It’s now seven years since the festering sore on the skin of Scottish Football became fully septic, causing the liquidation of Rangers Football Club. Many of us at that time felt that the environment which had enabled the systematic, industrial scale cheating by that club, having now been exposed as unfit to fulfil its purpose, would be dismantled and replaced by something more accountable, more transparent, more honest.
Many more of us thought that other clubs who were the victims of the cheating that had gone on would be seeking a clear-out and a rewrite of the rule book, if for no other purpose than to ensure that a repeat was not possible.
We were all mistaken.
Let’s be honest about this. Football, whether it is played in Scotland or Argentina, at the Maracana Stadium or at Fleshers Haugh, is a rules-based endeavour. The rules of the game – both on the field and in its administration – are there to ensure as level a playing field as possible, to ensure that the constraints put on one club are the same for the rest.
Referees are in place to ensure the rules are complied with on the pitch, albeit with varying degrees of success. No matter what you might think of the guys in black, their craft is carried out in full public gaze, and consequently they are accountable to public opinion.
Off the field though, things are rather more opaque. Without the revelations of Charlotte Fakes for instance, we would never have known that a club had applied for a licence with false information, to a committee partly comprised of two folk who were employees of that club, and by extension part of the deception. Nor would we have known that the Chief Executive of the SFA had written to the club in question looking for approval on how the controversy surrounding the issue of the licence could be managed in the media.
The detail of the crimes of the people in charge of our game are the domain of those who have relentlessly pursued the truth of these matters. The devil is always in the detail, and the real devil is concealed in the fact that many of us are forced to switch off when confronted by the daunting prospect of having to follow that multi-threaded narrative.
In that regard, we owe much to the likes of Auldheid and EasyJambo (and many others) who unravel those threads for us and present the facts in a way most of us can follow. By doing so, they have allowed us to keep our eye on the ball.
Despairingly though, the upshot is that no matter what the facts tell us, Scottish football, at boardroom level, aided and abetted by the mainstream media, has no interest in seeking justice, or more importantly, clearing house.
The sins of the past will be the sins of the future, because the authorities have learned no lessons in the wake of Rangers’ liquidation, and in fact have now enshrined Doublespeak as the official language of the game.
No sporting advantage is a curious phrase used to describe sporting advantage
Imperfectly registered in lieu of not registered
Same for Different
I could go on, but the sins of one club, whilst fundamentally undermining the integrity of the sport in this country, are not the real problem. The authorities who set out to distort, bend, break, and tear up the rule-book are.
So too are the clubs who have refused to back their fans’ demand for proper oversight of the game, who have stood back and said nothing (except: “nothing to do with us guv!”) whilst their Patsies at Hampden do their dirty work, refusing to engage with or explain themselves to fans. These are the real culprits, they who have betrayed the trust of their own supporters. And if we are looking for a reason, look no further than their bank balances.
The recent scandal where the SPFL shared the outcome of its Unacceptable Behaviour report with the Scottish Government on the basis that it would not be made public shines a harsh spotlight on this.
The football authorities currently receive public funds from government, but in a “have your cake and eat it” scenario, they are accountable to no-one but themselves – and that’s how they want to keep it.
Publication of the SPFL report would put them at risk of having the accountability that they fear thrust on them. No-one in football wants the sectarian blight on our game to be cast under the glare of public focus. Especially if it becomes apparent that the game itself is the medium in which sectarianism thrives best.
And they know that it does exactly that. The trouble is that the societal divisions caused by sectarianism is a money maker. The old adage sectarianism sells has never been truer. The divide and rule model of empire applied to football. It is good box office.
But making football accountable could force measures to be put in place to cut out sectarian behaviour – and the clubs do not want that. It’s not the fear of being held responsible for their own fans’ behaviour under Strict Liability that worries the CFOs of our clubs – it’s the fear of losing the hatred which sees the money – bad money if you will – roll in.
Why did the cover up take place? Because losing Rangers was just not acceptable to football. Removing one of the vital protagonists in a money making cartel that thrives on hatred was a greater fear than any altruistic notion of sporting integrity (also now Doublespeak for “lack of integrity”).
Who could have foreseen that amidst the chaos surrounding Rangers demise, that they were only a symptom of the greed and couldn’t care less attitude of the money-men in football, and that our eyes would eventually be opened to the possibility that the football industry in Scotland is itself the enemy of public harmony?
Ironic perhaps, that the beautiful game, born out of the sense of community felt by the founding fathers of all our clubs, would emerge as a major malign influence in those communities.
There is no doubt that football is not prepared to cede any of its sovereignty to its customer base. They will go on – as long as we continue to bankroll them – in exactly the same way, like their bedfellows in the media a self-regulating industry with little or no regard for the public.
I am a supporter of Strict Liability, and we have already had discussions on the pros and cons of such an intervention. It is also clear that there is no SFM consensus on that. I want to leave that aside for the moment, because we do have a consensus surrounding our desire to see greater accountability in the game, and it is clear that fans’ voices, however temperately and eloquently articulated, are falling on deaf ears at Hampden.
