at 23:40
"An additional impact on completion of the conversion to shares would be dilution of Club 1872's holding from 9.5% to 6.2.%"
I think I see the logic here and how this is actually a boon.
Alternative facts require alternative explanations.
Alternative ills require alternative remedies.
What better than alternative medicine?
One branch of alternative medicine involves treatment by a substance which is diluted. This dilution increases potency and repeated dilution, to well past the point where no molecules of the original substance remain, further increases the potency of the treatment.
The logic proceeds on the same basis as the view that once a Microprocessing Company becomes so successful it has to move into smaller premises.
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
We Are The Rangers Interstellar Homeopathic Football Club Unlimited.
om 9.5% to 6.2%. View Comment John Clark 1st June 2019 at 00:09 easyJambo 31st May 2019 at 22:59 '…but it seems that they have already been in contact with TOP and have been given permission to proceed if the non CP shareholders agree to it at a General Meeting ..' ================= Well, after the easy ride he got from the TOP, it was not to be expected that they would refuse King permission ! I am inclined to draw an analogy, or a parallel, between the TOP and the SFA Board. Each is a 'regulatory' body . But each is made up of people of the same stamp as those whom they are supposed to 'regulate'. CG shafted the SFA Board big time, while our clubs looked on, grateful for a share in the money received for the shafting. Dave King very, very plainly , told the TOP to gtf and, in effect, they did! no 'contempt of court,' quite happy to accommodate him with his belated 'compliance', and now very ready to grant waiver to allow the loan conversion! We need not look to the TOP for anything like Truth, any more than we can look to the SFA. All is murky-murky absence of the very notion of Truth. Might be understandable in the dirty world of 'business'. Not at all understandable in the world of Sport and the basis on which sporting honours and entitlements are accorded
___________________________-
Very sad to say, John, that your/our search for honesty in sport is but the tip of a very big iceberg when you compare it with what's going on in UK politics, where current and past cabinet ministers not only lie, but their fellow current and past ministers seem to see nothing wrong with high profile politicians lying to the very people they are meant to represent while they cannot defend their colleague by showing him as innocent, they just try to deflect and call it out as wrong to judge in a court of law the accused's actions. In other words, they live in glass houses, just like the SFA, and fear the fallout that any investigation of the lies of one of their number might bring.
Not wanting to cause a political debate here, but to point out that the lack of integrity, and acceptance of dishonesty, within Scottish football governance is of little consequence when compared to the bigger picture of the UK establishment, where, just like our clubs are letting the SFA and TRFC run roughshod over sporting integrity, even the official opposition* are saying and doing nothing when presented with yet another opportunity to highlight the dishonesty of their rivals.
*I realise that some of their number are doing their best to beat the cheats and charlatans that haunt the UK Parliament, but I'd liken them to SFM and similar blogs, ploughing a lone furrow in their hunt for truth and honesty in their respective governing bodies.
Probably talking rubbish here but what happens if,after debt for equity swap,SD get awarded the around £10m they're reportedly asking for.A move that could trigger a recall of Close Brothers loan.Rangers could find themselves once again with debts of circa £15m.If they can't/won't pay then they could themselves in administration.Unless there's debts we don't know about,then Ashley/Close would control over 75% of said debt in a CVA scenario.Where would that leave RIFC?.
To what extent is the SFA a public body whose decisions are potentially subject to Judicial Review as to whether they were fairly arrived at by due process under their own rules?
Or a private body whose decisions may 'have a sufficient public element, flavour or character to bring it within the purview of public law' [Dyson,LJ]
I think Bonnyrigg Rose might well find some support for seeking Judicial review of what on the face of things looks like a quite unjust and arbitrary use of power, arising from a sudden change , backdated as it wee, in the criteria for membership of the Lowland League.
[ I am prompted to mention this because I see that Halliday in the 'Scotsman' today has a wee piece about the SFA's decision, in which he concludes " Rules are rules, but the SFA surely needs to re-examine and reshape criteria which are stifling the very ambition it is supposed to be encouraging']
John Clark 1st June 2019 at 13:19
I think Bonnyrigg Rose might well find some support for seeking Judicial review of what on the face of things looks like a quite unjust and arbitrary use of power, arising from a sudden change , backdated as it wee, in the criteria for membership of the Lowland League.
