Accountability via Transparency.

ByTrisidium

Accountability via Transparency.

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

Resolution 12 information on new website

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.

About the author

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

1,204 Comments so far

upthehoopsPosted on9:02 pm - Apr 8, 2019


Bill1903 8th April 2019 at 08:01

Whatever happens hes been my manager of the year by a mile.

——————————————————

I can't see past Steve Clarke for Manager of the year either. Had a chat about it with some friends recently and it's well nigh impossible to put a case forward for anyone else. 

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on9:52 pm - Apr 8, 2019


Homunculus

You have a direct message from me

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:41 pm - Apr 8, 2019


 Auldheid 8th April 2019 at 11.54

'…have a read at the 200 per cent article '

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

I am just idly wondering, Auldheid,but has a hard copy of the Res 12 stuff been sent formally to the SMSM editors, and perhaps to Alex Thomson,and Greenslade of the Guardian,  and to the minister for sport etc at Holyrood and perhaps to every MSP- for information?

Many of these will of course be aware through other connections of the fact that there are serious questions to be asked, but can of course deny any official knowledge of that fact if they have not been formally told and provided with the facts.

 

 

 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:13 am - Apr 9, 2019


John Clark 8th April 2019 at 22:41
……………………
At this point an Ally “Who are these people” should be in the open.
A list of everyone from SMSM editors to MSP’s to SFA and SPFL employee’s to chairmen etc.
A list out in the open of everyone who has been handed a hard copy of the Res 12 stuff and done nothing.
This would be a tactic used by an ibrox club and it is used in a way to get results.
It is time to name and shame. Let’s see how comfortable they are when their names are at the forefront of conversations and social media.And questions are being asked of them.

View Comment

LUGOSIPosted on7:20 am - Apr 9, 2019


I see that on 8th April 2019 John James has published his views on Resolution 12 and has passed comment on the matters raised and the material referred to by Auldheid and Auldheid has, in turn, responded.

Auldheid has seemingly, "on several occasions", been informed by Mr James "about the legal definition of hearsay" and reference is made to a Scottish Law Commission Report in 1995.

What is not referred to is that the 1995 Report was concerned with hearsay in criminal proceedings.

As far as I know Auldheid et al do not have criminal proceedings as their objective or, at least, as their primary objective.

In these circumstances the question of hearsay, in proceedings other than criminal proceedings, is covered by statute which precedes the 1995 Commission by seven years.

The Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988, Section 2 provides for the admissibility of hearsay.

While I'm here: Lord Davidson Q.C., Baron of Glen Clova who chaired the 1995 Commission and has since appeared for GASH is not called Ian. His name is Neil. Ian Davidson was Labour MP for Glasgow South, previously Glasgow Pollok.

While I'm here #2: Auldheid & Co.

You have my respect and thanks.

View Comment

FinlochPosted on7:43 am - Apr 9, 2019


Cluster 1 

Good point about opening this up and making it public

 

Auldheid

I agree with the suggestion of an open list of to whom the information has been sent.

And keep the list on the web site too.

Pleas also make the accompanying letter as simple as the front page of a red top i.e enough words to get the message over but simple enough to read and take in in seconds.

eg A criminal act occurred in Scotland in 2011.

Since then there has been a series of ongoing cover ups.

Have enough basic information to make the point but keep it easy to read with all the detail in and on the web site because there really is too much information to take in.

 

Tell everyone you send it to why you are sending it and what you want them to do.

ie you want more than just publicity, you want them in their position to do something.

 

 

So before you send it what do you and the other Requisitioners want any outraged MSP, MP, Newspaper editor, BBC programme makers etc to do next?

Who do you want them to contact what questions need to be asked and what do you want them to say?

 

Send the letter to an open public cc list (alphabetised) so everyone who receives it knows who else is on the list.

Keep the list of names who it has been sent to initially public and on the web site.

Send it (signed for) to- 

-Politicians local and national. (They all have football clubs from kids upwards in their constituencies- this is not a Glasgow WOS thing.

-Media editors tv/newspapers etc 

-Senior polis.

-SFA SPFL and Club officials.

FIFA and UEFA 

Etc

Make it historically impossible for anyone to say sometime in the future that they were not aware of what was going on.

Good luck.

 

We are all Resolutioners

 

 

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on8:54 am - Apr 9, 2019


Apologies for the pagination problems. The site code has become obsolete very quickly and needs to be rethought.
I have put in a temp fix for now which is fairly basic, but will redo the site in the summer.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:23 pm - Apr 9, 2019


Lugosi

Thanks for that information, it is good to know.

When the Archive was being established the term False Pretence was suggested which covered one of the  narratives emerging from the archive perfectly.

In parallel that content was put separately to an experienced criminal lawyer who advised that in his opinion false pretence had indeed occurred. 

It was confirmation the narrative was on the right track based on content. Only something unknown can change it.

I hesitate to define what false pretence means accurately from memory but fraud covers it.

However hearsay argument apart,  what may not be clear from the Archive behind  slow glass 😉  is that under a Declaration all clubs sign under UEFA FFP, the SFA were given the authority in 2011  to approach other authorities inc HMRC  by the applicant club to confirm anything relating to the application.

Hence even if there were statutory excuses or reasons to prevent evidence being considered, there was nothing to stop the SFA following our lawyers advice from 2015  to check out what SFA had been provided with by HMRC.

The same power to seek evidence was also part of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body armoury which is why Res12 asked they get involved but for some reason there was reluctance by Celtic to involve them. 

There may be a multiplicity of reasons but again Archive evidence is that either UEFA were not unsighted or were lied to by SFA, but in either case didn't want an investigation.

This is key to the long grass tactics since 2013 for as long as the source of the evidence was questionable, (the word provenance came up often ) , then the accusation of fraud the Archive suggests took place could never have been reached.

The debate would always have been did an overdue payable exist under UEFA FFP rather than was the licence gained under false pretence and without UEFA deciding one way or another progress was trapped in that never ending debate.

The SFA have had more than enough info from June 2018 to reach a decision but fear of the consequences and the 5 Way gave them a way out ie CAS.

In simple terms Res12 tells us the folk running our game are treating supporters like mugs with SMSM only too happy to ignore the seriousness of that conclusion or  to argue that is not the case and justify why.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:38 pm - Apr 9, 2019


Finloch

Good idea. Get cracking.angry.

Seriously that is a  separate  project on it's own but if someone wants to take it on they can contact me for names.