The women’s game at the World Cup has recently provided us a window into the past, of the origins of the sport in Scotland. That which is a celebration of each others endeavour, skill, excellence and culture. The spirit of our game nowadays is a million miles away from that, because the market has taken over.
Taming the wild excesses of the market is the responsibility of government. It’s about time the Scottish Government did just that. It is certainly clear that the SFA or the SPFL have zero interest in reining themselves in.
We have suggestions if anyone is listening.
Feel free to add your own caption
Is Petrie now no longer a shareholder in Hibs Football club?
If so, can he remain as President of the SFA?
A Lee Wallace quote from the Daily Record .
"We had a fantastic journey, a lot of ups and downs. I stayed and I was proud to do that and we managed to retain league status which was part of the fightback."
Unchallenged sophistry .
The article also includes this gem
Wallace stood by Rangers during the dark times as they were demoted to the bottom tier of Scottish football following their financial troubles, playing a leading role as they rose back through the divisions.
Deary me .
John Clark 2nd July 2019 at 11:42
Is Petrie now no longer a shareholder in Hibs Football club? If so, can he remain as President of the SFA?
==========
JC, great minds think alike!
That was my immediate thought as well.
When nobody else was willing to stand against Petrie for the SFA President role I did check the nomination rules.
So, yes it was 'fortuitous' for Petrie that this deal – which presumably has been negotiated / prepared for some time – has been announced just a month after he took office!
Whether Petrie is now still eligible to hold office IF he has no official role at Hibs is probably a moot point.
Petrie showed every Scottish supporter back in 2012 that he is prepared to bend / ignore SFA rules when it suits his agenda.
I guess (?) Hibbees will be pleased that Petrie could be out now/soon at Easter Road.
Hope this buyout is a good move for Hibs long term?
John Clark 2nd July 2019 at 11:42
Is Petrie now no longer a shareholder in Hibs Football club? If so, can he remain as President of the SFA?
=======================
His interest in Hibs shares was indirect by virtue of his 10% stake in the parent company HFC Holdings. Now that HFC has sold its shares then there is no impediment to him carrying out the role of SFA President.
He may have stepped down as a director anyway, but the deal avoids any “conflict of interest” claims.
So lifelong bluenose Dempster is willing to take the green pound but not wear the green tie??
Or is it a woman fashiony thing?
normanbatesmumfc 2nd July 2019 at 14:31
So lifelong bluenose Dempster is willing to take the green pound but not wear the green tie??
Or is it a woman fashiony thing?
==============================
It's probable that Ron didn't have a tie, so borrowed Leann's.
A poster on a Hearts forum also made the following comment about Ron Gordon:
<blockquote>Ron was in my year at school – big Hearts man – moved to the states in his teens. He used to do business with the Mercer family and assume there’s some unfinished business.</blockquote>
easyJambo 2nd July 2019 at 14:00
'..He may have stepped down as a director anyway, but the deal avoids any “conflict of interest” claims.'
**********
I was thinking not so much of conflict of interest, eJ, but of how someone no longer any kind of 'owner' of a club , and, as I would think, unable to be anything other than an employee of a business(and even then perhaps only as a non-exec director) could remain as President of an association of business owners?
It isn't a purely honorary appointment, not carrying any actual power ( even if the only power lay in having a casting vote in the event of tied vote)
Since Membership of the SFA belongs of course to 'a club' it seems odd that someone who doesn't belong to a club can hold office as president of the SFA!
"it seems odd that someone who doesn't belong to a club can hold office as president of the SFA!"
I ask the same question, I thought you had to be the CEO of a club to hold high office in the SFA.
Re Mr Petrie – 47.3 and 47.5
THE HONORARY OFFICE-BEARERS AND THE OFFICE-BEARERS 47. THE HONORARY OFFICE-BEARERS AND THE OFFICE-BEARERS 47.1 The Honorary Office-Bearers and the Office-Bearers shall consist of not more than:- (a) the President; (b) the Vice-President; and (c) such former Presidents as are appointed by the Board from time to time as Honorary VicePresidents. 47.2 An Office-Bearer shall not belong to or have any prohibited connection with the same member club as any other Office-Bearer. 47.3 An Office-Bearer, for the period of his term of office as an Office-Bearer, shall be entitled, at any time during the period of his term of office as an Office-Bearer, to renounce all connections with the club on whose Official Return he is specified, subject to prior written intimation to the Board. 47.4 At the expiry, or earlier termination, of his period of office, each Office-Bearer who renounced his connection with the club or the full member on whose Official Return he was specified immediately prior to the commencement of the period of his term of office shall be entitled to renew his connections with his former club or full member (as the case may be). 47.5 For the avoidance of all doubt, neither the exercise by an Office-Bearer of his right in terms of Article 47.3 shall in any way whatsoever prejudice nor impinge upon the power, authority and role of such OfficeBearer as contained within these Articles.
paddy malarkey 2nd July 2019 at 17:58
'Re Mr Petrie – 47.3 and 47.5'
***********
Yes, PM, I had read that, but it seems to pre-suppose that a retiring President would necessarily have a right to be re-instated at his old club. But if Petrie has severed any connection, it could hardly be expected that Hibs would have to have him back on their Board, particularly if he is no longer any kind of significant shareholder.
