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.
@Auldheid
Article 67 – Duty to report subsequent events
1 The licensee must promptly notify the licensor in writing about any significant changes including, but not limited to, subsequent events of major economic importance until at least the end of the licence season.
2 The information prepared by management must include a description of the nature of the event or condition and an estimate of its financial effect, or a statement (with supporting reasons) that such an estimate cannot be made.
===============================
There was no indication in the latest judgement in the SDI v TRFC case of either a damages award being made, or the quantum of any such award that may be made in the future.
For the time being, I don't believe that TRFC has a requirement to disclose anything in respect of Article 67.
easyJambo 19th June 2019 at 14:30
'.."Key stakeholders including Scottish Ministers, sportscotland, Big Lottery Fund and Glasgow City Council.."
+++++++++++++
Aye.
And all of those stakeholders are public agencies ready to spend our money to support a highly questionable Football Governance body which created the myth that a former member of its Association that ,under the Rules , lost its membership as a result of Liquidation , is somehow not dead but lives on in the shape of a brand new entity that that Association had itself had to admit as a new member!
The sheer perversion of it all is breath-taking!
All of those 'key stakeholders' are , knowingly or otherwise, party to a fraudulent lie.
And using our money to sustain and propagate that lie!
Bogs Dollox
You misunderstand. Firstly, I am not in any way disappointed about the player not coming to Celtic. As anyone who knows me personally will tell you, I am somewhat relieved if not delighted.
My point was that Celtic (and any other club in that scenario) were in a no-win situation when the bid became public. These kinds of situations occur all the time. I know of several where teams lost their target in less public circumstances due to agents (quite correctly) creating a market. My other point, on the figures, is a separate one about speculative reporting. The figures you mention are not in the same ballpark as what have been suggested to me. Celtic’s offer was not close to £12k pw as far as I have been informed (not by anyone at Celtic of course).
Easy Jambo
Thanks. Perhaps Ashley is aware or has been made aware that if damages are set, he has a better chance of being paid if there is no hindrance to TRFC obtaining UEFA money to pay him.
He wouldn't want to kill the goose would he?
Don Gianiso
If the sum is insignificant then Article 67 of UEFA FFP would not apply.
If it is significant then you have all the reasons for both parties not being in a rush to conclude.
Auldheid 20th June 2019 at 09:37 Easy Jambo Thanks. Perhaps Ashley is aware or has been made aware that if damages are set, he has a better chance of being paid if there is no hindrance to TRFC obtaining UEFA money to pay him. He wouldn't want to kill the goose would he?
__________
I see it in a similar way to you, Auldheid, and with not the slightest amount of knowledgeable insight, would suggest that Ashley has no wish to kill, or even damage, TRFC, but would love to keep King dangling on a fishing line in rather deep water. At the same time, I have no doubt that if he considered the Ibrox well to have dried up, and could benefit financially from some action that would result in the winding up of the club, he'd have no hesitation in pulling the plug.
He will continue to milk TRFC for as long as he can, and you can't milk a dead cow, but I am sure he would love to ruin King, whether or not that means the end of TRFC (as long as he's no more money to make from the club).
After watching Scotland Ladies last night I have to conclude that football is becoming a video game, with VAR becoming a bigger and bigger part of it (probably because someone is making a nice little earner from it).
I've never really bought into technology in the game, preferring to accept that (genuine) mistakes are part and parcel of the game, but was happy to accept 'goal-line technology' to decide what is, after all, the most important part of the game. But now it appears FIFA are determined to push it into every aspect of the game, with longer and longer delays, destroying that which makes football the greatest sport there's ever been, it's sudden bursts of excitement that is a goal, something that cannot be replicated in any other sport.
A goal is scored, you look to the ref and linesman to see if it stands, and your heart bursts with excitement (or despair), but now, you have to wait to see if the game restarts before you know.
What a wonderful moment of theatre that was when the Scotland goalie saved that penalty, only to be wiped out by a ludicrous technicality – a technicality so inconsequential that the only way to spot it as happening was with this overuse of technology.
With FIFA's record, someone within their ranks has to be making money from VAR, either through kickbacks or a share in the copyright of the technology.
So if I understand the reports from our own John Clark and elsewhere :-
T'Rangers appear to have entered into a contract with Memorial Walls to provide some form of memorial and place of reflection for fans and one of the themes within the design was to be the Ibrox Disaster.
A contract appears to have been signed and in terms of the sums being mentioned in damages the works may have had a value of £6.4m or more. However the Memorial Walls people are happy to settle for £1m to presumably cover the costs incurred in preparing their bid and initial works undertaken after the contract was signed. I would suspect in that sum there will be an allowance made for items such as hiring additional resources or maybe turning down other work on the basis they T'Rangers contract gave them a full order book.
At some point after the contract was signed it could be the case John Greig has said something along the lines of 'this is a load of rubbish and we shouldn't really go ahead and have a rethink'. however that is unclear. But what is known is someone at Ibrox definitely pulled the plug after they had put pen to paper.
The question is why pull the plug?
Or another question is, if you are living hand to mouth, why sign up for a multi-million pound project that should really be low down on your list of priorities.
Auldheid 19th June 2019 at 23:54
"……(JC) Can you e mail me? "
+++++++++++
Have just done so, Auldheid.
wottpi 20th June 2019 at 10:35
Or another question is, if you are living hand to mouth, why sign up for a multi-million pound project that should really be low down on your list of priorities.
__________________
Could the answer be that you need to keep your club/business relevant and in the news with multi-million pound purchases while continuing to have an over-inflated opinion of yourself and your club/business? Could it be that without this kind of subterfuge, you won't be able to maintain a level of income that comes close to that required, however far 'close' might actually be from the required amount? Could it be that, in this case, the plan was never to go ahead with the project but you allowed it to progress past the critical stage in the negotiations, or, as seems to have happened in the current case v Ashley/SDI, you haven't read the contract properly in the first place?
Could it be all of the above?
I'd hazard a guess at probably.
Allyjambo
I was making the same point about removal of spontaneity from the game.
It will kill it.
Another issue for me is that it seemed to be replacing the referee in the WWC rather than assisting, thus removing the need for a referee.
Did the refs ask for a view or did the VAR guys say you missed a hand ball under the new rules which themselves add to the controversy?
Clarity is required but it's fair to say VAR did not once help the women's team, although no excuse for surrendering a 3 goal lead.
Just for completeness re the RIFC "whitewash" vote yesterday.
Votes for: 48,565,961 (81.9%)
Votes against: 10,772,951 (18.1%)
There were 78,234,181 shares eligible to vote at the meeting and of those the percentage voting was 75.85%. The votes cast as a percentage of the total issued share capital of the Company was 41%.