One I can name is David Conn. Check previous blog Who is Conning Whom for the story.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:47 pm - Apr 9, 2019


John Clark

Cluster One.

SFM did something on those lines in 2014 when hard copy was sent to 13 or so journalists of HMRC letter that challenged LNS Decision re honesty.

That number has been added to since.

 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:23 pm - Apr 9, 2019


Briefly, the business in Court today was about whether internal communications between the Advocate Depute and Crown Office staff meet the three criteria that would make them legally professionally privileged.

Basically, the Crown Office will  not release to the Pursuer (Whitehouse)an email chain, on the grounds that such internal communications are legally privileged.

The Court holds a sealed envelope containing the communications which include one particular email.

Both parties today were agreeable to the judge (Lord Brodie) opening the envelope. …He chose not to do so in the course of today's Hearing, indicating that he may do so later.

Mr McKinlay QC for the Pursuer argued that the three criteria were not met, and therefore that the contents of the envelope were not legally privileged.

The three criteria are (1) privilege belongs to the client not the lawyer, (2)there needs to have been advice given in the capacity of lawyer and (3)there has to absence of waiver.

Mr McKinlay adduced arguments showing that these criteria were not met.

Mr Douglas Ross QC ,for the Defender ( the Lord Advocate) adduced counter arguments .

After about two and a quarter hours ( my full handwritten report is on 15 pages of my notebook, based on my scribbled Court – room notes,which as usual have gaps where I simply did not hear what was said or make any sense of how what was said related to the business) the judge thanked Counsel, and indicated that he would give his 'Opinion' as soon as maybe.

Apart from Mulholland, ( the freelance journo whose name I have been justly accused of always getting wrong) I was the only other non- legal or non- court person present.

When I get my laptop back I'll put my full report on the blog for ( as they say)    completeness.

Human interest-wise, can I maybe add that Lord Brodie at one point took Mr Ross quite severely to task over something he said? As a spectator I was a wee bit taken aback.

 

 

 

 

 

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on11:34 pm - Apr 9, 2019


https://twitter.com/fansscarves/status/1115656184021901312?s=21

Bedtime reading.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on12:21 am - Apr 10, 2019


On the face of it, it looks like Big Mike's SD has taken a bath on its Debenhams' stake, although the losses can be offset else where.

 

But his public image has taken a hit, and it's amusing that he now wants everyone involved locked up!

 

And guess he made a chunk of his wealth by screwing over everyone else, at any opportunity – but doesn't like it in return.

 

So, RIFC / TRFC now faces a 'bear with a sore head' WRT the current, high profile, retail legal action.

 

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on7:39 am - Apr 10, 2019


Ex Ludo 9th April 2019 at 23:34

https://twitter.com/fansscarves/status/1115656184021901312?s=21

Bedtime reading.

——————————————————————-

Some interesting stuff there even for the hard of thinking like myself!

The differing range of turnover is staggering to me. No chance ever of a level playing field but some teams do very well considering their lack of money. One club in particular seems to no idea how to run a business sensibly (i won't spoil it by saying which club it is ) cheeky

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:36 pm - Apr 10, 2019


How timely…

 

Following the financial analyses on clubs' income, etc.

there is now visual proof of the destination of TRFC's revenue.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/live-first-real-picture-of-black-hole-to-be-revealed-11689502

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on3:29 pm - Apr 10, 2019


Bill1903@07.39

It’s also worth remembering that those figures for a certain club/company have been more or less been repeated year on year since 2012. 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:02 pm - Apr 10, 2019


Looking out for the mega squirrel that may come from ibrox way before this friday and the days beyond, but i just can’t put my finger on it.
Will it be mystery investors just waiting?
Will it be marquee signings promised in the summer?
Will it be tales of filling in the ibrox corners to increase capacity?
Will it be kit deals with ADIDAS?
Will it be another share issue?
Will it be a move to England?
Most of these and many more have been tried before, can they come up with a floating pitch or will something new be pulled out the bag.

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on8:44 pm - Apr 10, 2019


Just for info https://twitter.com/jjprague/status/1116041294445522946?s=20

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on11:59 pm - Apr 10, 2019


Anyone have any more issues navigating pages? Let us know if you do

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:22 am - Apr 11, 2019


Cluster One 10th April 2019 at 19:02

===============================

Charles Green was always good for the mega-squirrels. A deal with the Dallas Cowboys, 500 million fans worldwide, and Real Madrid hinting Rangers would be invited to an elite league are just three I can remember. 

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on8:26 am - Apr 11, 2019


https://twitter.com/comedyray/status/1116065000815308800?s=21

He’s got a point.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on10:09 am - Apr 11, 2019


McCoist chipping in his thoughts on fan control in the DR.

…whilst simultaneously promoting the 'Coral Scottish Grand National' this Saturday, with a typical, cheeky chappy photo…

 

"Rangers legend Ally McCoist calls on police to do more and stop fan violence

The Ibrox hero reckons its time police officers were more hands on with the recent rise in issues on the field…"

========

 

McCoist managed to stop short of shouting;

"Who are these people?!"

 

The guy who incited the same violent fans to target members of a tribunal panel – with one requiring police protection at his family home!

 

A wee sleekit, grubby excuse of a man.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on10:50 am - Apr 11, 2019


'Christyboy 10th April 2019 at 20:44

 

Just for info https://twitter.com/jjprague/status/1116041294445522946?s=20…'

####################################################

 

What a remarkable coincidence! Today's Daily Record on-line…

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/dundee-united-star-held-money-14278095

View Comment

theredpillPosted on11:29 am - Apr 11, 2019


I think it was Prof Tom Devine who said sectarianism is disappearing in Scotland. Follow Follow

Daz1690

Daz1690

Well-Known Member

Yesterday at 9:04 PM

#3

Thankfully I don't have your issues, I make sure we don't employ tarriers. HR don't like it but my company my rules… Are 

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on1:46 pm - Apr 11, 2019


https://twitter.com/clydessb/status/1116317914326601730?s=21

I’m sure there are other facts that are worthy of mention in this tawdry article. BTC anyone?

View Comment

fishnishPosted on3:03 pm - Apr 11, 2019


Jingso.Jimsie 11th April 2019 at 10:50

What a remarkable coincidence! Today's Daily Record on-line…

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/dundee-united-star-held-money-14278095

……………………………………………………………………………..

I don't get it….indecision

Have the Arabs got a game against TRFC coming up?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on4:32 pm - Apr 11, 2019


At last! One club has now gone public in taking practical steps, rather than just paying lip service, in response to the challenges that unacceptable behaviour create within football stadiums.