[ I am prompted to mention this because I see that Halliday in the 'Scotsman' today has a wee piece about the SFA's decision, in which he concludes " Rules are rules, but the SFA surely needs to re-examine and reshape criteria which are stifling the very ambition it is supposed to be encouraging']
=============================
I was speaking to someone with close connections to Penicuik Athletic this morning. He confirmed that the club had been advised that their recently announced licence and "membership" of the SFA will not be a full one, but an "affiliate" or "associate" membership without voting rights. The recent licence awards have still to be formally ratified at the SFA's AGM in the next couple of weeks. The suspicion is that this new membership category is a sop to the SPFL clubs who fear that their influence will be diminished with an influx of newly licenced clubs.
It appears that the newly licenced clubs have again been misled about what they applied for in good faith and what they will get in return for their investment in facilities.
The Bonnyrigg situation has moved on a bit as they completed erection of their new (second hand) floodlights just yesterday. Again it makes a mockery of the SFA's decision not to grant them a licence/derogation.
However, I've heard murmurings around the terraces that Bonnyrigg will be subject to another licensing audit next week in advance of the Lowland League/SFA's forthcoming AGMs. If there is any truth in that then it undoubtedly would be the result of the pressure that been applied since their rejection last month. That pressure has come from clubs, the East of Scotland League, and possibly the Scottish Government and the threat of legal action by Bonnyrigg themselves.
I have increasing sympathy with Whitehill Welfare as this saga has unfolded as they, like Bonnyrigg, don't know what league they will be playing in next season.
Edit: Bonnyrigg had just tweeted the following:
Bonnyrigg Rose Athletic @BonnyriggRose 11 minutes ago
Season in numbers:
199 goals
5️0 games
4 Cup semi finals
2 Cup finals
1 East of Scotland league title
(Oh, and 1 set of floodlights)
torrejohnbhoy 1st June 2019 at 13:08
.Unless there’s debts we don’t know about,then Ashley/Close would control over 75% of said debt in a CVA scenario.Where would that leave RIFC?.
……………….
You have not been paying attention;-)
…..
It would leave them.
The best run club in europe the envy of Barcelona and Bayern.
Cash rich.
Gerrard with a warchest.
The dominant force.
A £30million stricker they don’t want to sell.
And a share issue in the company if you have been paying £18.72 a month will help you own the club.
Allyjambo 1st June 2019 at 11:41
Very sad to say, John, that your/our search for honesty in sport is but the tip of a very big iceberg when you compare it with what’s going on in UK politics, where current and past cabinet ministers not only lie, but their fellow current and past ministers seem to see nothing wrong with high profile politicians lying to the very people they are meant to represent while they cannot defend their colleague by showing him as innocent, they just try to deflect and call it out as wrong to judge in a court of law the accused’s actions. In other words, they live in glass houses, just like the SFA, and fear the fallout that any investigation of the lies of one of their number might bring.
………………
Like you or i
I ask myself how do they sleep at night.
At what point in their lives do they turn to themselves and say “Yes this is the best way to go”
I just can’t no matter how hard i try to put myself in these SMSM SFA spfl peoples shoes and feel content with the lies, how do they face their children knowing they lie for a living. How do they look their children in the eye knowing their children believe them to be the most honest person they will ever come across in life.
Cluster One 1st June 2019 at 21:24
'….How do they look their children in the eye knowing their children believe them to be the most honest person they will ever come across in life."
===============
Well, in so far as the men of the 'saga' and the men of the SMSM who 'reported' on it, their children will mostly have been adults in 2012 .
They will have learned from their fathers that it's a tough world out there, you've got to be a bit fly, steal an advantage or two, get your retaliation in first, be a 'winner' at any and all cost, and so on and on.
So there will not be a son or daughter of any member of the SFA Board, or of the board of most of our football clubs, or of those who signed the 5-Way Agreement, or of those in the SMSM who help propagate the Big Lie, who will be able to acknowledge that their dad was in fact a baddie!
Moral conscience is for wimps!
Highlander
I share your confusion. The majority of stakeholders in the SFA could not be described as “pro Rangers”. In fact the notion that they are is merely an extension of the insulting and long debunked “who’s your big team” question.
I had a conversation with Jim Spence (an individual more in tune with SFA culture than I) a couple of years ago, and we both agreed that TRFC had way more influence than was commensurate with their status, not could we understand why.
There is a cultural dependence on “A Rangers” in the game. We can only speculate that there may be the same on Celtic. As a Celtic fan I hope we never get to test that theory, but from talking to the handful of people in the game (at boardroom level) who deigned to justify their position to the likes of mere bloggers, I believe that they truly believe the Duopoly is crucial to the continued good health of the game in Scotland.