———————————————
There is a Q&A with Laura Fawkes from Club 1872 in today's ET.
https://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/17711637.rangers-qa-club-1872-on-ibrox-share-conversion-future-funding-plans-raising-their-stakes-and-a-seat-on-the-board/?ref=twtrec
VAR: Unforeseen consequences. Lost spontaneity (noun)
the condition of being spontaneous; spontaneous behaviour or action.
"Naebody move. Theres been a VAR!"?
Exactly Auldheid.
The story from last night's game – which Scotland can control, and must learn from – is; how did they lose a 3 goal lead at WC level?
Very watchable footy to be fair, and I honestly found it much more entertaining than watching a typically excruciating, "hands over the eyes" men's national game.
The VAR and ref are separate issues.
Always going to get disappointing / inconsistent refereeing standards, (where have I heard that before…?).
But, there is the real risk that VAR could totally mess up footy.
The ref should control / ask for VAR during the game.
VAR shouldn't control the ref.
IMO.
In the event that TRFC Ltd were to go bust, were liquidated, and the assets were sold off by the Liquidators ( no one having come forward to become a 'preferred buyer' for those assets that could legally be sold and found another football club and seek admission to a league and claim that it is TRFC Ltd etc etc etc ) Club 1872 would as a shareholder be entitled to a pro rata share in any money left over after all secured, preferential, floating charge and other creditors have been paid.
Do the individual members of Club 1872 who (presumably) have some evidence of their individual 'donations' to Club 1872, then have a legal entitlement to a proportionate share of that money based on their 'donations'?
Or are they just idiots making donations so that some businessmen can make some money on the back of their misplaced devotion?
Auldheid 20th June 2019 at 11:47 Allyjambo I was making the same point about removal of spontaneity from the game. It will kill it. Another issue for me is that it seemed to be replacing the referee in the WWC rather than assisting, thus removing the need for a referee. Did the refs ask for a view or did the VAR guys say you missed a hand ball under the new rules which themselves add to the controversy? Clarity is required but it's fair to say VAR did not once help the women's team, although no excuse for surrendering a 3 goal lead.
_______________________
To me, any more than deciding whether or not the ball was over the line (the line doesn't move and the ball doesn't 'simulate') is a step too far, but if they must go further, I think they should take a lead from cricket, where the Decision Review System sticks with the umpire's on-field decision unless it is clearly wrong – and clearly wrong wouldn't take the length of time it took to decide that it was a penalty in last night's game.
Then, from last night's evidence, they are taking skills out of the game by penalising keepers for making movements that are more or less imperceptible to the human eye, which will make it almost impossible to save a penalty as the keepers will be afraid to move – until it's too late. This won't only make it near impossible to save a penalty, it will make scoring one so easy that the skills employed will be reduced to just ensuring the ball's not hit straight at the keeper or past the woodwork. 'Sending the keeper the wrong way' will become a thing of the past.
Another thing, it would appear that every penalty 'save' will be under scrutiny with the keeper getting booked if he moves too early; so what goalkeeper is going to risk a sending off in the event he has to face more than one penalty in a match or has already been booked? I wonder how long it will be until, as a protest, a keeper stands with his back to the ball (as it's probably the only way to avoid instinctive movements) or walks out of the goals?
PS I'm not questioning the existing rule that says a keeper must not move forward until the ball is kicked, just saying that when that movement can only be caught by technology, the movement is hardly more than the keeper setting himself (herself) to dive and is not seeking an unfair advantage.
PPS From memory, the rule used to be that a goalkeeper could neither move forward nor sideways before the ball was kicked, and the penalty taker couldn't 'dummy' or hesitate when taking the penalty. But over the years keepers started to 'narrow the angle' by stepping out quite far just before the ball was kicked and this became more obvious with the introduction of action replays on TV so the rules were changed slightly. Some were moving forward distances measure in feet, not inches, and so something had to be done. The changes meant that the keeper was allowed to move sideways before the ball was kicked, and the taker was allowed to 'dummy' or hesitate when taking the penalty, but the movement forward continued to be outlawed.
Now that King appreciates just how gullible the donors to Club1872 really are…
shirley, he will demand it is rebranded – with a commensurate increase to the monthly donation rate – to Club2012 ?
Mibbees.
John Clark 20th June 2019 at 13:38
In the event that TRFC Ltd were to go bust, were liquidated, and the assets were sold off by the Liquidators ( no one having come forward to become a 'preferred buyer' for those assets that could legally be sold and found another football club and seek admission to a league and claim that it is TRFC Ltd etc etc etc ) Club 1872 would as a shareholder be entitled to a pro rata share in any money left over after all secured, preferential, floating charge and other creditors have been paid.
Do the individual members of Club 1872 who (presumably) have some evidence of their individual 'donations' to Club 1872, then have a legal entitlement to a proportionate share of that money based on their 'donations'?
Or are they just idiots making donations so that some businessmen can make some money on the back of their misplaced devotion?
==========================
In an administration or liquidation scenario, the shareholders have the lowest priority in getting their money back. In just about all enforced (non voluntary) administrations, the creditors will be owed more than the realisable value of the assets, so the shareholders will get nothing.
The shareholders however may refuse to handover their shares without some payment, e.g. in a CVA. Doing so would likely result in liquidation.
There are occasions when a company will go into voluntary liquidation, sometimes when there is no debt, just in order for shareholders to receive any remaining cash or the break-up value of assets as a dividend.
In the Club 1872 scenario, I don't believe that the individuals would get anything back as their Articles of Association will limit where any liquidation dividend goes, e.g. to a charitable cause.
Agree with all the comments re the Ref should be the one calling on VAR to provide clarification if unsure / undecided for an agreed set of laws/offenses.
The VAR, as it appeared last night, should not be telling the Ref they missed something as the game is in progress.
However players and coaches have themselves to blame.
Goalkeepers coming off the line at penalties, yards stolen at throw-ins the inability to place a ball on a penalty spot or within the corner arc, play acting, going down softly etc etc all combine to have the authorities reviewing what can be done to make the game more honest.
Technology now allows such behaviour to be fully analysed and thus we get, in some ways, the game we deserve.
wottpi 20th June 2019 at 14:34
Won't be long now till we have the cheerleaders coming onto the pitch to entertain us while we wait on decisions on whether or not a player stole a yard at a throw in.
A years ago we were discussing (well, I wasn't, actually) the merits of introducing goal-line technology, but here we are discussing whether or not an involuntary movement (so slight no one noticed it in play) of a foot by a goalkeeper facing a penalty should result in a save being nullified and the keeper being booked.
Remember, in football, even handball is the subject of 'did he mean it? Was he seeking to gain an advantage?' I'd suggest the 'advantage' of a foot 12 inches or less from the goal line in preparation for a dive equals zero advantage, other than in giving a better foundation for an intended dive.