It's no big deal, I suppose, if Hibs would have him back in a Board capacity. But I would imagine that the other SFA Board members and potential 'Presidents' among club owners/CEOs might want the point clarified in a revision of the 'office-bearer' rules!
It just seems an oddity , or a circumstance that no one had foreseen.
John Clark 2nd July 2019 at 18:53
It just says that they would be entitled to renew their connection , JC , not neccessarily be automatically re instated to their board . The timing of it all seems to be particularly fortuitous for Mr Petrie .
It will be interesting to see what Ron Gordon does with respect to the TOP rules, as I believe that he will be required to make an offer for the remaining shares as he now owns more that 50% of the club.
I'd also be interested to see if he continues the new share issues to the benefit of the fans organisation HSL. If he does so, then he will ultimately see his shareholding diluted below 50%. If he stops the scheme, then how would HSL react. They currently own just under 19%, but have no board representation, nor a big enough shareholding to stop special resolutions.
He could of course pop along the M8 and seek advice about passing a "whitewash motion".
Just watched the entertaining women's game England v. USA.
Thoroughly enjoyable.
But, still not sure about VAR.
In real time I called offside for the England equaliser, (honest).
Both the ref and lineswoman missed it, but VAR confirmed it without doubt.
Also in real time, I thought the penalty refusal for England was called right by the ref, and no lines woman flag either.
But then the ref got the chat in her ear for VAR.
It was – IMO – not at all clear even with multiple replays from different angles that it was a penalty.
And…
in the build up to the penalty, a USA player got chopped down outside the England box – and when she was on the deck another England player kicked the ball hard into the grounded player.
It looked an obvious free kick for USA – and possibly 2 yellow cards for the England players.
But the ref waved play on, and the penalty incident was the result.
So it seems that the build up to a goal is not VAR worthy?
It's all getting a bit confusing.
Looking forward to the other semi and final.
StevieBC 2nd July 2019 at 22:40
———————————
I still think VAR gets more right than wrong, and although it could maybe do with some tweaks I hope it is here to stay. Interestingly it was used at the St Gallen v Celtic friendly in Switzerland last night and Celtic were awarded a penalty through it. The Swiss FA are going to use it in the coming season, and are trialing it in friendlies.
What hope is there of us ever seeing it in Scotland? Certainly not in the near future if you ask me. Look at the inconsistency and injustice witnessed last season in Scotland, and there is still no huge push for it. This season of all seasons they certainly wouldn't want it in my view.
On another note we have this new rule about handball in the box. Will we see a record number of penalties given in Scotland next year with no VAR to say otherwise? Also, which team will get more penalties awarded than any other?
StevieBC 2nd July 2019 at 22:40
Just watched the entertaining women's game England v. USA.
Thoroughly enjoyable.
But, still not sure about VAR.
I agree very entertaining. With regard to the penalty incidence, I think that if the ref has to take more than 30 to 45 seconds to reach a decision on VAR then the original call should stand.
So much for Hibs being debt free (or at least not for long).
A floating charge security has been lodged with Companies House in favour of the lender Bydand Sports LLC.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC005323/filing-history
I see that The Rangers start their Europa Cup campaign against St Joseph's FC who play in the Gibraltar Premier Division. However it's not known if the first leg away will be next Thursday or Tuesday because another team from Gibraltar is playing tomorrow and if they win two teams from Gibraltar have to play on the one pitch Gibraltar has which meets the required specifications.
I assume Lincoln Red Imps are Gibraltar's representatives in the Champions League and when you add on the Europa Cup teams it would seem that, for once, UEFA are not playing the Big Leagues/Big TV Audience card.
Gibraltar has a population of about 35,000. That's about half the population of Paisley. Can anyone picture Paisley getting two Champions League and four Europa Cup places?
Anyway, the important thing is Scottish success is vital from a co-efficient point of view.
Preparation is all.
The first thing to establish:
Is St Joseph's a Primary or a Secondary School?
easyJambo 3rd July 2019 at 10:14
So much for Hibs being debt free (or at least not for long). A floating charge security has been lodged with Companies House in favour of the lender Bydand Sports LLC….
========
eJ, are you implying that our new SFA President was being 'less than transparent' when announcing the Hibs sale?
easyJambo 3rd July 2019 at 10:14
'..A floating charge security has been lodged with Companies House in favour of the lender Bydand Sports LLC.'
This surely points up how utterly useless our newshounds are at anything other than merely reporting what clubs say!
It surely isn't beyond the intellectual capacity of any scribe to do what you have done, and any of us may do, to check some of what is reported. 'Debt free ' is a huge claim for any business to make. For a football club to make it, and make it 6years before even their own earlier expectations, should instantly make anyone sit up and have a wee check!
Just as this little observation made by Gordon makes me curious: " I don't think it necessarily a good thing that a club like Celtic wins every year".