In other words, they see the bottom line as being dependent on it and privately make no apology for continuing to make life easier for what they see as Rangers rehabilitation.
The crucial question had always been this;
Is the SFA just another business cartel which makes its own rules within the law of the land,
Or is football, as the SFA often proclaim it to be, a special business case with deep social significance in the fabric of communities and wider society?
If the former is the case, then we have no standing to complain about the way it is run. Our only recourse is at the market place, and football should not be the recipient of public funds (or subsidies like policing and other crowd control costs).
If the latter, then the SFA should be accountable to those communities, and as a private unaccountable body ABSOLUTELY NOT the given the final say in how that fabric is affected going forward.
At the moment, the “cake and it eat it” tendency holds sway.
I think there is a compelling case to be made that a decision needs to be made on which camp the SFA should find itself.
Big Pink 2nd June 2019 at 10:43
"but from talking to the handful of people in the game (at boardroom level) who deigned to justify their position to the likes of mere bloggers, I believe that they truly believe the Duopoly is crucial to the continued good health of the game in Scotland.
In other words, they see the bottom line as being dependent on it and privately make no apology for continuing to make life easier for what they see as Rangers rehabilitation".
———
This has been at the centre of things since 2012. It implies that not only must there be a "Rangers" in the top division, but that ideally they should be competitive with Celtic with a more or less equal chance of winning the title, to attract supporters gate money and tv revenues from what some people describe as the Old Firm Punch and Judy show. I remember Gary Lineker introducing tv highlights with, "Fasten your seat belts, here comes the Old Firm".
How far are they prepared to go to ensure their desired outcome? A little help from referees? A little help from the Disciplinary Process? A little help from team selection on the last day of the season? The current 8 in a row from Celtic is bad for business, interest from tv will wane soon.
I hope you weren't talking to anyone from the boardrooms of SPFL clubs, whose opportunity of a place in Europe is down from 3 to 2 with the presence of a, "strong Rangers", but who believe it is desireable that "Rangers" finish above them in the league. If so, they should inform their own fans of this and allow them to decide whether or not to buy season books on this basis.
I agree with the "duopoly" reason for our fitba establishment and the SMSM accommodating the TRFC scams up to a point but I'm also trying hard, whilst reading those wonderful succulent lamb pieces reposted on here from pre 2012, but just can't recall similar articles bemoaning the necessity for competition from Celtic (never mind the Dons etc) during the former Rangers' glory EBT years? Like all with a sense of entitlement they'd be fine with a monopoly, just not the current one.
Big Pink 2nd June 2019 at 10:43
"I think there is a compelling case to be made that a decision needs to be made on which camp the SFA should find itself".
———–
Agreed, but the only organisation capable of making that decision is the Scottish Government which provides the public funds. It would then behove the Scottish Government to monitor the use of those funds and also the impact of the SFA on the fabric of Scottish society, as it would be this societal role which justified the funding in the first place.
However, the SFA is a members' organisation with, as far as I can see, no reference in their organisation, structure or aims to having any role in the, "deep social significance in the fabric of communities and wider society", or indeed any interest whatsoever.
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/organisation/strategy-structure/who-we-are/
If I understand you correctly, it would require the Scottish Government to review funding and to actively inquire as to the public benefit derived from it, and to establish where exactly the SFA's written aims warrant that funding in the first place. I look forward as a tax payer to that happening, but I won't be holding my breath.
Of course the problem of a Monopoly or Duopoly is that it favours one or two clubs and sod the rest of us.
If the SFA aand football as a whole (including Uefa etc) was truly interested in the game as a whole, it would be like the NFL where 'smaller teams' such as the Green Bay Packers have as much chance of winning as a large metropolitan team like those in NY and LA.
Whether it be here or in Europe everything is done to assist 'big teams' and only occasionally these days will you get a Ajax (this years CL run) or Leicester situation.
Big Pink 2nd June 2019 at 10:43
'…Is the SFA just another business cartel which makes its own rules within the law of the land,
Or is football, as the SFA often proclaim it to be, a special business case with deep social significance in the fabric of communities and wider society?
If the former is the case, then we have no standing to complain about the way it is run…'
===================
Not entirely sure (and with the greatest respect, of course!) that even a business cartel , whose constituent members take money from their customers on the basis of its own rules , can legitimately disregard those rules that are in force at any given time and not apply them to a situation where they are absolutely applicable.
The SPL/(SPFL) in 2012 initially applied the Rules when Rangers of 1872 entered Administration.
They applied the Rules when Rangers of 1872 went into Liquidation: that Rangers lost its share in the SPL. And in consequence of that , lost its entitlement to membership of the SFA.