As I said, it was just goal-line technology a year ago, and now we have television, not only deciding when a game will kick off, but the result of the game, itself. When will it end? How long until technology takes over the game itself?
Agree to an extent, WOTTPI. The 'on your line' rule has only really changed for the better for goalies; it's just that VAR allows breaches of the rule to be policed better now to work against them. The BBC commentator (who used to be Scotland women's GK) was spouting nonsense going on about how after learning one way for 27 years, the current goalie now had a week to learn a new way of acting at penalties. They can still move along their line to gain an 'advantage' by guessing where the ball will go. The new rule actually helps them by allowing them to move forward as well so long as that forward movement is with only one foot. The commentators issue seemed to be that they could no longer go before 'the kick' as she used to having read the kicker's body language ahead of the actual impact. Guess what, they still can provided they move sideways (or forward with one foot). The rule change hasn't worsened the GK's situation. That said, I was only ever a forward so……!
The real issue is whether we want VAR looking at GK movement in breach of the rules. After the Scotland draw, my heart says no, but my head probably still says I do if it means the rules of the game are enforced. That's what we're all on this site for, right?
I think VAR has been implemented too quickly, with too many grey areas. Rugby Union has utilised 'video referees/television match officials' since 2001 & it's still a work in progress with changes to their responsibilities every year! My particular bugbear with VAR at the moment is the 'offside window'.
For example, in last night's game, an Argentinian player was clearly offside (I think even the commentators called it immediately), yet she was allowed to continue & cross the ball which was cleared by a defender to an unmarked Scottish player about 35m from goal. The whistle blew to stop the game (presumably because the AR had flagged/beeped the ref) & this removed a clear advantage to Scotland.
I've noticed this happening time & time again in different games where VAR is in use. Play on, for goodness sake, or change the Laws to make offside the same as the ball going out of play, requiring a mandatory restart of the game.
Here's one……if a PK has to be re-taken every time a GK moves both feet off his/her line (presumably scored and missed penalties are affected by the same rule?), what's to stop the GK choosing to do that for a vital PK, thereby putting extra pressure on the kicker to decide whether to change placement etc for the second kick?
I know they get a yellow for it, but what if they are 1-0 up in the 92nd minute of a cup final? Would they take the booking for a chance to increase the pressure and perhaps increase the possibility of the kicker missing?
nawlite 20th June 2019 at 15:27
I think Gemma Fay was probably implying the problem for goalies is that you are trained for basic shot stopping to 'set' with feet parallel, then you move forward and place the foot at an angle to the side you are seeking to make the save. You then drive off that front foot to dive. This is exactly what Lee Alexander did last night but she went too early
If you have already committed to one side and left your other foot on the goal line you will struggle to make a save in the opposite direction.
If you watch the retaken penalty from last night you will see how Alexander's feet all get caught up as she tries to step while keeping one foot on the line.
The view from the 'net cam' shows what I mean.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/48699753
If you had these strict PK / GK rules applied to just one infamous game in the SPL last season…
You could have had one team retake the 4 penalties it was awarded…
whilst at the same time, 2 goalies could have been sent off for repeated, ‘involuntary movement’ on the line!
StevieBC – funnily enough I was just saying to someone else recently that we should be calling them Club 1872-2012.
Scottish Football Needs A Strong Arbroath.
Could somebody tell me roughly how much Club 1882 have paid for their six point odds holding ? Still using fingers to count to twelve .
Interesting to note how many posters watched the Ladies scotland football match last night.
How many would have tuned in if it was the Men's scotland team playing last night?
I watched it and quite enjoyed it, very fast moving game i thought. Don't think i would have bothered to watch if it was a men's scotland match.
Sorry , Club 1872 . My fingers are as thick as the rest of me ! ?⚽?
easyJambo 20th June 2019 at 12:52
4 1 Rate This
Just for completeness re the RIFC “whitewash” vote yesterday.
……………………….
LF: From a Club 1872 point of view, it is like a resetting of the shareholding to some degree.
although Club 1872 will be diluted, it is almost bringing the whole thing back to where it always really has been.
……..
Diluting the shares is now called a Resetting.
……………………
We have had that period where we have been the second largest shareholders, fourth largest shareholder now is actually really good.
…………..
No wonder this fan group who’s club won nothing and spent millions think it was a great season.
……………………….
If Dave King, George Letham, George Taylor, Douglas Park, if these guys are willing to keep putting in the amount of money that they are putting in.
…………..
She has not been keeping up with the Dave king speeches.
………
But later on in the Article the bomb is dropped and in bold too.
…….
THERE WILL COME A POINT WHERE THE CURRENT INVESTORS WON’T PUT MONEY IN ANYMORE, SO IT COULD THEN BE UP TO THE FANS.
…………….
It may well be that they can say ‘we want to raise £20million in two years’ so they have a share issue and raise £20million
…………..
They have never raised £20 million in a share issue since charles Green left.
Two things struck me last night re the Woman's World Cup.
The first was that had the men's team lost 3 games out of 3 and one of them was after having a 3 goal lead supporters and the press would be calling for the manager's head.
The other was the VAR debate. There is far too much interference, as stated by others on here it is supposed to assist the referee not take over from the him/her.
Other sports, notably Tennis and American Football, have video evidence but limit its use. Something similar needs to be introduced into our football (Soccer) where a team can have a set amount of protests (maybe 3) per half. On the evidence so far VAR is not good for the game and undermining referees instead of helping.
If we have 7,000 members donating £100, that is £700,000 raised automatically
https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/15898584.rangers-qa-club-1872-on-1million-share-issue-fundraising-drive-ashley-share-purchase-board-representation-and-fan-ownership/
………
LF TODAY.
We are around the 7,000 members mark
……………
EM: In terms of the 10 per cent shareholding, we are actually ahead of where we thought we would be this time last year. That has been significant.
…..
So this time this year it is a Resetting then.
…………….
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.
……….
LF TODAY.
In a crisis, people will react and will join and do whatever it takes. You saw the growth in the Supporters Trust and RangersFirst at a time when there was a real crisis.
They need a crisis to get more members.
…………..
LF: We had between 700-1000 new members in the week or two after the Mike Ashley share purchase and I think because it removed his influence from the club, you can’t underestimate or underplay the significance of the purchase, not just for Club 1872 because it saw us become the second largest shareholder, but for Rangers as well.
………………….
Looks like even in a crisis they have no hope.
paddy malarkey 20th June 2019 at 17:38
5 1 Rate This
Could somebody tell me roughly how much Club 1882 have paid for their six point odds holding ? Still using fingers to count to twelve .
………………
I don’t know how many share issues they have taken part in since they were formed or how many shares they have bought and at what price.