What, as a newcomer to the Scottish Football scene, does he mean by such particularity? Was he prompted to mention Celtic by name, rather than make the kind of general, diplomatic statement about ‘competition being the life-blood of sport’, that more sensible newcomer entrepreneurs would make?
That simple observation marks him, perhaps, as a version of the CG type of entrepreneur- a showman playing to the gallery.
And it marks David Hardie of the 'Scotsman' (his report in today's print edition) as something far short of a Woodward or Bernstein as a 'journalist'
John Clark 3rd July 2019 at 11:36
I'm sure that the Floating Charge will be dressed up as making provision for any future loan facility provided by Ron Gordon, but isn't actually required at the moment (unless his "seven figure" cash investment is in the form of a loan).
Ann Budge has an equivalent Floating Charge over Hearts assets to cover her lending.
On the face of it, the take over is good news for the club and the fans.
However, I think fans of all clubs should be wary of any new majority shareholder, until such time as they prove that their promises are genuine and in the best interests of the club.
American owners haven’t exactly made a success of investments in Scottish football.
easyJambo 3rd July 2019 at 11:55
"I'm sure that the Floating Charge will be dressed up as making provision for any future loan facility provided by Ron Gordon, but isn't actually required at the moment (unless his "seven figure" cash investment is in the form of a loan)."
+++++++++++
I defer, of course, to your more extensive knowledge : it's just that the 'floating charge' agreement seems to suggest that it is a deal between the Chargor and an actual Lender in respect of a loan already made here and now as well, perhaps, as an arrangement made in anticipation of potential future loans.
But I am a bit out of my depths in these matters (as in so many others!)
John I think the last 7 years have ampley demonstrated the inability of the back pages journos to read financial docs. Nor are they able to walk to the business desk to get them explained.
To be fair the state of some newspapers they might have no one else to talk too so just rely on the given press release.
John Clark 3rd July 2019 at 13:32
easyJambo 3rd July 2019 at 11:55
"I'm sure that the Floating Charge will be dressed up as making provision for any future loan facility provided by Ron Gordon, but isn't actually required at the moment (unless his "seven figure" cash investment is in the form of a loan)."
+++++++++++
I defer, of course, to your more extensive knowledge : it's just that the 'floating charge' agreement seems to suggest that it is a deal between the Chargor and an actual Lender in respect of a loan already made here and now as well, perhaps, as an arrangement made in anticipation of potential future loans.
But I am a bit out of my depths in these matters (as in so many others!)
========================================
I've been keeping an eye on one of the Hibs fans forums for their reactions to the takeover. Unsurprisingly, it took a bit of time before the posters began to consider what the Floating Charge could entail.
I remain of the view that the immediate creation of the FC is an indication that the club will take funds from the major shareholder in the form of a loan, otherwise there would be no need for a FC security at this point. I'm not so sure about when any borrowing will occur though.
I would hope and expect that the main parties to the transaction have acted in good faith in saying that the club was "debt free". However, in practice, that statement only applies for the date on which the statement was made.
I now suspect that the proposed "cash injection", whenever it is made, will be in the form of a loan, thus attaching some debt to the FC.
If I was a Hibs supporter, I would welcome the change of ownership, but I'd be very cautious and ask questions about the plans and purpose of such financial instruments. The worst case scenario would be for the majority shareholder to have leveraged the purchase and transfer the debt incurred onto the club (as the Glazers did at Man Utd). I don't believe that has happened, but is at the extreme end of the possibilities, just as the FC is not actually required and the club will remain debt free for the foreseeable future is at the other extremity. I'd expect that the reality will be somewhere in between those two extremes.
easyJambo 3rd July 2019 at 17:02
'..If I was a Hibs supporter, I would welcome the change of ownership, but I'd be very cautious and ask questions about the plans and purpose of such financial instruments. ….'
++++++++
That sounds an eminently sensible and realistic summary.
[I should maybe add that a very good friend of mine, now deceased ,was closely involved with Hibs for a while, and I am personally well-disposed towards them for a number of reasons.
My posts relating to the Gordon takeover are not meant to be a knock at Hibs but at the inability of journalists to provide us with anything other than pap, when we have all become aware of the importance of off-field business in football and football governance.]
easyJambo 3rd July 2019 at 17:02
………..Would you say Hearts and Hibs now in the top flight are both on good ground going forward compared to an ibrox club who go from one shambles to another.
From the outside 2 of these 3 clubs look to have got it together.
Not so entertaining semi final, and felt sorry for Sweden.
Should have gone to penalties.
And more VAR confusion.
Sweden should have had a stone wall penalty in ET.
The ref missed it, (and so did I).
But replay showed a clear penalty.
So, question is: why was there no chatter into the ref's earpiece for a VAR?
For such a crucial game, this lack of VAR 'could' be unfairly interpreted as FIFA preferring Netherlands in the Final rather than Sweden.
The team of 6 (or 8?) people in the VAR room messed up.
What happens to them?
Like Scottish Referees, will their mistake just be ignored?
Still confused with VAR.
More pap reported by David Hardie (today's 'The Scotsman'):
"It's never been about me, it's always been about the club" he[Petrie] said, before pausing with tears clearly welling in his eyes…."