So far, so good in terms of application of Rules as they had previously been applied in other similar cases.
A newly formed club [ Sevco5088/SevcoScotland/ TRFC Ltd] applies for membership of, successively,the SPL, and of Divisions 1, 2, and 3 of the SFL. There may have been other applicants [Do we know whether any other clubs actually did apply?]
But I'm 'happy' to accept that it was entirely in the powers of the SPL/SFL to decide which applicant would be successful.
TRFC Ltd is (not without protests) admitted as a member of SFL division bottom.
And, accordingly is admitted to membership of the SFA.
So far, so good, in terms of proper exercise of power and legitimate 'discretion'.
It is then that the real dirty work begins: the work of creating the monstrous lie that the new club is actually none other than the self-same Rangers of 1872!
And that the 'Rangers 1872' membership was 'transferred' to them, as if to suggest that that 'transfer' was simply to another new owner of Rangers of 1872, the club with a world record of genuine trophies, titles and what not, and not at all that wretched, cheating, liquidated club now cunningly and with deceitful intent, named Rangers 2012 or some such.
The reasons for the creation of the Big Lie are of course related to the perceived need to keep the 'history' alive, as a marketing priority, and f.ck the sporting truth!
It is not, for me, the presence of TRFC Ltd as a club participating in Scottish Football that is a problem.
It is the fact that that club advertises itself in the market as being something that it is not.
As a new club created in 2012, it has absolutely no entitlement to the honours etc that it claims.
And for our 'cartel' of football businesses to have swallowed and supported that Big Lie is indicative of the fact that the late Turnbull Hutton was bang on the button when he used the word 'Corruption'.
The fact of the Big Lie has to be considered when we talk about the 'duopoly'.
Because it shows that, in fact, there is no real 'duopoly': one club only is to be protected. Other clubs will be treated under the rules, and go to the wall if that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Honest to God, the damage done by the 5-Way Agreement is incalculable.
JohnClark@23.14 yesterday
As you yourself have quoted on here JC; “Facts are chiels that wanna ding”
JC.
There are so many things around the 5WA that make you stop and think…
One of my favourites is,
"Completion" was when Rangers SPL share was transfered to Dundee – 3rd August 2012.
Of course Sevco played its first game, against Brechin, on 29th July 2012.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/19032245
According to the 5WA, Sevco did not become the "owner and operator" of Rangers FC until after the Brechin game.
So, if you do accept the "owner and operator" nonsense, who played Brechin?
HirsutePursuit 3rd June 2019 at 21:08
'..So, if you do accept the "owner and operator" nonsense, who played Brechin?'
=========================
I do not know what enraged me more: the very idea that our Football Governance bodies should have put their heads together with the Administrators and CG to conspire to lie to us at all, or that the best lie they could come up with was that RFC 1872 hadn't died at all!
If I thought they had been so panicked as to lose their minds, I might understand.
But of course the barstewards knew damn fine what they were doing, as evidenced by the Non-Disclosure Agreement all parties signed.
They sold the soul of Scottish Football, and their own rotten souls by their signatures to the 5-Way Agreement.
And for what? Not for fame and fortune, forsooth, or even for the world…….but for SevcoScotland and CG!! [ Richard Rich at least got Wales for his treachery]
HP, yes it is indeed a mystery.
And if it was 'Rangers' playing Brechin that day…
then the Team Sheet was "imperfectly submitted".
By default, a 3-0 win to Brechin.
…well in a football universe, where honest governance exists.
[Afterwards, I did ask both Brechin direct and the SFA for a copy of the teamsheet. No response.
Probably marked 'Top Secret' in the SFA files, not to be opened for 100 years.
]
The absurdity of it all is truly astounding.
Whilst we were told that Ian Black and Andy Little played as trialists, the remaining players had current player registrations in place with the SFA.
But registered to which club?
If they were still registered to Rangers, were there correctly completed loan agreements in place to allow them to play for Sevco?
If the players were registered to Sevco, were there correctly completed transfer forms in place?
StevieBC 3rd June 2019 at 22:06
'..[Afterwards, I did ask both Brechin direct and the SFA for a copy of the teamsheet. No response….]
=========================
Commendations for having thought of that at the time, StevieBC!
Wasn't there some understanding that until the liars got their act together,there was a 'Team 12?'
I wonder whether our Chick ( or some other 'Sportsound' chappie) was there : perhaps he has a copy of the Team Sheet which shows 'Team 12' – participating in Scottish professional football as possessing a unique form of never-before-heard-of membership of the SFA?!