But they did think it was the right decision TO SPEND £1MILLION TO BUY MIKE ASHLEY’S SHARES.
paddy malarkey 20th June 2019 at 17:38
Could somebody tell me roughly how much Club 1882 have paid for their six point odds holding ? Still using fingers to count to twelve .
++++++++++++++++
Their last published accounts to the 30 June 2018 showed investments of £1,951,449 (share purchases). At that date they held 8,732,264 shares, for which they paid an average of 22.35p a share
They also had £1,016,874 in the bank. £1m of that was used buying shares in last September's share offer (5m shares at 20p), so their "investment" in the club totals around £2.95m to date
The £400,000 they claim to have in the bank therefore represents the likely amount they have raised since the end of June 2018.
Just for comparison, as of today's date, the Foundation of Hearts will have handed over £8.68m to the club since it came out of administration in May 2014. Assuming contribution levels are maintained, the transfer of the majority shareholding from Ann Budge to FOH will take place in February 2020.
Re the VAR debate and goalkeepers coming off their line. Although the new ruling will apply in Scotland next year there will of course be no VAR. That means we can look forward to inconsistency after inconsistency from Scottish Referees, and make no mistake it will influence who wins games and trophies.
@John Clark you have an email.
easyJambo 20th June 2019 at 20:56
"…@John Clark you have an email.."
+++++++++
acknowledged , eJ
On the VAR and penalties debate. It's not the rule that says the keeper must stay on his line that irks me, it is, in fact, a good rule, it's the fact that a movement, so insignificant that no one notices it with the naked eye, can lead to a save being denied and now the keeper booked.
It's not as though there's been a significant number of penalties saved where keepers have been striding out from the line, not in an effort to gain purchase for their dive, but to narrow the angles and put the penalty taker off (something they were doing to great effect in the 70s until it was clamped down on). So why has this tightening of an existing rule been introduced? I suspect it's been introduced solely on the grounds of 'we have the technology, now let's find something more to use it for'.
This yellow card part doesn't half rub salt into the wound, though, with a save denied and the keeper booked for something that is much less serious than, say, a non-violent foul which can lead to serious injury. I wonder how long it will be before a keeper is sent off for making two penalty saves, or for saving a penalty when already on a yellow! And what's it going to be like when it comes to a penalty shoot-out?
Yes …. I mean no …… well maybe yes
Sky Sports ScotlandVerified account @ScotlandSky
BREAKING NEWS: Celtic are set to sign David Turnbull despite it looking like the deal had fallen through earlier this week. The midfielder had visited Norwich in the last few days but is expected to sign for the Scottish Champions tomorrow.
https://twitter.com/scotlandsky/status/1141820033200513024?s=21
Turnbull now going to Celtic? His agent has asked for a VAR ruling on the matter.
Just as a matter of interest of interest, I checked the Rolls of Court a little earlier today.
You may remember that eJ last week let us know that on last Thursday's 'Roll' a number of broadly 'saga' related items of business were scheduled for this present week.
One of these related to David Grier's action v the Chief Constable.
"Starred Motion
Between 10.30am and 11.00am
CA86/19 David Grier v the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland
This had not been allocated to a Judge.
Looking at today's Issue of the 'Rolls' I find this for tomorrow, 21st June
"LORD BANNATYNE
STARRED MOTION
30 mins
CA86/19 David Grier v The Chief Constable of Police Scotland"
__
You will note that no time is specified. The assumption is that unless a different time is specified the kick-off time will be 10.00 a.m.
I mention this because yesterday, when exiting the Court after the Memorial Walls Ltd business, I was asked if I would take part in a survey relating to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service.
And I'm annoyed now that I did not mention that given that publication of the Rolls is a public service, it would be useful if thought could be give to devising measures that could be taken to advise the (willing) public by email of sudden alterations!
For example, the possibility of arranging for members of the public (who asked for the facility) to be emailed by the SCTS people as soon as the SCTS learns that a case has been scrubbed, postponed, or assigned another date and time.
The High Court of Chancery in England has a facility which , if you sign up for it (at no cost!) will see you get emails of the latest judgments made by that (or those various) Courts.
I would imagine that something similar in relation to the Rolls could be quite easy to implement.
I mean, as soon as SCTS learns that someone has to run upstairs and make a manuscript entry on a page on the Notice board, surely they should be able to send an email to a list of email subscribers?
Few things are worse than getting up 'early'[ jeez, when I think of my former daily commute to Glasgow I use the word 'early' rather loosely!
] to go to Court only to find,when you arrive, that the case has been dropped, or the date or time of hearing changed!
<
Ha!
Absolutely, Ex Ludo.
VAR has indeed confirmed that Lawwell had actually moved several yards away from the biscuit tin whilst negotiations were in play with Turnbull's agent.
Lawwell was booked for timewasting, had to retreat 10 yards nearer to the tin, and negotiations were restarted.
Or not.
Jeezo, IF this is true and CFC IS back in for Turnbull…they better get him signed this time!
StevieBC@23.19
Apparently David Turnbull hadn’t signed on the dotted line. I’ll get my coat.
nawlite 20th June 2019 at 15:27
"..if it means the rules of the game are enforced. That's what we're all on this site for, right?"
+++++++++++++
Possibly the mostest, wise-est observation to have been made today, nawlite!
'Fourth officials' ,and more recently, VAR were introduced precisely in the honest attempt to ensure that rules of sport were applied properly and fairly .
What we in Scottish Football need is something similar in relation to the Governance Body of the sport!
That is, we need independent scrutiny of what our Governance body did, and is still doing, in its dealings over at least the last decade with,first ,the knighted arch-cheat, and secondly, with the horse-loving CG, and thirdly with those whom they allow to call themselves the Rangers of my grandfather's era.
Poor refereeing decisions pale into insignificance compared with cynical cheating by a governance body!
I'm surprised that the vast majority on here aren't totally supportive of VAR.
After all, the most important handball in the entire history of football anywhere in the world, based on the sense of injustice shown on here, would've resulted in a penalty and Leigh Griffith's Celtic would likely have beaten Josh Meeking's Inverness in that infamous 2015 cup semi-final.
Those who can't recall the game perhaps need reminded that Celtic's substitute goalkeeper Zaluska almost decapitated an ICT forward with a punch to the head inside the penalty box, an incident which also went unpunished but was airbrushed out of the picture in the clamour to be offended by the bias/ineptitude (delete as applicable) of officials.
I suppose what I'm saying is that VAR decisions won't only negatively affect your team.
Headline from The Mail;
"Partick's new Moneyball owners could have seismic implications for the Glasgow club.
By JOHN MCGARRY FOR THE SCOTTISH DAILY MAIL PUBLISHED: 00:26, 21 June 2019 | UPDATED: 00:26, 21 June 2019 ”
====================
Hmmm…
A billionaire… interested in buying a financially strapped, Scottish club…?