I would like to applaud Ann Budge for taking some action.  I don't think that it goes far enough, as yet, to create a safe an secure environment for players, officials and spectators alike, but I believe that it is an important first step.

Will other clubs follow suit in accepting that they have a problem and demonstrate by actions, rather than words, that they are serious about tackling the problem?

https://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/article/chairmans-statement

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:53 pm - Apr 11, 2019


StevieBC 11th April 2019 at 10:09
32 3 Rate This

McCoist chipping in his thoughts on fan control in the DR.
“Rangers legend Ally McCoist calls on police to do more and stop fan violence

The Ibrox hero reckons its time police officers were more hands on with the recent rise in issues on the field…”
…………………..
I wish he would make up his mind.
Feb 26, 2013.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1116413867314298886?p=v

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:02 pm - Apr 11, 2019


StevieBC 11th April 2019 at 10:09
32 3 Rate This

McCoist chipping in his thoughts on fan control in the DR.
………………..
The same Ally who said “When i came off the park i was told of some unsavoury chanting”
Feb 24, 2013.
Must be a sound barrier when you are on the park.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1116414883023806465?p=v

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:35 pm - Apr 11, 2019


easyJambo 11th April 2019 at 16:32

———————————————-

Celtic have closed a section of the ground before, at the start of season 2016/17. In 2013 they also addressed issues with the Green Brigade group and moved some of them to other areas, and took tickets from them. They got zero media praise for it the way Anne Budge has today, but that's not a shock really. 

 

 

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:47 pm - Apr 11, 2019


I see it is being reported that Joe Worral will escape SFA punishment for his 'f*ck Celtic' moment caught on camera. Do the SFA see that as acting in the best interests of Scottish Football? I can only guess it all depends on who gets upset. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:31 am - Apr 12, 2019


Got my laptop back this evening. Happily there was no need to wipe the hard drive ( just some spillage on the keyboard and one or two other wee bits needing attention) so everything is back to normal.

And here is my account of what transpired in Court the other day in the David Whitehouse  action v the Lord Advocate etc. for damages.

As ever, whether through hearing deficiencies on my part or the bumbling, muttering , poor articulation of speakers, I did not sometimes actually hear what was said, or could not relate what was said to what had been said immediately before. 

But I have not made anything up. 

This is what I heard on Tuesday:

Court of Session, Tuesday 9th April 2019

David Whitehouse v the Lord Advocate Wolffe &tc

Courtroom 12.

Before Lord Brodie.

Mr Adam McKinlay QC ,for Pursuer (Mr David Whitehouse)

Mr Douglas Ross QC, for Defender ( The Lord Advocate, James Wolffe QC )

 

Mr McK: I appear for the Pursuer, m'Lord, and my learned friend Mr Ross appears for the Defender.

Your Lordship will be aware of the 'Confidential envelope' in the possession of the Court? This envelope contains a chain of emails which was among documentation requested by the Pursuer, but which the defender refused to produce , claiming professional legal privilege.

I want to submit that professional legal privilege does not apply..

Lord Brodie: Before you do that, I wonder if there is a copy of [ ed: I missed what he said] that can be handed up?

[ed: Clerk and Counsel search their papers, and finally Mr McKinlay handed up a two or three-page document. Lord Brodie took some minutes to read it ]

Lord B: I take it that the material in the 'Confidential envelope' has been produced in Call 2?

Mr McK: Yes, m'Lord. It is in…

Lord B (interrupting).. I have read the record.

Mr McK: The restraint order

Lord B: Is the restraint order specifically mentioned?

Mr McK: Yes, m'Lord. Both parties today are content for your Lordship to open the envelope.

Lord B: Yes (fingering the envelope) I will not open it for the moment.

Mr McKay: M'Lord, I want now to submit argument on the understanding of when 'legal professional privilege' is held to apply.

First, the privilege belongs to the client rather than to the lawyer.

Second, it has to be in respect of advice given in the capacity of lawyer

and Third, there has to be an absence of waiver

Lord B: Have you some authorities for me?

[Mr McK cited I think a case in 2005, and I think another case involving the Special Commissioners of Income Tax [but perhaps these were the same case] and a second,or third, case relating to the question of waiver]

He continued: professional legal privilege applies to communications between a client and his lawyer. 'Lawyer ' includes 'in-house' lawyers, lawyers working in the same firm or company.The Defender argues that on that basis privilege attaches to communications between and Advocate Depute and Crown Office staff….

Lord B: Is n't the Advocate-depute the Crown?

Mr McK: …. and therefore attaches to the email chain. I have not seen the contents of the email chain,and cannot comment on its relevance..Now, in reference to privilege relating to the client, who is the client in this case? The Defender's position is that the client is the Lord Advocate.

But the Advocate-depute is one and the same as the Lord Advocate: the Lord Advocate would be advising himself!

As for the advice being given in the capacity of a lawyer,the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is a creature of statute. It is quite clearly an organisation that performs public functions.

Lord B [ asked a question which I did not hear]

Mr McK: The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service work together, as I understand it.

Lord B: As I understand it, the Advocate Depute gives instructions to Crown Office staff.. Lawyers don't give instructions.

Mr McK: It can be difficult to discern: the crown Office has duties of full investigation and disclosure.

On the need for 'absence of waiver' , without knowing what is in the envelope, I cannot comment on whether there was any waiver.

Lord B: What would you consider might be in the envelope?

Mr Mc K: Well,m'Lord, there has been significant correspondence…

Lord B: …there was one particular email..

Mr McK: ..that had already been recovered under the other action, and that email came into Mr Whitehouse's possession. I assert that the information in that correspondence was given without any assertion of legal privilege.

Lord B: [asked a question which I again did not hear]

Mr McK (turning to consult with his Solicitor colleague) ..I understand that certain undertakings were given on the specification of documents.Of course, m'Lord, if legal professional privilege were to apply, then that would be that.

Lord B: (ed: You mean) if the circumstances are such that the Lord Advocate asserts privilege?

Mr McK: yes, m'lord. There was no evidence, no basis for the restraint order..

In the reclaiming motion heard by Lord Glennie {ed: 12th/17th September 2018-I can't find it in 'Court of Session judgments'?] Lord Glennie mentioned '…risk to Mr Whitehouse..' and on the second issue he noted that “ Mr Whitehouse sold his business and had benefited from his involvement in 'Rangers'” Lord Glennie did NOT say that the Crown did not have evidence..