Such a team sheet would be worth nearly as much as that wee Lewis chess piece!
When I think of all that bloody deceitful, fraudulent and farcical nonsense and how much a part in the foisting of a lie on us all was played by the SMSM ( including folk on the BBC whose salaries were paid via the Licence monies which (at the time) included my contribution: I think: the barstewards!
JC
The 5WA needs to be looked at as a potential fraud.
Specifically, looking at whether the the then extant TV deal required a Rangers.
Perhaps, without a Rangers, the TV companies would do walking away.
The claim that the same Rangers FC continued with a new "owner and operator" might well then be construed as a false statement of fact that caused or induced someone to enter into a contract.
Whatever the motivation, the 5WA succeeded in tying all of the parties to the lie.
HirsutePursuit 3rd June 2019 at 22:56
'…The 5WA needs to be looked at as a potential fraud.'
=============
As does, in my opinion,
the award of the UEFA licence [years before the whole pack of deceitful cards collapsed into Liquidation]
and
the IPO prospectus which, in my opinion, was misleading in suggesting at least by inference that TRFC Ltd was the same club as RFC of 1872.
Is there any question about Club 1872 and what and who it is for and how it was marketed to TRFC Ltd supporters? Wasn't there something about fan ownership? What is the reality?
Like a lot of Bampots, I was really happy for Andy Robertson winning a CL winner's medal.
Comes across as a thoroughly decent guy, and a model professional.
His back story includes being released by his team CFC at age 15. The story is that he was 'too small' in stature to be offered his first professional contract there.
[Don't know if that is fact, but only what I've read in several places.]
And a running joke is that Messi would never have made it in Scottish football because he was ‘far too small’.
I would also speculate that neither Messi nor Ronaldo would have made it in Scottish football because they displayed too many 'fancies' or tricks, and because they dribbled too much instead of passing the ball.
Whether the above is accurate or not, something in Scottish coaching is certainly NOT working when the national team is desperate – and clubs' impact in Europe is negligible.
I see that JJ has been on the case of Club 1872 being diluted by the latest loan conversion wheeze at RIFC. It would help his case, and his calculations, if he had used the share totals following last year's share issue rather than those from before it.
To be fair, JJ has lifted share total from the Club 1872 website, which is well out of date. Unusually, the club's website reflects the up to date position.
Club 1872 will be diluted by the forthcoming debt for equity swap, but to 6.38% and not 4.05% as JJ suggests.
The arguments he makes however are fair, basically that King has shafted the fans for his own purposes and that those who continue to pay their subs into Club 1872 are being gullible in the extreme if they expect to achieve some sort of influence by way of its shareholding.
StevieBC 4th June 2019 at 09:28
And a running joke is that Messi would never have made it in Scottish football because he was ‘far too small’.
—————————————————————————————————————-
Well, if Craig Levein was manager he certainly wouldn't be getting a game
HS
easyJambo4th June 2019 at 13:16
I see that JJ has been on the case of Club 1872 being diluted by the latest loan conversion wheeze at RIFC. It would help his case, and his calculations, if he had used the share totals following last year's share issue rather than those from the last share issue
===========================
Thats a pity he was so sure he had got that one right and without a source to blame for the error this time it can only be a matter of time before he resigns and closes his site.
Higgy's Shoes 4th June 2019 at 14:15
That will be the Craig Levein who started the diminutive 16 year old Aaron Hickey in a man of the match performance in the recent Scottish Cup Final.
A player who was at the Celtic Academy before joining Hearts but perhaps like Robertson was released for being too small???
Lets all agree Levein likes big centre backs and a hulking forward or two. Nothing wrong with that as it is a winning formula at teams like Treble winning Celtic. (Ajer 6'5", Simunovic 6'3", Hendry 6'4"Lustic 6'2", Edouard 6'2")
However if you look at the boys (Cochrane, Morrison, Henderson etc) coming through at Hearts there are not too many giants in there.
Add to that Mulraney, Edwards and a load of others who are no taller than 5'11'' then the idea of Hearts being big and physical throughout is nonsense.
Being crap and therefore maybe having to get stuck in with tackles – yes!! But they are no 'bigger' a team/ squad than anyone else when you look at player stats.