Not a huge amount to report on the Grier v Police Scotland case at the CoS this morning.
Both parties and Lord Bannatyne were content to have the case heard at the CoS. It was previously being heard at Glasgow Sheriff Court.
There appeared to be some confusion about how the parties wished to proceed, to a procedural hearing, then a summary decree motion, debate or a proof before answer. We didn't get a decision other than a procedural hearing will be scheduled on 12 July, for which both parties were asked to provide notes on the issues they wished to pursue in advance.
What did come out was that DCI Robertson (remember him) has apparently, as recently as February this year, admitted that errors were made in bringing the fraud / conspiracy case forward against Grier. For their part, Grier's team is still waiting for disclosure of documents requested many months ago.
As I suggested in a post a week or so ago, Grier, Whitehouse and Clark are all seeking to show malice and lack of probable cause when they were arrested, detained and charged. Reading between the lines it appears that Robertson has acknowledged in the last few months that didn't have an evidential basis for the arrests. I don't know how Police Scotland will seek to defend those "errors" other than they were made in good faith and not malice. The alternative would be to seek immunity from prosecution on the basis that they were acting on the instruction of the Lord Advocate.
Police Scotand's QC seemed somewhat put out by something that Grier's team had submitted to the Court about the former Lord Advocate, Frank (now Lord) Mulholland, describing a misrepresentation of Police Scotland's position as "outrageous".
I'm sure that JC will be along later with his verbatim account of proceedings.
Former Rangers administrator starts £2 million damages action against Police Scotland
By James Mulholland
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17722256.former-rangers-administrator-starts-2-million-damages-action-against-police-scotland/
A FORMER administrator of Rangers has commenced a £2 million damages action against Police Scotland over its allegedly unlawful investigation into his activities at the club.
Businessman David Grier,57, claims detectives disregarded legal procedures when he was arrested in 2014 in connection with the Glasgow club's sale two years earlier.
Officers suspected Mr Grier, of London, had broken the law during the sale of the Ibrox side.
But Mr Grier and his co-accused – David Whitehouse, Craig Whyte, Charles Green, Gary Withey, Paul Clark and Imran Ahmad – were later cleared of any wrongdoing.
READ MORE: Crown pays over £80k to ex-Rangers administrator David Whitehouse over "wrongful" restraint order
Now Mr Grier has instructed lawyers to sue Police Scotland at the country's highest civil court – the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
On Friday, during a short hearing at the court, judge Lord Bannatyne arranged for a procedural hearing to take place next month. Lawyers will present submissions to the judge on that date.
Lord Bannatyne said: "I'm going to fix a procedural hearing in this case in about three to four weeks time. We will discuss a number of things at this hearing.
"I will fix a procedural hearing to take place at midday on July 12."
Prosecutors had alleged that Mr Grier, Mr Withey and Mr Whyte had participated in criminal behaviour during their involvement with Rangers.
The three men became involved with the side following David Murray's decision to sell to Whyte in May 2011.
Withey, of Woking, Surrey, was a former partner at Collyer Bristow – the London based law firm who advised Mr Whyte.
Mr Grier worked for Duff & Phelps, the company who were appointed administrators of Rangers.
The trio was later cleared of any wrongdoing. However, prosecutors launched an appeal against the decision to clear them.
In June 2017, Scotland's most senior judge Lord Carloway wrote a judgement in which he explained the reasons why prosecutors failed in their appeal.
Lord Carloway said that the Crown had "formed an erroneous view of the law". He said that prosecutors had seized "legally privileged" material from the men's lawyers.
Lord Carloway said that the police shouldn't have seized the material as it breached the law.
He wrote: "It is a factor in favour of the Crown that they were not acting in bad faith but only upon first a misconception of the law and secondly latterly pure carelessness.
READ MORE: Dave King: Rangers are within tangible reach of becoming the dominant force in Scottish football again
"Nevertheless, the level of illegality is such that it can neither be condoned or countenanced notwithstanding the relatively serious nature of the charge."
Earlier this week, Mr Grier's colleague at Rangers, David Whitehouse was paid £80,000 compensation after his assets were wrongfully frozen during the investigation into his wrongdoing.
He had been seeking damages from Scotland's most senior prosecutor, the Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC. Mr Whitehouse's lawyers claimed the Crown had no legal right to seize the assets.
The case was also due to be heard at the Court of Session. But the case was settled days before lawyers were due to commence.
In the latest case to the heard at the Court of Session, lawyers are seeking £2 million compensation from the police.
Mr Grier's legal team claim their client is entitled to the sum because of the allegedly "unlawful and malicious conduct" of the police.
Police Scotland are contesting the action and deny any wrongdoing. Their lawyers claim that officers had a reasonable basis of suspecting Mr Grier of illegal activity.
The case will next call next month.
A surprisingly detailed article By Martin Williams @MWilliamsHT Senior News Reporter on 19th June 2019?
Dave King group to get controlling interest in Rangers after vote
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17717392.dave-king-group-to-get-controlling-interest-in-rangers-as-loans-to-shares-bid-is-approved/?ref=mr&lp=6
Dave King and his Three Bears group are to have a controlling interest in Rangers as a bid to convert over £14m of club loans into shares has got the go-ahead.
The Rangers board were today asking independent shareholders to agree to a crucial 'waiver' that would mean Mr King did not have to make another multi-million pound shares offer to other shareholders as he and his partners tighten their hold on the club.
And at a general meeting, that waiver was passed with 81.8% in favour.
READ MORE: Rangers chairman Dave King wins fight to avoid £8m club share purchase… just
The group wanted to convert £14,120,388 in loans into 70,601,941 shares at 20p each, but there were warnings the move would have been on the rocks had the waiver not been agreed by other shareholders.
It has now emerged there were 48,565,961 votes in favour of the resolution with 10,772,951 (18.1%) against.
Rangers chairman, Dave King, thanked shareholders for their continued backing and said: "This is an important marker in the recapitalisation of the company and significantly improves its balance sheet, enabling the conversion of over £14m of debt into shares.”
The loans-to-shares move gives Mr King's group the power to decide whether resolutions at future general meetings pass or fail and block special resolutions. That means they have control over strategic decision-making processes, including the election of directors and chief executive, approving executive pay and passing financial accounts.
In February, Mr King won a long battle to avoid paying out on a court-ordered shares offer, which could have cost him as much as £19m, after it just failed to get enough acceptances from shareholders to become valid.
READ MORE: Rangers director warns loss-making club cannot run on loans indefinitely
Mr King was obliged to make the bid by the Takeover Panel financial regulator, which ruled he, and the Three Bears group of investors made up of Hong Kong-based investment banker George Taylor, Park's Motor Group founder Douglas Park and investment banker fan George Letham, had acted "in concert" to acquire more than 30% of the Ibrox club's shares. They they over the club from a group said to be allied to Sports Direct founder Mike Ashley in 2015.