And the Defender admits that there was a breach of Common Law duty.

Lord B: The defender's position is a bit [ed:long pause ] economical.

Mr McK: Yes, breach of duty as regards disclosure.

Lord B: [ ed: I think referring to the o'ther action'] There is a Proof hearing 18th June?

Mr McK: {ed: he continued to talk further of the sale of MCR and the Administration, but I couldn't quite follow him]

Lord B: [ with a smile]You're doing the Defender's job for him?

Mr McK: Yes

Lord B: Lord Glennie's note , at para 12, ….[ed: I missed what followed]

Mr McK: Well, Lord Glennie's Note is what it is, m'Lord…[ed: and I missed the rest of his sentence, but that was the conclusion of his case]

 

Mr Ross QC, for the Defender: There is no great difference,m'Lord, as to the law.If in turn we look at the requirements for 'legal professional privilege', I acknowledge that the Crown Office and the Advocate-Depute position is an unusual one. However, there is a 'client' here in the form of the Lord Advocate.

And taking account of the fact that it is accepted that professional privilege applies to 'in-house' lawyers, then there is no reason why it should not apply here.

Lord B: Isn't the Lord Advocate the source of legal advice rather than the recipient?

Mr Ross: We have to have regard to the reality of things. The Advocate-Depute is instructed…

Lord B: I'm not sure that the Advocate-Depute is instructed.

Mr Ross:.. In circumstances such….

Lord B: You said 'the Advocate-Depute is instructed'.Strike that out.

Mr Ross: let me explain. The Advocate-Depute is…

Lord B: In your description the Advocate-Depute is carrying out the role that you are carrying out here.

Mr Ross: The matter here is a restraint order. Counsel was not appearing as a typical Advocate-Depute: he was appearing in the Court of Session, where advice and instruction were obtained by those in the Crown office who were his clients. As far as the requirement that 'advice ' has to be be the advice given 'in capacity as a lawyer' …….

Lord B: The proceedings under the 'proceeds of Crime Act' are civil proceedings? The Lord Advocate is in the same position as any civil litigant?

Mr Ross: What I was seeking is that whatever….an Advocate-Depute acting on instruction of the Crown Office is in receipt of instruction, as well as providing advice.

Lord B: Advice gathered in the context of a criminal prosecution?

Mr Ross: It would also include advice as regards applicable lw and the position to be adopted at a Hearing. The information here is known to my learned friend is emails proceeding between the Advocate-Depute and staff of the Crown Office relating to the restraint order proceedings, not simply a matter of your Lordship opening the envelope and forming an opinion.

But the exchanges consist [?] not merely of advice but of instructions to the Advocate-Depute.

Lord B: The client is the Lord Advocate?

Mr Ross: Yes.

On the second leg ( of advice having to be given in the capacity of lawyer). As regards advice/instruction between counsel and client, I don't wish to say too much about the actual documents in the case, but I submit that your Lordship will see that the exchanges between the Crown Office staff and the Advocate-Depute are clearly within the description of 'acting in the capacity of a lawyer'.

On the need for there to be an 'absence of waiver' my learned friend did not go so far as to submit that the Lord Advocate had waived , but the production of documents in the main action in response to specification does NOT mean waiver. That was a separate action.

Lord B:They should have done!The Lord Advocate is to act transparently…whereas you wish to take credit for his liberal approach!

 

Mr Ross; M'Lord, material was produced that need not have been produced. In the main action the Pursuer had already seen much of the information.

Lord B: Would that include the email?

Mr Ross: No. The more important point is that this action is a separate legal process, and what happened in another legal action is not relevant and cannot apply.

As to material produced in this action , m'Lord, this is of a different character to all the material produced in the other action.

The Lord Advocate is not concerned that all communications between members of the Crown office are seen. However, the material in the envelope is of a different character and nature. There is a distinction between general communications that were produced between the procurator fiscal and the police and 'legal privilege' advice in connection with appearance in Court, m'lord.

I would like to add a 4th point-in relation to Lord Glennie's Note.

The point concerns the fact that if the the conditions that are required to be met in order to establish 'legal privilege' are met, my learned friend acknowledged that that that's it. There can be no further dispute.

Lord B: Yes. Mr McKinlay had acknowledged that there was no second bite, if legal privilege applied at all.

Mr Ross: In this matter the Lord Advocate has admitted that things were wrongful.

Lord B: [ ed; again, I did not hear what he said]

Mr Ross: What is not admitted ….

Lord B: It's an academic point under Article 8..

Mr Ross: [ed: I missed what he said]

Lord B: It might save me having to write an opinion! Mr McKinlay, would your position change?

Mr McK: No, m'Lord. A breach of Article 8 can be relevant in assessing the quantification of damages.

Lord B: Mr Ross?

Mr Ross: It's unlikely that a higher award would be obtained under Common Law admission.

Lord B: You accept liability for common law breach damages?

Mr Ross: I'll rest on the fact that a common law breach has been accepted, and there is a right to damages. I submit that the requirements for 'legal professional privilege' are satisfied in this case, and your Lordship will see this when he opens the envelope.

Lord B: The Lord Advocate has produced everything required under Call 1?

 

Can we have a word about the policy behind 'legal privilege'?

[ at this point Mr Ross handed up an extract from text-books]

Lord B: Thank you.But what is your own understanding of the purpose?

Mr Ross: So that legal advice can be discussed without falling into the hands of opponents.

Lord B: would relationship in[ with?] civil proceedings …

Mr Ross: In ordinary cases , the Crown would resist recovery of a communication between Crown Office and the police and the Lord Advocate, usually on 'public interest' grounds rather than on grounds of 'legal privilege'.

Lord B: Mr McKinlay, what is your understanding?

Mr McK: Let me first pass up to your Lordship the authorities mentioned earlier. [passes up to judge]

My understanding of legal privilege is that it is distinct from 'immunity', see the Prudential case , Lord Scott paras 20 and 34.

In relation to the present case, I would not accept Crown Office staff as 'in-house' lawyers.The Lord Advocate gives rather than receives legal advice. The Advocate-Depute can of course seek the advice of lawyers, but correspondence between an Advocate-Depute and …. [ ed: staff of the crown office?]

 

Lord B:Counsel [ed: for the Crown Office??] who appeared before Lord Glennie were 'specialists'?

As for a 'liberal approach' to recovery , that is not accepted by me. The Pursuer has had to make repeated requests. Indeed some are still outstanding.