The question is:which club, Mr Petrie? You are part cause of the biggest blot on the escutcheon of Scottish Football by your support for the biggest ,most ludicrous lie in Scottish sporting history, and an obstructionist in the path of those who seek to have the truth about the Res12 issue fully and independently investigated.
All the tears you may shed will not wash your hands clean of the guilt you carry for those acts, as you shamelessly crow over your 'Presidency' of the very sick organisation called the SFA.
IMO, history won't be kind to Petrie and all the others who dragged Scottish football into the gutter.
Might be quite a few years down the line – mibbees when the currents hacks have shuffled off from their defunct newspapers – which may have become mere repositories for copy/paste viral videos and other news agencies output.
All the Internet Bampots know there is still a huge, shocking story to be told about Scottish football, and the likes of Petrie, Murray, Ogilvie, Regan et al will be publicly shamed in due course for their numerous misdeeds.
I can wait…
I note that Ashley has lost two senior people in a week
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/sports-direct-hit-with-second-senior-departure-in-a-week/ar-AADQxHV?ocid=spartandhp
I hope Ashley himself stays in post to sort King out in Court!
I'm away on holiday next week, but here's next week's court business for attention of JC:
LORD BRAILSFORD – R Newlands, Clerk
Wednesday 10th July By Order (Adjustment)
A97/18 Rangers International Football Club Plc v Charles Green – Anderson Strathern LLP – Jones Whyte Law
——————————————
LORD BANNATYNE – I Forbes/J Hannah, Clerk
Friday 12th July
Procedural Hearing at 12 noon
CA86/19 David Grier v Chief Constable Police Service of Scotland – Fleming & Reid – Ledingham Chalmers LLP
In another boardroom change, I note from Companies House that Billy Bowie is no longer a "person with significant control" at Kilmarnock.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC006219/filing-history
I haven't picked up on anything in the media about him stepping down from the board or selling part or all of his stake. There is nothing on the Kilmarnock website either.
Just as background to Kilmarnock, Billy Bowie only acquired Michael Johnston's shares in March 2019 taking his shareholding in the club up to approximately 74%.
http://www.kilmarnockfc.co.uk/Article?id=8438&ShowCat=
Following a question to Killie director Cathy Jamieson, she tweeted that the club has stated "This is a simple transfer of shares to Billy Bowie Special Projects Limited. Billy remains an active Board Member and a key part of the club and nothing has changed in this regard."
I wouldn't have thought that such a transfer would have changed his status as he has a controlling interest in BBSPL.
easyJambo 4th July 2019 at 16:46
'..next week's court business for attention of JC:.
+++++++++
Thanks, eJ.
Have a good one!
"The club has to confirm to the scottish football Association that the person who is coming on board is a fit and proper person. That responsibility sits with the board of the football club".
Rod Petrie july 4, 2019
………………………
Just something for future reference.
All those years ago. On this day.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1146883092331843590?p=v
Still stands true to this day.
CO@21.53
Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be. There’s a wee reference to Charles Green at top right on the page threatening to take players to court who refuse to sign up to his “ phoenix club” How did that work out for him?
Ex Ludo 4th July 2019 at 23:06
………………
When the club went in to liquidation the players became free agents.
It did not work out well for him.
There was a lot of bluster around about that time, a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Cluster One 5th July 2019 at 07:09
'…When the club went in to liquidation the players became free agents.'
+++++++++++
Yes.
When it came to the actual Law of the Land, the Big Lie was/is unsustainable, and the SFA knew it-as did the Scottish FPA. Player contracts with the liquidated club were rendered null and void by that club's Liquidation.
In no way does the Law recognise 'the spirit of the club' , 'the essence of things' ,the 'what-it's-all-aboutness', 'the support', 'the history' that 'makes' a club, the 'ethereal' matter , the ectoplasm that allows it a continuity of legal existence as a football club after its Liquidation: the nonsense spouted by an eminent QC , to the visible amusement of the Court !
If the SFA had thought for a minute that those players' contracts could have been legally enforced, I have no doubt they would have rescinded their registrations when the players did not sign a contract with Green's new club.
Companies House is a familiar source of information for many on here. The quote below is taken from an article in today’s Guardian newspaper (online). It casts doubt on the checking systems of Companies House.
“In theory, the introduction of the PSC rule should have prevented the use of a British shell company to anonymously commit financial crime. Don’t worry though, because it didn’t. Here is the secret: no one checks the accuracy of the information you provide when you register with Companies House. You can say pretty much anything and Companies House will accept it.”
https://twitter.com/broganrogantrev/status/1147012590515707905?s=21
easyJambo 4th July 2019 at 17:54
easyJambo 4th July 2019 at 17:15
'..I wouldn't have thought that such a transfer would have changed his status as he has a controlling interest in BBSPL.'
++++++++++++++
I agree.
It's true that Billie Bowie is no longer a direct shareholder in Kilmarnock FC, having got shot of his shares to a separate company (Billie Bowie Special Projects Ltd)
But he is in absolute control of that separate company, with a 95% per cent shareholding.