'HirsutePursuit 3rd June 2019 at 22:39':
The players' registration were held by the administrators, Duff & Phelps. They issued a letter allowing the players to be used by Sevco Scotland, trading as The Rangers Football Club. You can see a copy of the letter at:
http://www.thefrontofthebus.com/2014/04/when-spl-ratified-sevco-as-new-club.html
######################################
'John Clark 3rd June 2019 at 22:46':
I recall seeing a copy of hand-written team lines for the match in question for sale on eBay. I can't find the image, unfortunately. (Actually, I may have posted said image on here in the past, but I’m hopeless at searching my old postings…)
There is an excellent article on paedophile coach Barry Bennell in today's Guardian . Well worth a read .
Wottpi
"then the idea of Hearts being big and physical throughout is nonsense."
I don't remember saying that.
I am a Hearts fan and have been a season ticket holder at Tynie for over 20 years.
So I have watched both periods of Levein's management and one thing is for sure if Levein has the choice between a six foot plus player or someone of average height or below I think he tends to go for the taller player. There are of course exceptions
Yes, you're right about Hickey, but a cynic might also suggest that the only way he got a game in the first place was because Hearts have been unable to fill this position since Takis Fyssas left and have not been able to find a decent left back (tall or small). (I don't agree with that, by the way) He has had two excellent games though
There are a couple of Dundee Utd supporters in my office. When Levein was manager of DU they used to point out that Levein's signings tended to be giants. (Tended to be, not always).
HS
A couple of cases to note from today's court listings.
An unopposed motion was granted yesterday in the case of:
A97/18 Rangers International Football Club Plc v Charles Green – Anderson Strathern LLP
——————————————–
A 30 min hearing to be heard in the case of:
Wednesday 5th June
TO BE ALLOCATED – STARRED MOTIONS
A413/16 David Whitehouse &c v James Wolffe QC – SGLD – A & W M Urquhart
———————————————————-
I suspect that neither of the above is of great importance at this stage, but could be a precursor to future hearings.
Sorry , couldnt post a link earlier .
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jun/03/andy-woodward-barry-bennell-cousin-mothers-sister-murdered
John Clark 3rd June 2019 at 22:46
Wasn’t there some understanding that until the liars got their act together,there was a ‘Team 12?’
……………..
Club 12 fixture list June 19, 2012
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1135967176194777089?p=v
HirsutePursuit 3rd June 2019 at 22:56
42 1 Rate This
JC
The 5WA needs to be looked at as a potential fraud.
Specifically, looking at whether the the then extant TV deal required a Rangers.
Perhaps, without a Rangers, the TV companies would do walking away.
………………..
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1135969672577335297?p=v
……….
Sky we won’t quit SPL June 18, 2012.
BBC ALBA would screen The rangers games and the SPL paid BT to screen TRFC games.
So no walking away.
John Clark 3rd June 2019 at 23:26
Is there any question about Club 1872 and what and who it is for and how it was marketed to TRFC Ltd supporters? Wasn’t there something about fan ownership? What is the reality?
…………………
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1134566571710603264/photo/1
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1134566439778754561/photo/1
………………
Club 1872 will be diluted by the forthcoming debt for equity swap, but to 6.38% and not 4.05% as JJ suggests.
………..
Back in Feb 13, 2014 their stake was 0.86 per cent.
Cluster One 4th June 2019 at 19:27
—————————————————–
From the Club 1972's website (about nine months out of date re the shareholding)
Shareholding
With 10.7% of the shares, Club 1872 is the 2nd largest shareholder in Rangers International Football Club PLC and are continually looking to increase our shareholding.
A central aim of Club 1872 is to increase the collective supporter shareholding in Rangers International Football Club PLC to a minimum of 25%. This will ensure no major decisions about Rangers can be taken without agreement from Rangers supporters.
easyJambo 4th June 2019 at 20:09
0 0 Rate This
Cluster One 4th June 2019 at 19:27
—————————————————–
From the Club 1972’s website (about nine months out of date re the shareholding)
………………
nine months out of date…..Going for 55.
ok i’ll get my coat.
Jingso.Jimsie 4th June 2019 at 15:48
"…I recall seeing a copy of hand-written team lines for the match in question for sale on eBay…"
========================
Yeah, that rings wee bells at the back of the memory!
Thanks for that.
Cluster 1
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/spl-loses-17m-in-tv-deal-1198156
Sky certainly walked away from the original deal. No Rangers in the SPL cost the league £17m. Even then, it had to pay the SFL £9m for the new club's games to get the deal over the line.
Was the deal the SPL sold based on the lie that the original club had survived liquidation and were to play in the SFL?
If so, it is the very definition of fraud.
I'm sure that if it had been made clear to Sky that the new club was not the original Rangers, they would not have sold sports packages claiming that to be so.
