Armageddon? What Armageddon?

By

Oddjob says: June 10, 2014 at 1:47 pm ‘..Have HMRC now an …

Comment on Armageddon? What Armageddon? by John Clark.

oddjob says:
June 10, 2014 at 1:47 pm
‘..Have HMRC now an argument of precedence, or will RFC continue with the points made sometime ago (John Clark I think revealed) that decisions in England are not enforceable in Scotland?’
———-
I checked my notes of the last day of the UTTT hearing.
Mr T, had, during the lunch recess, prepared some kind of hastily typed written submission and, when the post-lunch session commenced, Lord D referred to this fact.
Whereupon Mr T asked “Will I withdraw the document I submitted? I can address the thrust of the document.”
Mr Thornhill remarked ” I’m conscious of time, my lord.Or I can can reply to the document”
Lord D (addressing Mr T) said ” Mr Thornhill ought to get some time to reply in writing.7days?”

I find it interesting that a considerably longer time was subsequently agreed! There could be any number of reasons for that-illness, over-loaded diaries , holidays….
But if Mr Thornhill ( who had, of course, had been given a copy of the document that Mr T had submitted) felt it necessary to ask for a longer time to prepare his response, that would suggest that there was some meaty stuff that needed some research.
I doubt, though, whether that would have related to the question of whether English cases could set a binding precedent in Scotland [ incidentally, I simply reported that the view that they did NOT was only the view taken and expressed to me by the MG Finance Director!].
I suspect rather that the real meat would relate to the question as to whether Mr T is right in claiming that Lord D should not, need not, simply refer the case back to the original Tribunal [ to give proper findings of fact] but that he has the power and jurisdiction to make necessary findings of fact himself, and decide the case.
(As far as I could understand matters, neither side had earlier been of any help to him in providing
him with precedent in that regard).
Perhaps Mr T had been on the phone at lunchtime and got someone in HMRC to do some quick research for precedents, and some had been found!
I feel that Lord D’s ‘problem’ is that he believes the First Tier’s decision is not procedurally legally sound, because they did not SHOW clearly that they had given due weight to ALL the evidence. Should he therefore send the case back to them, telling them to demonstrate that they had in fact done so, and to show how their decision was arrived at by the application of all CORRECTLY interpreted law to the facts that they accepted?
Or, should he rule that , perhaps because the comprehensiveness and thoroughness of Dr Poon’s minority opinion either went determinedly unheeded by the ‘majority’ or were clearly( because of the majority’s lesser abilities as lawyers), not properly understood and appreciated by them,there would be no point in sending the case back to the guys who did not handle it correctly first time round, and that it should go for a complete rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal?

Now, Lord Doherty was clearly aware of the practicalities attending either of those options. A referral back to a ‘majority’ that was EITHER not quite up to the mark professionally( and would not have become legal geniuses since their first decision!) OR was psychologically entrenched in their view of the evidence? Nix to that idea.
Or a referral to a differently constituted Tribunal for a completely fresh hearing of all the witnesses and written evidence , with the expense and time ( and the time that has elapsed since witnesses first gave their evidence!) that would be attached to that.
He would not readily choose to do either, I think.
But if he were to decide the case himself he would need to be sure that sitting as an Appeal judge, on a point of law, he would have the legal power to make findings of FACT! He quite naturally would not want to attempt to break new ground just for the hell of it.
But I stick with my view that he will in fact decide the case himself, on the basis that for whatever reason, the First Tier majority both misdirected themselves on the law, AND failed to make findings of fact which anyone reading a transcript of the evidence can plainly see.
Interesting.

John Clark Also Commented

Armageddon? What Armageddon?
twopanda says:
June 15, 2014 at 8:44 pm
‘…. & taking Companies private.’
————–
Certainly, coming out of AIM, de-listing, is a distinct possibility. And I , without the mental capacity to work it all out, feel in my bones that Blue Pitch and/or Laxey ( probably Laxey) has/have been beavering away to get to the point where they can take RIFC plc out of AIM, returning it to private company status and leaving lesser shareholders high and dry ( with no market for their shares) and themselves in full control.
And then Laxey will do what Laxey does: sell land and buildings for maximum profit, and bugger the idea of running a football club.
Now,the world of ‘finance’ is a very small one ( like the ‘legal’ world, or the ‘political’ world, or indeed the football world) with lots of cross-overs of personnel.
So not too much can be read into the fact that the same name , say, sanjeev verma, might be connected with, say, an asset clearing service associated with the nominees of major, but secret, shareholders of, say, a football plc, a clearance service which is a member of a concern which helps companies to de-list from AIM.
Pure idle and utterly uninformed speculation on my part , of course (truly).
But being the majority shareholder in a private company! What power it grants! There are even wild stories about such a majority shareholder generously selling a whole football club for £1.00!
No one really could believe that, of course, ha ha, imagine!
But in principle ( or, maybe, in the ‘wild story’ case, in the absence of principle!) it would be entirely possible for the majority shareholder to do what he liked with ‘his’ private company.
And what Laxey likes ( on behalf of the shareholders for whom they act), is to SELL land for development-not to run companies, and certainly not to run football clubs.
Perhaps there will be a move very soon to de-list from AIM, privatise, shut the business and walk away.
Perhaps not.


Armageddon? What Armageddon?
parttimearab says:
June 15, 2014 at 9:44 am
‘“The BBC has learned former Rangers chief executive Charles Green is seeking financial support to launch a new bid for control of the Ibrox club.”
————
There are all kinds of earthy expressions that spring to mind,for example dogs visiting their vomit, flies round sh..e, moths flying close to the flame, that would nicely describe CG’s further involvement.

Natural born recidivists fill our jails, and the business world appears to have many such types.And some businesses seem to attract more than their fair share!


Armageddon? What Armageddon?
essexbeancounter says:
June 12, 2014 at 11:49 pm
‘…but “…Effan gubbed…” is that a phrase coined by your old literary mentor Shakingspear…’
———————
Not that I know of 🙂 …But Matt McGinn’s splendid use of homophonics shows a Shakespearean gift for language!


Recent Comments by John Clark

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

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


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

Football as a glue of ‘community’

Of community trust,

of basic honesty,

of the  Corinthian spirit,

of sporting integrity….

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

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

in this little country of ours.


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

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

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

I have only the haziest understanding of that concept.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Is there a decently worked out rationale for the concept?


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

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

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

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

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

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

Who knows?


About the author