The Takeover Panel confirmed that the requirement to make the general offer for the balance of shares not owned by the King group would be waived, if the shareholders pass the resolution.
There was an earlier warning in a letter to shareholders from John Bennett, chairman of the independent directors of RIFC, that if the so-called Whitewash Resolution was not passed the loan conversion will not go ahead.
And he said that "may create issues" for Rangers if the 'soft loans' which were integral to allow the club to meet its debts when due and invest in the playing squad were subsequently withdrawn.
READ MORE: Ex Rangers chief Sandy Easdale to sell shares as he tells Dave King: 'I want out'
According to financial papers supporting the bid, the extra shares Dave King’s group would get from the loan conversion would mean their slice of Rangers International Football Club plc would rise from 34.06% to give them a majority 53.93% stake.
Once converted Mr King's slice through his New Oasis Asset Limited company will grow from 14.57% to 26%, Mr Park's holding will rise from 6.14% to 13.94%, Mr Letham will have 5.7%, up from 4.05%, while Mr Taylor's interest will drop from 9.3% to 8.14%.
The letter to shareholders from Mr Bennett explained that the loans were provided by shareholders to assist with the costs of "restoring Rangers Football Club to a position at the top of Scottish Football and as a force in European football".
"Rangers Football Club’s footballing success benefits the financial position of the company. Converting the loans to shares ensures that such assistance is ongoing and that the company does not have to repay this funding," he wrote.
"The loan conversion will significantly improve the balance sheet of the company and ensure that it complies with The UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations."
The independent directors in information supporting the motion said: "When the current board of RIFC were appointed, the club had suffered greatly through years of financial distress and upheaval.
"Consequently, RIFC was making significant losses with no immediate possibility of those being stemmed whilst restoring the fortunes of Rangers Football Club. Such losses have now been greatly reduced and the fortunes of both Rangers Football Club and RIFC have been significantly restored.
"There is still work to be done both on and off the field with sporting success for Rangers Football Club being the key driver to improved financial performance for RIFC."
Under Takeover Code rules Mr King and the Three Bears, should have made a written offer to buy the shares of other shareholders at the time of the takeover having overtaken a 30% threshold.
The 63-year-old businessman, had previously stated that delays in fulfilling court orders over the offer were the result of needing government approval to transfer the funds from South Africa to the UK The offer came after a Court of Session contempt case in front of Lady Wolffe was paused in December after the Rangers chief said he was now “100%” committed to making the multi-million-pound offer.
During one hearing in October, Mr King's advocate Lord Davidson of Glen Clova QC argued that he "is penniless" adding: "Any order wouldn't secure compliance. It won't. It is pointless."
The King-led takeover group had always denied that they had acted 'in concert' to purchase shares in Rangers on December 31 2014 and January 2, 2015.
But in December, 2017 Lord Bannatyne ruled in favour of the Takeover Panel that Mr King acted in concert with the Three Bears to oust the Mike Ashley-allied board.
StevieBC@10.52
https://twitter.com/heavidor/status/1141934617546633218?s=21
Never mind the millions landing at Firhill, it’s all about the “big data” analytics.
Is IFAB following you Allyjambo 20th June 2019 at 22:11?
Women's World Cup: Rule on encroachment during penalty shootouts suspended
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48723902
A rule that states goalkeepers at the 2019 Women's World Cup must be cautioned for encroachment at penalties has been suspended for shootouts.
Under new guidelines, keepers at this tournament are booked if they come off their line prior to a penalty kick.
So far, three players have been shown yellow cards for breaking the rule.
But football's law makers say having it in place for penalty shootouts risks "unfairly distorting" the outcome if a goalkeeper is sent off.
The request for the temporary suspension of the law, which will remain in place for the remainder of the tournament, was made by FIFA to the International Football Association Board.
In explaining their decision to approve the request, IFAB accepted that the presence of VARs greatly increases the likelihood of any offence being detected and, as goalkeepers are likely to face a number of kicks during a shootout, there is a higher risk that a goalkeeper will be sent off for receiving a second caution if already cautioned in normal time.
Goalkeepers can still be booked for coming off their line if a penalty is awarded during normal and extra time.
sannoffymesssoitizz 21st June 2019 at 17:31
READ MORE: Rangers director warns loss-making club cannot run on loans indefinitely
…………….
I was looking for that the other day.
…………………………..
When i was going to match it with this.
Cluster One 20th June 2019 at 18:55
But later on in the Article the bomb is dropped and in bold too.
…….
THERE WILL COME A POINT WHERE THE CURRENT INVESTORS WON’T PUT MONEY IN ANYMORE, SO IT COULD THEN BE UP TO THE FANS.
…………………………………..
On another point.
According to financial papers supporting the bid, the extra shares Dave King’s group would get from the loan conversion would mean their slice of Rangers International.
Football Club plc would rise from 34.06% to give them a majority 53.93% stake.
Once converted Mr King’s slice through his New Oasis Asset Limited company will grow from 14.57% to 26%, Mr Park’s holding will rise from 6.14% to 13.94%, Mr Letham will have 5.7%, up from 4.05%, while Mr Taylor’s interest will drop from 9.3% to 8.14%.
…………..
“Consequently, RIFC was making significant losses with no immediate possibility of those being stemmed whilst restoring the fortunes of Rangers Football Club. Such losses have now been greatly reduced and the fortunes of both Rangers Football Club and RIFC have been significantly restored.
……………………….
If the bubble bursts down ibrox way, would Mr King’s slice through his New Oasis Asset Limited company be the main creditor
ie. would king have the most to gain if the bubble bursts?
Cluster One 21st June 2019 at 18:50
If the bubble bursts down ibrox way, would Mr King’s slice through his New Oasis Asset Limited company be the main creditor ie. would king have the most to gain if the bubble bursts?
———————————————————————————————–
Most will know better than I, but if the loans are converted to shares, they will not be creditors as nothing is owed….(unless some conditions are attached?)
If, and when….Celtic win 9 IAR I imagine the following season when Celtic are attempting 10, that would be the optimum time to put it to the fans to dig deep. ,
My version of the business ( quite technical business) in Court today. As ever, it's what I heard clearly enough to more or less get down in the words used. Nothing false has been deliberately added, and I think it's a fairly accurate report. I think eJ has mentioned that there was certainly an element of asperity and there has clearly been no real meeting of minds between the two Qcs.
It's possible that there is an underlying question relating to the admission by the Senior Investigating Officer of 'errors' : the question as to the nature of the error(s) and the source.
Before Lord Bannatyne.
David Grier v Chief Constable , Police Scotland.
Court sat at 10.30 a.m. 21st June 2019, in Courtroom 6, Parliament House.
__________________
Mr Smith QC: Good morning, my Lord.