One would think , therefore, that he should still be registerable as a person 'with significant control' at Kilmarnock because he holds an interest in Kilmarnock in virtue of his interest in (another) legal entity over which he has control. [ That's my reading of Section 790(C)(4) and Para 8 of Schedule 1A of the Companies Act 2006]
If I'm right then Kilmarnock are playing with words here, and may in breach of the Act by not registering him as still being a person with significant control in virtue of his control of the majority shareholder.
Why would they want to try disguise the fact that Billie ("let's move on") Bowie is still calling the shots at Killie?
[ And, as far as I can make out, Companies House simply accepts what a company tells them, records it ad puts it on line but does not vouch for the truth or accuracy of what it has been told]
Re change of share ownership at Killie. Will this transfer mean BBSPL need to make an offer to buy all the other shares???
Ex Ludo 5th July 2019 at 09:19
Companies House is a familiar source of information for many on here. The quote below is taken from an article in today’s Guardian newspaper (online). It casts doubt on the checking systems of Companies House…
========
IIRC, JC confirmed via correspondence just how ineffective / disinterested Companies House was, with checking the veracity of information submitted.
And nostalgia?
Who can forget that particular evening on RTC when the bold Craig Whyte was busted online for having on Companies House register;
&
And separately, a planning application for his castle in Grantown-on-spey was in the name of White.
Ex Ludo 5th July 2019 at 09:19
'..Companies House is a familiar source of information for many on here.'
+++++++
Ex Ludo: I hadn't seen your post before I posted mine of 10.48.
I'm glad your post confirms what I was saying.
I am astounded at the scope that is allowed to folk operating in 'business', the lack of check, the astonishing reluctance of the 'authorities' to get after the bad guys when they are caught, the paltry fines imposed, the readiness to arrive at 'settlements' rather than jail tax fraudsters and people guilty of contempt, and so on.
The bigger the scam, the less likely the baddies will be convicted.
I see a new SH01 has been lodged at Companies House by Hibs. It looks like Gordon has invested around £1m by taking up all the unallocated shares, formerly earmarked for HSL. It will take him to around 68% of the club's shares, while diluting HSL and all other shareholders
I’m working from my phone so I’m limited in what I can confirm.
Also at Companies House are new documents advising that Aberdeen FC is changing its status from Public to Private.
Less transparency for the Don's fans going forward.
I see PMGB is suggesting TRFC are upsetting their sponsors and kit manufacturers by posting on the official website picture of club players arriving for training in unbranded tops without the sponsor's name.
Whether or not the sponsors and kit manufacturers are upset, there's surely some continued concerns with their kits…and the within the club for making these pictures public.
This is, of course, in addition to the pictures posted the other day of players in tops with the chevrons on their sleeves running in different directions.
More kit problems than any other club in the world…
Great digging there eJ.
Ever thought of being a journalist…?
Companies House is a familiar source of information for many on here. The quote below is taken from an article in today’s Guardian newspaper (online). It casts doubt on the checking systems of Companies House.
readers of Private Eye will be very familiar with this. Companies House is about as useful as a chocolate teapot with the veracity of company information
@StevieBC
It's not rocket science. I get an email alert each time a document is lodged. If you also track these things then it is relatively easy to work out what is going on. However it's way beyond the thought processes of your run of the mill journalists.
Hi to John Clark. Regarding your post this morning on the ethereal, metaphysical thingy.
I have found this site: http://unicornrangers.org/
I am sure this organisation could help the legal profession communicate with the dead thingy.
finnmccool 5th July 2019 at 18:21
Hi to John Clark. Regarding your post this morning on the ethereal, metaphysical thingy. I have found this site:
————————-
PMSL.
finnmccool 5th July 2019 at 18:21
'…Hi to John Clark. Regarding your post this morning on the ethereal,.'
************
That's brilliant, Finnmccool, and put a smile on my face, just as I sat down to have a beer and catch up.
Just checked the Hibs SH01 form which is now viewable. My thought about the £1m investment for the new shares was wrong.
Gordon has acquired 7,812,500 shares at 16p so £1,250,00 plus 14,837,500 at 15.75p so £2,336,906.25 for a total of £3,586,906.25.
That money obviously goes into Hibs coffers.
I don't know how those funds will be used, possibly to pay off the balance of the mortgage to STF leaving some for working capital.
I've had second thoughts about the takeover panel rules as the probably don't apply to Hibs. I think that they only apply to companies listed on an exchange, or those that have been listed in the last 10 years.
I don't think Hibs have been listed, while Hearts were only delisted in Romanov's time which is why Ann Budge had to make an offer. The same point came up in court in the TOP v King case.
'The Scotsman' online edition has this tonight:
" St Joseph's stated: ' we have already had Rangers fans buy home end tickets( even though they know they won't be allowed in)….' "
Well, that kind of puzzles me. I'm very backward when it comes to buying things online, but I assume that if you buy tickets on line , the seller can see your email address, and clock that it's in the UK?
If that's so, then surely the staff at St Joseph's handling ticket applications for the 'home end' would check to see whether they should accept such applications without further question?