I'm sure that Sky, BT et al would not now refer to the "Old Firm" if they were truly aware that it no longer exists.
easyJambo 4th June 2019 at 17:02
'..A 30 min hearing to be heard in the case of:
Wednesday 5th June…'
%%%%%%%%
I hadn't seen the Court Rolls entry for today, eJ.
I might pop along tomorrow to hear what's what, in case any dates are mentioned or some such.
Back in Feb 13, 2014 their stake was 0.86 per cent.
……….
With 10.7% of the shares, Club 1872 is the 2nd largest shareholder in Rangers International Football Club PLC
…………..
Club 1872 will be diluted by the forthcoming debt for equity swap, but to 6.38% and not 4.05%
…………….
What goes up must come down. So not much hope of that hold 5 per cent with a right to call an AGM.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1134566722084704256/photo/1
………………….
Bruce Taylor: That is quite important because there will be future share issues and this is not just about raising capital on one occasion. It is about, as Rangers improve and the value of Rangers increases, there will be a need to subscribe more and invest more.
We, as Club 1872, need to be a strong position to support each one of those share campaigns. We want to protect our members’ investments and donations and show our members that we can do that. That is an important part of Club 1872.
HAVE YOU HAD ANY FEEDBACK FROM RANGERS WITH REGARDS TO HAVING A REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BOARD? HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU THAT WILL HAPPEN?
LF: The long-term goal has always been 25 per cent, plus one share. I think that supporters understand that fan representation and fan investment go hand in hand so those are our two key goals.
……………..
It’s not going well then.
Cluster One 4th June 2019 at 18:56
"…Killie must wait to see if Rangers remain an SPL team….or who replaces them"
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
That was a good link. Thanks!
Jingso.Jimsie 4th June 2019 at 15:48 6 0 Rate This
'HirsutePursuit 3rd June 2019 at 22:39':
………..
Assuming this is genuine, this is interesting on several levels:
Firstly, as the player registrations were held by the "company", the company has to be regarded as the football club.
Secondly, these players (if still registered with Rangers) could only play for Sevco by way of a temporary transfer. However, there is a problem with that:
John Clark 4th June 2019 at 20:47
0 0 Rate This
Cluster One 4th June 2019 at 18:56
“…Killie must wait to see if Rangers remain an SPL team….or who replaces them”
……………….
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1136002012460568576/photo/1
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1136002348352966656?p=v
…………………
All this was going on round about the time of.
The PROPOSAL TO SFL CLUBS titled.
Your Game, Your Club, Your future.
HirsutePursuit 4th June 2019 at 20:38
Was the deal the SPL sold based on the lie that the original club had survived liquidation and were to play in the SFL?
If so, it is the very definition of fraud.
I’m sure that if it had been made clear to Sky that the new club was not the original Rangers, they would not have sold sports packages claiming that to be so.
………………
If i remember correctly, and always happy to be corrected.
This was talked about on here a long time ago.
Misleading representation or something.
You are subscribing to something that is not true.
Sky 4 old firm games a season or something.
The SFA tell sky it’s the old firm, sky package it as the old firm SFA happy with the deal, sky are also happy to keep subscribers. Both don’t want to loose money so the big lie is kept.
HirsutePursuit 4th June 2019 at 20:38
Was the deal the SPL sold based on the lie that the original club had survived liquidation and were to play in the SFL?
………………..
Both leagues had reached agreement on the SPL securing the broadcasting rights to rangers’ Third division games in order to safeguard their television deals.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1136015284144431106?p=v
Cluster One 4th June 2019 at 21:26
So what's stopping CFC fans (and fans of other clubs) threatening to cancel their contracts with providers if the "Old Firm" tag is used in reference to games between TRFC and CFC and vice versa ? Money talks . I don't subscribe , I once asked BT Sports about the sectarian , racist and offensive stuff they were broadcasting into my living room , and their reply was basically to say sorry ,but that they only broadcast the event , and control was with the Police and footballing authorities . I don't miss it .
C1
I'm not sure what point you are making in relation to the TV deal.
In commerce of any type, an historic brand has a value. But a brand loses value when its provenance is broken.
What, for example, does the MG marque mean to the average UK motorist today? I suspect a lot less than if the the brand had not been bought out of administration and the original company liquidated.
The provenance of the Rangers FC brand has a direct relationship to its value.
There is no doubt that Sevco purchased the RFC brand, but that doesn't change the fact that the original club – the holder of the historic 'honours' – is no longer operating.
Just as the motor manufacturer MG Rover is no more.