And the significance attached to 'instructions'- at no stage has it been suggested that the client gave instructions! Communication in the email exchange was NOT advice provided by a lawyer and was not legally professionally privileged.

Lord B: Mr Ross, when Counsel appear in Court is it as the Lord Advocate's depute?

Mr Ross: In 'Proceed of Crime' matters, yes.In this case the 'specialist' was not acting as Advocate Depute in relation to trial.

Privilege attaches to the office of Advocate-Depute, not to the person.

Lord B: Thank you.

 

I have been asked to open the envelope. I will give the matter some thought, and will give my Opinion as soon as possible.

 

—–

 

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on2:45 am - Apr 12, 2019


Blackpool: EFL chooses not to impose 12-point deduction after receivers appointed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47899636

Blackpool will not be deducted 12 points as a result of going into receivership, the English Football League has confirmed.

Receivers were appointed by the High Court in February, forcing then-owner Owen Oyston to pay ex-director Valeri Belokon the £25m he is owed.

According to EFL regulations, any club that become subject to an insolvency event, including the appointment of a receiver, could be deducted 12 points.

The Seasiders are eighth in League One.

The EFL board said they "agreed that the appointment of the receiver is not material to the club's ability to fulfil its obligations as a member club and as a result should not be regarded as having suffered an insolvency event, meaning a 12-point deduction is not applicable".

It added that the decision was "based on the information presented" and the board "reserved the right to review the matter should the position subsequently change in the future".

Latvian businessman Belokon had been in dispute with Oyston for several years and, in November 2017, successfully sued both Oyston and his son Karl, the club's former chairman.

Belokon accused them of improperly extracting tens of millions of pounds from the Lancashire club's funds after it enjoyed a windfall when winning promotion to the Premier League in 2010. The Oystons denied the allegations.

Karl Oyston was later replaced as chairman by his sister, Natalie Christopher.

She and Owen Oyston were removed from the club's board soon after February's High Court ruling, while many Blackpool supporters ended their long boycott of home matches.

Blackpool 'delighted' with EFL decision

Blackpool's receivers, Paul Cooper and David Rubin, said last month that they had had 59 expressions of interest in taking over the club.

They appointed Michael Bolingbroke as executive chairman this week.

Cooper said the decision not to deduct Blackpool, who are eight points outside the play-offs, any points was "excellent news".

"I am delighted for (manager) Terry McPhillips and the players because they now know exactly where they stand for the remainder of this campaign and next season," he said.

"It also allows the sale process to continue with a greater degree of clarity and certainty over the club's position following the EFL's ruling."

EFL board 'extremely concerned' about Bury

Blackpool's case was one of a number discussed at a board meeting on Thursday.

As well as deciding not to deduct Blackpool 12 points, they said:

  • Championship club Birmingham City have decided not to appeal against the nine-point deduction they received last month for breaching profitability and sustainability rules.
     
  • Coventry City are yet to send the board a definitive plan of where they plan to play their home games next season. The League One side face expulsion from the League if they fail to provide a solution by 25 April. Coventry say they are in talks over two potential groundshare options, although their "number one priority" is to stay at the Ricoh Arena.
     
  • Bury had a winding-up petition adjourned until 15 May on Wednesday, with players and staff still to be paid their March wages. The situation there was described as "extremely concerning".
     
  • EFL chief executive Shaun Harvey has offered to meet with Bolton Wanderers Supporters' Trust as the beleaguered Championship side's search for a new owner continues.
View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:14 am - Apr 12, 2019


John Clark 12th April 2019 at 01:31
…………………….
Thanks again JC

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on7:56 am - Apr 12, 2019


John C

Thanks for your recollections of court proceedings on Tuesday. Informative as ever.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:24 am - Apr 12, 2019


'Cluster One 10th April 2019 at 19:02

 

Looking out for the mega squirrel that may come from ibrox way before this friday and the days beyond, but i just can’t put my finger on it…'

#############################################

 

It appears that the squirrel is called Nathan Young-Coombes. Three 'exclusive' articles about him in the Herald on-line. There's a couple more in the Record, including how great the TRFC youth set-up is compared to Chelsea's…

 

To be honest, I expected more from the intergalactic PR guru. Perhaps something 'unspinnable' is about to occur?

View Comment

naegreetinPosted on12:16 pm - Apr 12, 2019


fishnish 11 April @ 15.03

Re: Dundee United player with money

Rather than TRFC being the destination of the cash I hope it was being returned to Tannadice in repayment of the wages paid since his signing because he has done absolutely f*ck all to earn them !

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:37 pm - Apr 12, 2019


Wasn't the kit case between Sports Direct and TRFC back in court today? I may, of course, be having a senior moment, or maybe missed notification that it had been postponed, but I'm sure 12th April was the date set by the judge to declare the damages (or not) that TRFC has to pay.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on4:50 pm - Apr 12, 2019


Allyjambo 12th April 2019 at 16:37

Wasn't the kit case between Sports Direct and TRFC back in court today? I may, of course, be having a senior moment, or maybe missed notification that it had been postponed, but I'm sure 12th April was the date set by the judge to declare the damages (or not) that TRFC has to pay.

=================================

Yes it was today.  I don't know if we will find out the outcome though. The judge may take some time (days/weeks) to review the evidence presented and make a decision. Hopefully not though.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:36 pm - Apr 12, 2019


Thanks EJ, was really looking forward to some news on it today. Oh well, back to worrying about that semi tomorrow…

View Comment

Laughing TimPosted on6:14 pm - Apr 12, 2019


ROLLS BUILDING
COURT 28
Before LIONEL PERSEY QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Monday 15 April 2019
At 10:30 AM (All Day)

Commercial Trial

CL-2018-000631 SDI Retail Services Limited v. The Rangers Football Club Limited

  • Commercial court
  • London Circuit Commercial Court

Looks like it's Monday is Mikes payday.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:12 pm - Apr 12, 2019


Jingso.Jimsie 12th April 2019 at 11:24
It appears that the squirrel is called Nathan Young-Coombes. Three ‘exclusive’ articles about him in the Herald on-line. There’s a couple more in the Record, including how great the TRFC youth set-up is compared to Chelsea’s…

To be honest, I expected more from the intergalactic PR guru. Perhaps something ‘unspinnable’ is about to occur?
………………….
We have seen this movie before.
To be honest, I expected more from the intergalactic PR guru also. Even the spin has limitations, so we are now back to where we came in.
Barrie McKay anyone?