I and Mr McLeod , my Junior, are acting on behalf of the Pursuer, and my Learned friend Mr Duncan and Miss Lloyd are acting for the Defender.
You will know, my Lord, that much of this case has been litigated in the Sheriff Court and comes here for various reasons. I have provided you with a note..
Lord Bannatyne: I have read your note…
Mr Smith: The first question that arises, my Lord, is whether the case should be accepted by this Court?
Lord B: I see no .. I think it's basically a commercial matter. Mr Duncan?
Mr Duncan: Yes, I think it should be the Commercial Court.
Lord B: Yes, we have seen cases like this often enough.
Mr Smith: My Lord, I think that further procedure should be a matter of some agreement. What I would ask is that maybe in 6 or 7 weeks' time [?]for a period of adjustment. [ed: I think Mr Smith was looking for the Court to ask for something from Parties within a couple of weeks, and then another few weeks for adjustments before any hearing]
The case has thus far been litigated by reference to a Scott schedule [ ed. In commercial cases this is “a table setting out certain information about the claim. It could take a lot of different forms, depending on the matter in dispute, and it could be short and simple or long and complicated.]
It took to the end of February before we were advised of errors by the Senior Investigating Officer.
Lord B: Having read the papers, that's where we are going. There's a suggestion that certain material issues could be debated, thus limiting the extent of any Proof. Should there be a debate on certain issues?
It's important to make a decision, otherwise procedural hearing could go off in different issues. Can you say what is the status of the Scott schedule?What did the Sheriff do? I would abandon …
Mr Smith : I understand, my Lord. The case as pled was essentially overtaken by the Scott schedule. For my part, I want to adjust the pleadings to make the averments include reference to the statement of admission. The purpose of the adjustment is to adduce the point in the status of the Scott schedule: I want to debate the defender's lack of defence.
Lord B: We don't want to go off in all kinds of ways.
Mr Duncan: My Lord, I believe there are two things to be done; First, we have to decide what are the issues, secondly, we have to decide how we are to deal with them. Your lordship has seen my note?
Lord B: yes.
Mr Duncan: [ ed: failed to hear what he briefly said]
Lord B: Mr Smith, this case needs to be nailed down. Would it not be better if we took some more time? Should we agree to have a procedural hearing in about 3 to 4 weeks' time. And at that hearing decide whether to abandon the pleadings and work on the Scott schedule? {ed: apparently there are about one hundred and four pages of pleadings]
Mr Smith: I don't quarrel with that. But I do want to adjust the pleadings, to delete stuff, and perhaps halve the proceedings.
Lord B: I was intending to put it out for a day.
Mr Duncan: I agree with that.
Lord B: What would you think, Mr Smith?
Mr Smith: I think the parties should liaise to seek agreement about the issues to be discussed.
Lord B: yes. Parties should set out in a joint note, or two notes, what they think are the points they wish to argue. Then I could decide whether there is a need for debate.
There are various side-issues, for example the status of expert witnesses, and various other issues that need to be looked at.
Mr Smith: [ ed: didn't get his remarks]
Lord B: I could fix a summary decree motion…if you say the matter can be dealt with by summary decree motion? Mr Duncan?
Mr Duncan: Absolutely, my Lord. I must make the point that what the Pursuer says about Lord Mulholland [ ed: Lord Mulholland stepped down as Lord Advocate in 2016. He was, of course, in office at the time the action against Grier was taken]
Lord B: Well, I don't think at this stage we want to go into all the various matters.
Mr Smith:If we are to have a short procedural hearing in two weeks' time then there are documents in the possession of the police that ought to be handed over. I have been asking for them for some time.
Lord Bannatyne: Mr Duncan?
Mr Duncan: I'm not sure which documents my learned friend means. But I'll look into it.
Mr Smith: With respect, my Lord, looking into it is not good enough. I would ask your Lordship to make an order .
Lord B: Is there a letter your agents have listing the documents?
Mr Smith: There has been correspondence and emails, my Lord. I do not have anything to hand.
Lord B: Can you let me have the email in due course?
Mr Smith: Yes, of course, my Lord.
Lord B: The more I think about it, the more I think we need a procedural hearing.
I need notes from Parties in order to get set on track.
I will set a date.
Preferably a joint paper, notes to be lodged at least 5 days before the date, and a note about what the pleadings are going to be, etc .
[ Consults with Clerk with calendar]
Friday 12th July.
Mr Duncan: Can I ask that we have a later start, my Lord: I shall be in London that morning and need some time to travel back.
Lord Bannatyne: Well, if we make it midday you won't have to catch the very first flight.
Right, 12th July, midday.
Thank you, gentlemen.”
Court rose at about 11.30.
Thanks again to the court guys.
Corrupt official 21st June 2019 at 19:52
If, and when….Celtic win 9 IAR I imagine the following season when Celtic are attempting 10, that would be the optimum time to put it to the fans to dig deep. ,
…………………
Dig Deep to stop 10 in a row slogan would be even too embarrassing for them to come out with. To do that would underline they are not equal to celtic but in their shadow,and it is not about the ibrox club going for their first title but all about the ibrox club stopping celtic going for ten.
Ex Ludo 21st June 2019 at 17:38
StevieBC@10.52 https://twitter.com/heavidor/status/1141934617546633218?s=21 Never mind the millions landing at Firhill, it’s all about the “big data” analytics.
=========================
Ah, but Ex Ludo, I fear that these investors could be onto plums.
Yes, Big Data and continuously tweaked and refined algorithms, variables and weightings does have a place in sports – as proved in the States.
But, in this scenario with Patrick Thistle, I would suggest that NO algorithms could account for the vagaries of Scottish football.
Outright corruption, fixed cup draws, dodgy refs, 4 penalties for one team, inconsistent refereeing decisions, inconsistent disciplinary decisions, etc…
Too many outliers in Scottish football.
And just what would an Americans make of the SFA or SPFL?
They would be taking the blazers to Court on a very regular basis, and exploiting every dodgy precedent set by RFC/TRFC!
My post of 20.15 refers ( the Court proceedings)
On re-reading I find I did not complete a sentence. It's at this point
" Mr Duncan: Absolutely, my Lord. I must make the point that what the Pursuer says about Lord Mulholland [ ed: Lord Mulholland stepped down as Lord Advocate in 2016. He was, of course, in office at the time the action against Grier was taken]..
the end of the sentence is " is outrageous!"
And Mr Duncan spoke with some feeling when he said that.