Far be it from me to be an advocate for TRFC fans as such, but I think I may justly criticise St Joseph's if they have , through incompetence, allowed their staff to take money from people who won't be allowed into the ground!
But, of more interest to me, is the fact that 'The Scotsman' 'journalist' ( Mark Walker)did not raise the point with whatever contact in Gibraltar he has in Gibraltar from whom he got the St Joseph's statement.( it may be , of course, that Walker is a stringer in Gibraltar , and not on the Scotsman's payroll. But that just indicates that the editorial chaps/chapesses may be lacking in any kind of savvy, and are happy to run with a few column inches of unquestioned stuff)
One way or the other, they bloody well just write what they hear, and never seem to think of actually asking serious questions!
Anent my post of (now yesterday!) 23.32, it's interesting that the Gibraltarians, passionately 'union jack British' ,should have any problem accommodating the supporters of a passionately 'union jack British ' Scottish football club!
There is a kind of irony in there somewhere, but it's way beyond the grasp of my intellectual powers .
Couple of headlines from The Sun;
"RANGERS look set to make a £5million swoop for Leeds striker Kemar Roofe if they cash in on Alfredo Morelos.
SunSport can reveal Steven Gerrard has pinpointed the Elland Road hitman as his top target to replace El Buffalo…"
&
"DAN THE MAN Daniel Sturridge on ‘list of Rangers transfer targets’ if Alfredo Morelos leaves…"
================
Fair play.
That's an original effort from Traynor.
Shift an unwanted player for an unrealistic amount – which could then fund assorted eye-catching transfers-in.
Using that logic the rags could be full of headlines linking TRFC to £20M rated players.
If only that Chinese club(s) came back for El Buffalo…
Level42 p!sh output could see TRFC 'competing' with CFC – in the papers anyway – for the same players.
StevieBC 7th July 2019 at 11:37
Couple of headlines from The Sun;
……………………………………………
Thing is Stevie…
It being The Sun, you always know it's gaunie be shite that's printed.
Untruths, made-up stuff and flummery. It's a comic for kiddies.
I spotted the following on Twitter this morning, my heart sang for a second, then realised it was a bit of Sun "reportage".
https://twitter.com/scotsunsport/status/1147480828928245761
It's no gaunie happen.
fishnish,
IMO, Doncaster with his particularly dodgy history in Scottish football – and as a qualified, legal professional – there can only be 2 destinations for him after Hampden…
a senior role at either UEFA or FIFA.
StevieBC 7th July 2019 at 11:37
"..Couple of headlines from The Sun;"
+++++++++++
Accessing the link, StevieBC, led me to read that the feud between BBC Scotland and Ibrox appears NOT to have ended, contrary to my suspicions that the 'promotion' of Chris McLaughlin was a save-face ploy to remove him from ever having to do duty at Ibrox, and so appease the Ibrox folks without appearing to have abandoned the principled stance of not being dictated to as to whom they send to report on TRFC/RIFC plc affairs.
(Or did I just imagine that there was BBC reporting from at least one game at Ibrox before the end of the season?)
If indeed the feud is on-going I'm happy to applaud the BBC for their stance, and would just wish they had been as staunchly principled in the matter of truth-telling about the 5-Way agreement and the Big Lie!
Yet another entertaining women's game, with USA deserved champions.
The VAR call was absolutely correct for the penalty.
From behind it looked like the defender got the ball first.
From the side view though, there was clearly no contact with the ball: the defender just collided with the attacker.
But, what was the lineswoman doing?
Where was she looking?
Why did the ref not confer with the lineswoman?
In future, will VAR remove the need for linesmen?
StevieBC
I thought the opposite , I'm afraid . The American girl wasn't in the same postcode as the ball and just threw herself towards her opponent, getting a sore one for her trouble . The Dutch girl wasn't much closer to the ball , but was at least looking at it and attempting to kick it . Foul the other way or nothing for me . All about opinions .?
fishnish 7th July 2019 at 11:53
I spotted the following on Twitter this morning, my heart sang for a second, then realised it was a bit of Sun “reportage”.
https://twitter.com/scotsunsport/status/1147480828928245761
…………………
Could be a WAFER good.
ok i’ll get my coat.
paddy malarkey 7th July 2019 at 20:45
'…All about opinions .'
+++++++++++++
I rather feel that football has been kind of mugged into accepting VAR, believing that it would be as 'opinion free' as, say, the replays of tennis line calls, providing undeniable black and white evidence of fact.
Well, we've seen a number of cases where the 'evidence' is far from clear, and a relatively long time being spent on repeated viewings has ended up with the VAR analysts and/or the referee in no better a position to determine the 'facts', and having just to form an opinion! An opinion that will be at odds with the opinion of those against whose team the 'opinion' goes……. No way different from what happened in any match played anywhere in my lifetime up until technology allowed instant playback and multi-angle recording.
I'm beginning to think that VAR should be quietly forgotten, and that football should return to the belief that match officials are incorruptible ( in terms of being ready to accept filthy lucre in return for assisting any particular team to win) and are themselves sportspersons of such personal integrity that they will not favour their own particular team(if, indeed, they have one)
But that requires good old-fashioned 'Trust' and a readiness to accept that the most honest of referees/linespersons can make mistakes. And , more importantly, a readiness to believe that the Governance body is itself ( as Caesar expected of his wife) beyond suspicion.