View Comment

TimtimPosted on8:56 pm - Apr 12, 2019


If Ashley is awarded circa 10m as some suggest where does that leave King and Co ? Close have first dibs on the assets , nobody has yet seen the deeds to determine who really owns the stadium , the Directors are tapped out and the cupboards are bare. Is administration a likely option , is it the only option and if so does it have to be taken before the end of the season as the point reduction has little impact. And finally is it possible for the SMSM to blame all of it on Brexit ?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:01 pm - Apr 12, 2019


Timtim 12th April 2019 at 20:56
And finally is it possible for the SMSM to blame all of it on Brexit ?
……………..
No. Scot Brown will get the blame.
Ok i’ll get my coat.

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on10:05 pm - Apr 12, 2019


Timtim 12th April 2019 at 20:56

If Ashley is awarded circa 10m as some suggest where does that leave King and Co ? Close have first dibs on the assets , nobody has yet seen the deeds to determine who really owns the stadium , the Directors are tapped out and the cupboards are bare. Is administration a likely option , is it the only option and if so does it have to be taken before the end of the season as the point reduction has little impact. And finally is it possible for the SMSM to blame all of it on Brexit ?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm no lawyer so can't understand why the ownership question of The Stadium that John Brown played for has not been put to bed way back in 2012.

Should it not be obvious from the documents lodged at the Land Registry?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:18 pm - Apr 12, 2019


Bogs Dollox 12th April 2019 at 22:05
……………….
I’m no lawyer so can’t understand why the ownership question of The Stadium that John Brown played for has not been put to bed way back in 2012.

Should it not be obvious from the documents lodged at the Land Registry?
……………..
They are in a Drawer at ibrox….honest.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jduffin24/status/1115777507125542912/photo/1

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on10:36 pm - Apr 12, 2019


Timtim 12th April 2019 at 20:56

If Ashley is awarded circa 10m as some suggest where does that leave King and Co ?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bust I think.

But like anything in life Big Mike (the vulture of a man who was recently publicly screwed by the banks for £150m in his aborted attempt to take over Debenhams) will have inflated the claim but it might not matter because if he wins the legal fees plus the compensation it will be enough to bring down Sevco.

 

View Comment

TimtimPosted on10:51 pm - Apr 12, 2019


The stadium is the Whyte elephant in the room . 

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on11:31 pm - Apr 12, 2019


Timtim 12th April 

The stadium is the Whyte elephant in the room . 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Where are the Deeds.

When Rangers borrow from Close Bros the Security is never the Stadium but some loose bits and pieces. Hence the extorionate interest rates.

They don't own it.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:24 am - Apr 13, 2019


Bogs Dollox 12th April 2019 at 22:05

'…Should it not be obvious from the documents lodged at the Land Registry?'

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Yes, of course. £16 +VAT will get you a plain copy of the Title Sheet . The Title number is GLA 210958, and the 'free 'information is that the last purchase was on 14 06 2012. 

This Registers of Scotland guidance link is useful if anyone thinks it's worthwhile spending the money

https://scotlis.ros.gov.uk/help-and-guidance/next-steps

I haven't thought it worthwhile doing, because although 'Bomber' had his doubts, I think it extremely unlikely that even the original board of RIFC plc (which 'sold' the IPO on what I consider to have been a misrepresentation of the true nature of the new football club) would have had the brass neck to make a claim to own property which they did not own, a claim that the man in the street could, if it were false,  easily disprove by reference to the Land Registry. 

It might be worth the few pounds to see the record of the sale by Murray to Whyte, and what the Administrators' records show about how Whyte lost ownership in such fashion as to allow the Administrators to sell the assets to Green. 

(And as an aside, I find it interesting that Sport Ireland moved very quickly indeed to suspend funding of the FAI- even where the perceived irregularity seems to have been related to an individual. One wonders what  it would take for SportScotland/the Scottish government to have  a serious look at the SFA as a governance body worthy of any kind of public money)

 

 

 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:40 am - Apr 13, 2019


With steven Gerrard wanting to build a fence at no longer murray park.

A question if i may.

Does the ibrox club pay for the erection of a fence, or is the payment shared with sportsscotland?

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on9:19 am - Apr 13, 2019


Cluster One 13th April 2019 at 07:40

        With steven Gerrard wanting to build a fence at no longer murray park. A question if i may. Does the ibrox club pay for the erection of a fence, or is the payment shared with sportsscotland?

   ==================================================================

       Yes it is rather strange C1. It was only about 18 months ago when Sevco raided the fighting fund used notes pile, in order to build a stand, allowing members of the public to spectate.. I have no idea if it was ever completed, but now a wall is to be built to prevent any on-lookers.

     Fool me once.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-thank-supporters-planning-permission-11687843

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:37 am - Apr 13, 2019


Oh look! There's a squirrel.

On Scottish Cup semi-final weekend, without an Ibrox club in sight, what is needed most for the bear hordes? A squirrel. And if it can, perhaps, disrupt a team due to play in one of the semis, and one that TRFC are due to play next week…

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-transfer-news/john-souttar-eyed-rangers-steven-14305346

 

PS not really suggesting that the plan is to disrupt Hearts in the semi, as I'm sure the bears would see a better chance of neither of their most hated clubs winning the Cup if it's a Premiership team they have to play in the final. This weekend the squirrel is just an excuse to give a full page puff piece, suggesting TRFC have the kind of money a club like Hearts can't turn down, on a day that highlights the gap between TRFC and the place they think they are.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:42 am - Apr 13, 2019


Cluster One 13th April 2019 at 07:40

"…….Does the ibrox club pay for the erection of a fence, or is the payment shared with sportsscotland?"

***************

Sportscotland's " Standard Security" over 'no longer Murray park' does not put any obligation on them to incur any expense, and any new works  or improvements are automatically included in the standard security and would have to be kept in good order and repair by the club.

It might be of interest to ask whether Sportscotland in one way or another has been asked to help with the cost, or has made a grant of public money towards the cost of any new fencing!

( Am I right in thinking that it took them long enough (into 2015) before they realised that the entity  which owned Murray Park when the original standard security was signed had gone into Liquidation and that they had better get the signature of The Rangers Football Club Ltd on the  Standard Security? It wasn't until 6th May 2015 that Paul Murray signed  the 'charge', on behalf of TRFC Ltd.)