Rather long piece by Martin Williams in the Herald about RIFC challenging Mr. Justice Persey's findings:
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17723301.rangers-challenge-after-losing-latest-round-of-court-fight-with-mike-ashley/
In addition to having advised sportspersons on media related issues William has experience of advising on sports contracts (including Formula One) and has experience of contractual disputes in boxing (Calzaghe v Warren) and football, having been instructed on behalf of Glasgow Rangers FC in its long-running dispute with Sports Direct over their commercial relationship.
https://elyplace.com/barrister/william-mccormick-qc/
sannoffymesssoitizz 22nd June 2019 at 18:37
"In addition to having advised sportspersons on media related issues William has experience of advising on sports contracts (including Formula One) and has experience of contractual disputes in boxing (Calzaghe v Warren) and football, having been instructed on behalf of Glasgow Rangers FC in its long-running dispute with Sports Direct over their commercial relationship. https://elyplace.com/barrister/william-mccormick-qc/
——————————————————-
Funnily enough, subtley pointing out that he offers advice, (which may, or not, be taken) and drops in a few successful outcomes, as back-up…….But ultimately, he still has tae dae wit he's telt ……..
Dead clever these lawyers.
Jingso.Jimsie 22nd June 2019 at 11:08
9 0 Rate This
Rather long piece by Martin Williams in the Herald about RIFC challenging Mr. Justice Persey’s findings:
…………………….
High Court judge Lionel Persey said he had “no hesitation” in rejecting Rangers’ approach over changing certain rights in their agreement.
His judgment came as it emerged that the Rangers Megastore at Ibrox, which is run by Sports Direct as part of their agreement was shut down over a week ago.
Mr Persey said Rangers wished to rewrite or amend some of the payment terms in the agreement but said: “There is no basis for it to do so unless SDIR agrees.”
………………
That is a challenge right enough.
…………..
The club and SDIR had agreed that the Mike Ashley company does have the right to distribute, market, advertise, promote, offer for sale or sell the official Rangers kit under the further agreement. The ruling stated that Rangers objected to three of Sports Direct’s amendments based on that understanding. But Mr Persey said that he considered there was no substance to the objections.
The duration of the contract was two years, commencing August 1, 2018.
……………………….
Just how king can spin the latest to the gullibles to get them to run up the steps i can’t wait.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1142511486369226754?p=v
Corrupt official 22nd June 2019 at 20:20
'..Dead clever these lawyers….'
+++++++++
Are we speaking of William McCormick QC, who appeared for King and Murray ( and TRFC and Rangers Retail) before Mr Richard Millett QC(sitting as a Deputy Judge of the (English) High Court on 22 March 2017?
Para 28 of the judgment after that hearing has this:
"Even by this early point it ought to have been obvious to all Defendants that Mr King and Mr Murray's positions as directors of the Company were hopelessly conflicted. On the other hand, the positions of the SDI-appointed directors to the Company's board were more closely aligned with the interests of the Company. It may very well have been the case that the business of the Company relied upon relationships with other entities in the Sports Direct group which were disadvantageous to the Company. That is a point of which Mr King makes much in his evidence, and much was made by Mr McCormick QC in his submissions on behalf of the Defendants. However, even if that were so, it ought not to have disabled the Company's board from seeking to uphold the IPLA and thereby protect its sole asset and revenue stream. The relevant comparator was between an allegedly disadvantageous IPLA and no IPLA at all, and ergo no business at all for the Company. "
It doesn't seem too clever to me to be defending two members of the Board of Rangers Retail Ltd who, as also being directors of TRFC Ltd, were acting (via boycott-support and purported termination of the deal that TRFC Ltd has with Rangers Retail ) not in the interests of Rangers Retail [ as they had a fiduciary duty to do] but in the interests of TRFC Ltd.
If it ought to have been obvious to King and Murray that they were 'hopelessly conflicted" how much more obvious ought it to have been to 'one of Her Majesty's Counsel, learned in the law'?
Shirley, Gerrard's advisers are frantically searching for a new club down south?
He's had an OK rookie season – and his stock could be as high as it can ever get with TRFC.
He is limited to Bosmans and loanees to improve his squad, and deliver silverware. Even a highly experienced manager might struggle to satisfy Ibrox expectations with such meagre resources.
CFC is spending £3M+ on a teenager with a lot of potential, (…has he actually signed yet?).
TRFC simply can't compete with that level of investment.
If Gerrard doesn't get his team to overachieve next season, he will be unceremoniously booted out of Ibrox.
I'm guessing his contract would have a break clause after his first season?
Now might be his best/only opportunity to jump on the managerial merry-go-round down south?
Well written last post there, John Clark, and your concluding paragraph is spot on. Can it really be that all these people in high-ranking professional positions (be it DCIs, members of the legal profession etc) are fans too and simply caught up in the 'some bad people did bad things to Rangers' mantra? Without that initial state of mind, it seems unbelievable that they might have acted in the way they did.
StevieBC 23rd June 2019 at 15:35
"…..He is limited to Bosmans and loanees to improve his squad, and deliver silverware. ..'
+++++++++++++++
I wonder does he know and appreciate how financially strapped TRFC Ltd is? Does he know even as much as we on SFM know about the finances, thanks to the efforts of several posters who know about balance sheets?
Would any one of us apply for a job at Ibrox, in the knowledge that TRFC is living from hand to mouth, and faces having to meet some serious damages claims, which might well swallow up such UEFA money that they might receive this coming season?
Confirmation that Andrew Dallas is to step down as a FIFA ref.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48725205
He cites personal/work reasons, although others have suggested it was because he was going to be demoted in any event.
The IOC have recently opened a new HQ in Switzerland at a reported cost of £120 million. It’s very nice and environmentally friendly. I would not be surprised if FIFA get a bit jealous and also build a shiny new symbol of wealth and power sponsored of course by whoever wants the World Cup Finals the most.
Ex Ludo 24th June 2019 at 09:24
'….I would not be surprised if FIFA get a bit jealous and also build a shiny new symbol of wealth '…
+++++++++++
Your post prompted me to have a look ( not that I'm anything other than almost completely financially ignorant!) at FIFA's Annual report for 2018 at this link
https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/fifa-financial-report-2018.pdf?cloudid=xzshsoe2ayttyquuxhq0
They could quite easily afford to blow a couple of hundred million quid on a vanity building project!
( I suppose, incidentally, that all the senior bods are covered by some form of directors' indemnity insurance?)
Ex Ludo,
yes, more obscene flaunting of an organisation's wealth – for the benefit of the blazers at the very top of their particular tree / trough.
And this seems to reflect the increasing likelihood that the only sports on the planet which can be regarded as honest are those played at true, amateur level
…without the malignant influence of money and business to distort the basic principles of participation.
https://twitter.com/mattleslie74/status/1143078288065204224?s=21
The acid test of patriotism.
Ex Ludo @ 12:29
This story was featured by Kevin McKenna in the Herald at the weekend.
Ex Ludo 24th June 2019 at 12:29
What would be the acceptable answer ?
Same club = gullible = threat to National security ?