And hand on heart , I believe that the SFA has shown itself as being like Messalina, prostituting itself for CG as it did in the 5-Way Agreement, as she did for ( I think) half the Praetorian Guard!
Not until the 5-Way agreement nonsense of allowing a new club to pretend to be, and advertise itself as being, the Rangers of my grandfather's time, and a full investigation is allowed into the Res 12 question, will it be possible to 'trust' the SFA, and by extension, the entire running of our game and the control and supervision of match officials.
If the head of a fish is rotten……
We are away on holiday at the moment. I’ll be back a week on Wed. Will keep an eye on things, but new blog when I return.
J
Steven Gerrard 'rejects' Newcastle according to the Daily Record. Their source is 'sources down south'. Whatever Rangers don't win they will always win the PR pish award. However it's shooty in for them with the Scottish media. Surely not all Rangers fans are taken in by this daily stream of positivity which is completely devoid of any attempt at serious analysis?
upthehoops 8th July 2019 at 07:45
On Good Morning Sports Fans on Sky this morning, Gerrard is quoted as saying any offer for Morelos will have to be 'really, really big'. He's also quoted as saying that no one has so far shown any interest in him. So, does that mean any club interested in him will have to be 'really, really interested' before we hear a club mentioned as a suitor?
I seem to remember Gerrard saying something very similar a couple of weeks ago, so is this a new 'quote' or has Traynor just run out of p*sh?
A wee question, though. Is it the case that a lack of interest in a player is an indication that there's a club out there so 'really, really' interested that they are ready to make a 'really, really big' offer? Or is this lack of any interest an indication that there 'really, really' isn't any interest in Morelos, at all?
Apologies for asking such a difficult question, but I just wish one of the SMSM's intrepid reporters would show some interest in the transfer gossip from Ibrox
More p*sh from Ibrox facing media.
'Steven Gerrard Rejects Approach To Manage Newcastle And Rebuffs Mike Ashley To Stay At Rangers'
That's a headline in the Daily Mail. Now anyone who thinks Mike Ashley would put himself in a position to be rebuffed by anyone at Ibrox hasn't been paying attention. No details, of course, and the Mail does cover itself by 'crediting' the Mirror for the story. But…with Sky Sports in full Ibrox PR mode, making it sound like 'Rangers' are awash with cash, it's all becoming rather wearisome. Oh, and the smiles on the Sky Sports' pundits whenever they mention 'Rangers' or Gerrard…they look like they're on a bonus for saying the words!
Allyjambo 8th July 2019 at 09:33
==========
I think it's fair enough to assume no club is interested in paying big money for Morelos. That despite Rangers and their media sycophants claiming he is worth £20m. The basis of this claim is because Celtic received that fee for Dembele, who has gone on to be very successful in the top French League. Where do you start with this primary school playground type of comparison!
It is pathetic, lazy journalism. I am willing to bet some hacks would privately admit they would rather not get involved, but they have a living to make and Editors who are trying to halt a rapid decline in sales.
The average Internet Bampot can easily predict the game plan with all this Morelos BS.
When the transfer window slams shut…and TRFC is still stuck with the sour faced player…
Level42 will issue copy/paste instructions to the SMSM that TRFC did in fact receive a 'huge' offer for Morelos.
But, as the offer came so late that they couldn't secure a suitable replacement in time – the offer was rejected out of hand.
TRFC won't disclose;
– the actual 'quantum of the bid'
– the name of the club making the offer
– the country/continent from which the offer came from.
But, Morelos' agent might shakedown TRFC for yet another pay rise for his client!
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/08/fort-william-how-the-worst-football-team-in-britain-kept-their-club-alive
HS
RES 12
http://etims.net/?p=14400&utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork
A quick glance at today's media tells me Steven Gerrard gets a hugely positive press for a Manager who has won nothing, and whose team continually failed last season in games that really mattered. In contrast you would think everything at Celtic is of a glass half empty nature, and other clubs don't really count at all.
I guess the general theme of what I describe has been the way of it for decades.
– Rangers matter (although Rangers paying social taxes and other bills doesn't matter if the money is better spent on the team).
– Celtic matter but much more so if a negative spin can be put on things (meanwhile Celtic are expected to pay all their social taxes and other bills).
– Other clubs only matter if they can get one over on Celtic, then they will be heroes for a day (other clubs are also expected to pay their social taxes and other bills).
Meanwhile newspaper sales continue to plummet.
Good to hear that Res.12 action is being taken against the inaction from CFC.
IF it's more than just a club – then the club has a moral responsibility to follow up Res.12 properly – to state the bleedin' obvious. And that's what the fans want.
Auldheid et al must have the patience of saints!
Is Lawwell's strategy simply to continue kicking the can along the road – after 7 or 8 (?) long years of discussions – until he decides to step down / retire, to count his money?
Then Res.12 will not be his problem to deal with…