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:34 am - Apr 13, 2019


Did anyone happen to hear 5live yesterday between 9 and 10.  They were discussing Bolton and the wider issue of finance in football.  They had a blogger on from a Bolton action group (I’m guessing the lad who made the “new club like Rangers” comment last week.)  He spoke very well as did all contributors from Bury, Northampton etc.

 

most noticeable though, and if it’s downloadable I encourage you do so is the very refreshing approach to a thing called Liquidation.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:32 am - Apr 13, 2019


I note that Alan Pattullo of 'The Scotsman'  describes Greg Mailer, who succeeded Daryl Broadfoot in March 2017 and is now leaving the SFA, as " the SFA's "excellent head of marketing and communications"

Mailer might be an excellent chap.

But I doubt if many of us would agree that the SFA's communications  ( for example, in relation to the national team's troubles and, say, the Refereeing balls-up , and the scandalous refusal to action the  Res12 issue) have been 'excellent'!

 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:44 am - Apr 13, 2019


From the SFM Twitter feed last night

SFM‏ @TheSFMonitor

Thought the Big Kit case was today (Friday).

However ….,

ROLLS BUILDING COURT 28

Before LIONEL PERSEY QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Monday 15 April 2019 At 10:30 AM (All Day)

Commercial Trial CL-2018-000631 SDI Retail Services Limited v. The Rangers Football Club Limited

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:51 pm - Apr 13, 2019


Well done, Arbroath!

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on5:00 pm - Apr 13, 2019


https://twitter.com/barrafc/status/1117056680687173632?s=21

Some football teams have different issues to overcome.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:38 pm - Apr 13, 2019


JC, "excellent"… suppose it's all relative at the SFA?

Just being awake probably attracts an excellent ​performance rating in the corridors of Hampden.

 

Ex Ludo, that Barra team has no commitment to the game!

It's a wee row across to Eriskay, or a brisk swim.

Mibbees.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:50 pm - Apr 13, 2019


John Clark 13th April 2019 at 09:42
( Am I right in thinking that it took them long enough (into 2015) before they realised that the entity which owned Murray Park when the original standard security was signed had gone into Liquidation and that they had better get the signature of The Rangers Football Club Ltd on the Standard Security? It wasn’t until 6th May 2015 that Paul Murray signed the ‘charge’, on behalf of TRFC Ltd.)
…………
You are right JC.
And looking back your good self in a reply to jamie Hepburn’s amanuensis you asked.
One wonders what would have happened to the claim for £600.000 if the new club (ie.Rangers 2012fc by that time renamed as The Rangers FC had itself gone into Liquidation between then and now.
I shal be writing to the scottish Council for sport about this expousure to the possible loss of tax-payers money.
………….
I can’t remember if you ever did get a reply JC.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:04 pm - Apr 13, 2019


Cluster One 13th April 2019 at 18:50

'..I can’t remember if you ever did get a reply JC.'

****************

God's honest, Cluster One, my pc 'filing' system is virtually non-existent.

If I wrote to the Scottish Council for Sport  on the point as I said I would, I don't seem to have saved it or I saved it in a way that I can't now open! Or I've accidentally deleted, or whatever. If I did follow through, I don't remember getting a reply. 

I'll need to scour out the stuff that I've had to relegate or demote to the attic, and get at least the paper stuff sorted…… one of these days!

 

 

 

 

View Comment

bordersdonPosted on11:29 pm - Apr 13, 2019


Off to Hampden the morn hoping to spoil the treble treble but more importantly get to the final! More optimistist than usual but Hey Ho. I will have a great day with my 3 boys. COYR. 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:35 pm - Apr 13, 2019


The Ibrox title deeds are in the name of Sevco Scotland and have been since the assets were sold in June 2012.

I believe that the omission to advise sportscotland of the change of ownership of "Murray Park" was that of the administrators.  They knew about all the securities that were held over the Oldco's assets so should have advised them accordingly.

The original sportscotland security lodged with Companies House in 2002 doesn't explicitly say that the Oldco could not transfer the assets without their permission, but the new one lodged in 2015 certainly does.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:56 am - Apr 14, 2019


John Clark 13th April 2019 at 22:04 God's honest, Cluster One …………….. I know i'm a pain.
………………
my pc ‘filing’ system is virtually non-existent.
…………………….
Alan Turing’ would need a coffee after trying to sort mine out.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:17 am - Apr 14, 2019


easyJambo 13th April 2019 at 23:35
easyJambo 13th April 2019 at 23:35
14 0 Rate This

The Ibrox title deeds are in the name of Sevco Scotland and have been since the assets were sold in June 2012.
…………………
The Rolls Buildings
Hearing Room 5
Before DEPUTY MASTER BARTLETT (Sitting on behalf of MASTER TEVERSON)

Monday 15 April 2019
At 02:30 PM

Application Hearing

BL-2018-001350 Sevco 5088 Limited v Charles and another
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists/list-cause-rolls2#Interim-applications
……………………..
Is there something in the works?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:49 am - Apr 14, 2019


Cluster One 14th April 2019 at 08:17

'Monday 15 April 2019
At 02:30 PM

Application Hearing

BL-2018-001350 Sevco 5088 Limited v Charles and another'

**************

Great spot, Cluster One- I missed that when I was following up on eJ's spotting of the SDI v TRFC case.

Who can forget the alleged phone call from a drunken Charles to CW 'you are SevcoScotlnd!'

 

'

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:14 pm - Apr 14, 2019


'Accountability via Transparency' :

I'm presently listening to a brilliant Radio 4 programme examining the MPs' 'expenses' scandal of some years ago, first exposed by the 'Daily Telegraph..

There was one ar.ehole of a Minister who told an American journalist :"Transparency will be the end of Democracy"

Even as she spoke of this this morning, the journalist's incredulity at such an idiotic statement came across strongly. She was absolutely flabbergasted at the time.

I suspect that few of our SMSM journos would either have seen  anything wrong with that statement, or would not have reported it.

Why do I think that?

Well, because if they can't tell the truth about the lack of transparency of a piddling little sports governance body like the SFA ,or of the disgraceful 5-Way Agreement or of the Res12 issue, or more simply, just acknowledge that TRFC Ltd is a new club and cannot possibly be entitled to claim  the sporting history /merits of a Liquidated football Club, how likely would they be to offend really 'important' people like crooked MPs and Cabinet ministers by investigating and reporting the truth of anything like the 'expenses' scandal-or any dirty little politicking by the Holyrood government?