It wasn't so long ago that there were two Lotus teams in F1. Both had claims to the brand. Neither, from memory had any direct link to the Lotus F1 team from the 50's through to the 90's. Each had leased slightly different versions of the brand from different sources.
It's probably no coincidence that the Lotus brand is no longer present in F1. The latest incarnations lacked true provenance and (in F1 terms, at least) are no more.
My point is that the parties to the 5WA have agreed, as a matter of contract, that they would present a single front on the matter of Rangers purported continuation. That lie has been used by two of the parties (now merged into one) to sell a product (the TV deal) at a higher value than is likely to have been achievable if the truth had been told.
Did Duff and Phelps achieve a better sale price because of the lie?
Did Charles Green sell an IPO on the back of the lie? Is Sevco still benefitting from that lie today in season ticket and merchandise sales?
HirsutePursuit 5th June 2019 at 00:46
3 0 Rate This
C1
I’m not sure what point you are making in relation to the TV deal.
…………………..
No point. Just putting some information out that was round about the time in 2012.
Sorry if i have been misleading or confusing.
…………………
My point is that the parties to the 5WA have agreed, as a matter of contract, that they would present a single front on the matter of Rangers purported continuation. That lie has been used by two of the parties (now merged into one) to sell a product (the TV deal) at a higher value than is likely to have been achievable if the truth had been told.
Did Duff and Phelps achieve a better sale price because of the lie?
Did Charles Green sell an IPO on the back of the lie? Is Sevco still benefitting from that lie today in season ticket and merchandise sales?
……….
All the above yes and you could go on
Did CG sell more season tickets because of the lie?…Oh yes.
Did players joint because of the lie?.. well every time one joined it was because of the history and tradition and a big club.
All Lies of course.
But it makes money and everyone of them embrace the big lie to make money.
https://twitter.com/rpmcomo/status/1136020629579341824?s=21
How times change – see above.
Also, are CFC now the sole owners of the “Old Firm” trademark? I’m sure I read that on here.
It's worth remembering that the press release from the football authorities confirming that the Brechin v. Sevco Scotland t/a The Rangers Football Club would take place on 29.07.12 was put out in the early evening of Friday 27.07.12…
…almost at the same time as the London 2012 Olympics opening ceremony commenced.
Done to avoid scrutiny or due to time pressure? Make your own mind up
Ex Ludo
I believe Celtic own the OF IP because the previous joint-ownership, by agreement with both Celtic and Rangers contractually, could not survive liquidation, and that the IP would revert to the surviving partner in that instance.
Therefore the IP could not be included in the basket of assets.
Well, another slice of a day of my rapidly reducing life-time allotment that I will not get back.
Arrived at Court of Session at 8.45. No indication on the 'Miscellaneous' notice board , among the 'to be allocated' lists, that the Whitehouse case had been allocated. Nipped down to floor -1, to ask in the office of the Keeper of the Rolls. It was shut , not opening till 9.00.
Jumped back up and went to the front desk. They hadn't any update, shook their heads and expressed the view that allocation might not be till about 11.00. Went out into mist-enshrouded and cold High St, took a wee dauner doon one side of George St and back up the other side, and down then and into Parliament Square and the Court.
It was by then about 9.35. Scribbled in manuscript on the notice was 'Lord Brailsford'. No time indicated. I found that he was to be sitting in Court 5. So I made my way along the corridor to Court 5- which I had never visited before, so I needed to ask directions!
Found it, and entered, and on enquiring of the Clerk was told that the Whitehouse case would certainly not be called before 10.00: there were other cases to be dealt with first. So, about turn and down to the restaurant for a cappuccino of sorts ( self-service machine).
Upstairs and in the Court-room at five to ten, sundry bodies already there. Lord Brailsford entered at 10..00, and I sat through a half-hour of a medical negligence damages claim, where the Advocates were talking about complications in ascertaining who was the third party, and tracing particular doctor, and getting fresh medical expert opinion…… and talking about Proof before hearing-in September next year. I think the patient died in 2012! Jarndyce &Jarndyce sprang to mind.
On conclusion of that bit of business, the Judge left the bench. The Clerk then riffled through his papers and looked at his screen and announced for my sake and that of the free-lance journo who was also in Court,that the challenge to the motion in the Whitehouse case had been dropped, so there was to be no hearing.
John Clark 5th June 2019 at 12:39
—————————————–
Unlucky JC. I'm getting more picky about when I attend these days. It was the 30 min duration that put me off, as I assumed it to be a procedural or case management motion.