There are no Bernsteins, Woodwards or even Assanges in the Scottish Press corps.

(Incidentally,the very entertaining Sandy Clarke ('Sportsound' last night') got it right when he mentioned the end of Airdrieonians ,acknowledging the fact that Airdrieonians today is legally and in Football terms NOT  the Airdrieonians FC of 1878.The fact that the 'same fans' continue to support the new 'Airdrie' does not perpetuate the history of the liquidated club.)

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:15 pm - Apr 14, 2019


easyJambo 13th April 2019 at 23:35

'…I believe that the omission to advise sportscotland of the change of ownership of "Murray Park" was that of the administrators.  They knew about all the securities that were held over the Oldco's assets so should have advised them accordingly.'

*************

The Administrators certainly should have done so.

I think I would have to accept that they did, since their actions in the Administration process were not (apparently) faulted when investigated at  Lord Hodge's instigation.

Assuming that SportScotland were properly advised of the ' standard security' at the time, what are we to make of their failure to get TRFC to accept legal responsibility for the potential liabilities arising out of the 'charge' until 2015?

Utter indifference? carelessness bordering on criminal negligence? or trust in back-door assurances that TRFC was the same club and automatically inherited the liabilities on a 'mere' change of ownership? Assurances that were not subsequently backed up in writing (as , of course,they could NOT have been!), so that their 'legals' had eventually to be told to get TRFC Ltd to agree to sign that they accepted the transfer of the liabilities under the 'charge' , in order to allow enforcement if the new club went belly-up?

Is it possible that instead of SportScotland doing its legal duty to call in that Standard Security as soon as RFC of  1872 went belly-up in liquidation or before any sale of the assets,they deliberately sat on their hands to 'assist' in the propagation of the myth of legal continuity?

You know, if I had a Press card, I think I would be asking a few questions of the present Minister for many things Plus Sport!

 

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:21 pm - Apr 14, 2019


John Clark 14th April 2019 at 13:15 

      easyJambo 13th April 2019 at 23:35 '…

I believe that the omission to advise sportscotland of the change of ownership of "Murray Park" was that of the administrators. They knew about all the securities that were held over the Oldco's assets so should have advised them accordingly.' xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

        The Administrators certainly should have done so. I think I would have to accept that they did, since their actions in the Administration process were not (apparently) faulted when investigated at Lord Hodge's instigation. ======================================================================

      It seems shrouded in mystery as to why such a delay occurred in the re-registering of the charge "SportsScotland", had over Minty's Park JC, but, (and I may be talking out of a hole in my hat here), but Sports Scotland would only have two routes of address to their asset charge claim.

      One via BDO managing, and investigating, the liquidation procedures….. Or,  via having the  charge recognised as a "Fitba' debt", and a t&c of a conditional license being granted.. 

    Sevco Scotland either acquired Minty's Park from D & P with the charge attatched. Or it was attached to Sevco as a condition of membership, 

    If it was NOT attached, then it was definitely membership conditional, as Sevco would be under no legal obligation to accept the charge. 

    Unless of course, some secrety kind of agreement existed between two or three, or even five!….entities, to make it so.  

     Suppose it hinges on whether Charlie Chuckles bought the basket of assets with it attached (by D&P), or was it attached later, in a, "Haud yir wheeshed",  secrety deal?…….. With Sports Scotland mentioned in dispatches.?

     

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:31 am - Apr 15, 2019


Corrupt official 14th April 2019 at 23:21

'.  Unless of course, some secrety kind of agreement existed between two or three, or even five!….entities, to make it so. '

********

Oh, for some transparency!broken heart

The fact  that it took  nearly 3 years for SportsScotland to realise that public money that they had provided to Rangers of 1872 on the security of property owned by Rangers of 1872 was up the Swannee when Rangers of 1872 were liquidated is something that needs to be looked at.

There are murky waters that have to be plumbed.

And, if I do not die over the next  few years ,will be plumbed to the deepest depths that my abilities will allow.

 

 

 

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on12:40 am - Apr 15, 2019


“Sportscotland have moved to ensure they will be repaid in full first if Rangers' Murray Park training ground is ever sold off by Mike Ashley.

The businessman gained security over the facility when he loaned the club £5m in January but the award of a floating charge conflicted with a previous agreement with the government body.

Sportscotland, at the time known as the Scottish Sports Council, gave the Rangers oldco £650,000 towards the facility, which opened in 1999.”

From an STV article in 2015. I’ve always wondered why the SSC could justify giving such a sum to a private company/club. 

View Comment

FinlochPosted on10:08 am - Apr 15, 2019


Not directly on topic but related to the web of corruption that seems all around us all.

 

In The Sunday Times over the last couple of weeks the paper has been investigating massive tax and vat frauds perpetuated by a "wider network of British Asians who mounted £8Bn of vat and benefits frauds against the chequer over 2 decades".

 

One part of the article made me sit up and re read the whole article.

I've retyped what it said, (page 7 yesterdays paper).

 

THE DEAD QC

 

Hussain moved from Dubai to Lahore, the capital of Pakistan's Punjab province. Athif's father, Mohammed Sarwar became the governor of the Punjab in 20123 after leaving the House of Commons and now leads 110m people. 

A troubling postscript came in 2012 when Paul McBride, the youngest QC in British history, went to Lahore to negotiate Hussein\s return to the UK to face charges. A friend said: "He told me before he left for Dubai that he was going to Pakistan to try to bring a carousel fraudster back to Scotland. McBride was a master of of plea bargaining".

Days after arriving, the QC was found dead in his hotel room. A post mortem held locally concluded the 47 year old had died of a heart attack. An associate of Hussain who was once involved with the underworld suspected foul play, although no evidence had emerged to support that.  "Within the circle it was accepted that McBride was killed", he claimed. "Outside the circle it was accepted he had a heart attack".

 

I remember at the time thinking it strange that a healthy man had just died while abroad.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on10:55 am - Apr 15, 2019


'Ex Ludo 15th April 2019 at 00:40

 

…I’ve always wondered why the SSC could justify giving such a sum to a private company/club…' 

#########################################

 

It's my recollection that the creation of Auchenhowie was as an 'RFC & wider community facility' rather than fitba' club use only (how's that worked out?), hence the granting of planning permission despite (I think) traffic issues & the consequent award of public monies to the project.

 

 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:17 am - Apr 15, 2019


I see that JJ is doing live updates from the SDI v Rangers court case in London today. However he is doing so behind a password protected blog.

View Comment

Comments are closed.