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.
Cluster One 18th July 2019 at 22:20
'.. Will this let us know just how much the Damages will be?'
+++++++++++++++++++
God's honest, Cluster One, I don't know.
The last pronouncement from Persey, QC seemed to leave scope for further discussion between the Parties at least in relation the 'further agreement'
"..The extent to which, if at all, Rangers has been in breach of the further agreement is an issue that remains to be determined (if not agreed) by the Court." (judgment of the hearing of 22/05/19 , at Para 10(6) see link https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2019/1419.html )
No doubt further discussions were held.
So tomorrow the Judge might simply record that agreement on whether the 'further agreement' had been breached had been arrived at and that perhaps people had kissed and made up, and matters were amicably settled and that the Court has no need to get involved in deciding that particular point.
As to whether there was breach of the earlier agreement, I think that may have already been established, and 'some' damages may be ordered, but perhaps not on the scale that Ashley might have been looking for.
But of course I am not a lawyer [ I read medieval history, French and English, ffs!] and it may very well be that the whole 'question of quantum' [ nice alliterative ring to it, that phrase] has still to be gone into.
But it's great fun. And, in any case, if there is any judgment made that is at all 'appealable', our man is almost certain to appeal! [Question: was 'kick the can' played in the streets of Castlemilk when Dave was a boy?]
Corrupt official 18th July 2019 at 22:39
'…Res12 refresher and update..'
++++++++++++++++
The more the SFA/Celtic/the SPFL generally try to dodge the central issue, the more likely it is that reference will be made to the COPFS.
They can duck and dive as much as they like, but if there are grounds for suspecting a crime has been committed, the matter passes out of their hands.
And in respect of a plc, all the bluster and prevarication by its Board cannot stop its shareholders demanding that a motion be openly raised, discussed and voted upon on at an AGM.
As I understand things ( and I am very open to correction) the Board of Celtic plc simply kicked Res12 into the long grass in 2013- undebated and not voted upon then, or since.
Resolution 12 has still to be cleared from the Agenda, either by being debated and voted upon, or by being withdrawn by its proposers. It cannot legally be quietly forgotten about, for the convenience of the Board.
The question is so deep and fundamental that in no way will the proposers of the resolution contemplate withdrawing it.
It being unthinkable that a sports governance body should get away with an alleged crime, the allegation simply has to be thoroughly and independently investigated.
If all is sweetness and light and truth, wonderful!
But no jurisdiction in the western democratic world simply accepts the word of the person or body against whom an allegation is made!
Independent investigation is a must!
Back from holiday in USA (where I came across a couple sporting Red Hand flegs on 12th), much to the amusement of passers-by? Every day’s a school day I suppose.
Glad to see that Res12 is back under discussion here too. Next few months are likely to see some movement – and perhaps a wider ownership of the issue.
Appalled at the Killie result, but for all the hand-wringing going on, “there but for the grace of God go the rest of us”
We’ve all suffered a Berwick moment to a degree. I hope Killie recover quickly
John Clark 18th July 2019 at 23:07
[Question: was ‘kick the can’ played in the streets of Castlemilk when Dave was a boy?]
……………….
I’m sure it was. But i believe dave had a problem with the rules of the game as it was played at the time. That problem with sticking to the rules of the Game (the rules of the game in life and also in sport)has always been his downfall and he just can’t shake off that stigma of how to abide with rules.
That simple game of kick the can down the street has made dave the man he is today.
John Clark 18th July 2019 at 23:07
Cluster One 18th July 2019 at 22:20 '.. Will this let us know just how much the Damages will be?'
+++++++++++++++++++
God's honest, Cluster One, I don't know. The last pronouncement from Persey, QC seemed to leave scope for further discussion between the Parties at least in relation the 'further agreement'
————————————–
Dunno how those discussions have panned out JC, but we did see the emergence of a "Pop-up shipping container", posing as a mega-store on the steps of the Louden recently. Expertly levelled off, standing on bricks like a stolen and stripped motor on Crimewatch.
Bearing in mind a big shop lies dormant just a stone's throw away, it doesn't appear that the "discussions" were very agreeable.
I have no idea if the shipping container originated from an enterprising Turkish market trader, or it's origins lie with Hummell or Elite. ………….But it deffo had nothing to do with Sevco. "Honest M'Lud"…."No sirreee!"
Maybe a big bhoy did it. ?..
I am beginning to think the only way for Resolution 12 to progress is through a criminal investigation…by the City of London Police of course. Zero chance of anything progressing under the jurisdiction of the Scottish establishment. We even have a media who won't even report on it, and in many cases choose to mock it. Think about that – there is a mountain of evidence out there that wrongdoing took place, and the media don't want to know. They would rather a team succeeded by cheating – that is truly incredible.
Feel sick for Killie fans especially for those who had booked for Belgrade.
Not sure the manager will survive long unless they get off to a good start in the league
Well, there's the President of the Palestinian Football Association lost his appeal to CAS against a one year total suspension and fine of 20,000 Swiss francs) for urging fans to burn shirts with Messi's name on them if a proposed friendly (last year) between Israel and Argentina had taken place.
https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_6007.pdf
Not sure that''s right, Tykebhoy. Annex H list several cases where the 'club trained' allocation is not filled entirely but List A includes several 'association trained' players
Corrupt official 19th July 2019 at 07:15
'..the Louden ..'
'++++++++++++++++
Was I ever correct in believing that 'the' Louden was the one in Duke St, Glasgow? Aren't there now two Loudens, one of them being over Govan way?
I would think it's only fair if there are two, reflecting as that would do the fact that there are two clubs named 'Rangers' , one of them in Liquidation, the other now two months into its seventh yer of existence.
Not surprising but await much more detail…interesting to see what the financial and contractual implications will be.
https://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/17782969.rangers-lose-latest-high-court-battle-mike-ashleys-sports-direct/
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17783081.rangers-lose-latest-round-merchandise-fight-mike-ashley/
Bosses at Rangers have lost the latest round of a long-running High Court fight over merchandise with Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley.
A company in the Sports Direct Group, SDI Retail Services, has said bosses at the Glasgow football club have been in breach of obligations under a deal relating to replica kit.
Bosses at Rangers disputed claims made against them.
Judge Lionel Persey finished overseeing the latest in a series of hearings at the High Court in London earlier this year.
He said on Friday, at a High Court hearing in London, that he had ruled in favour of SDI after analysing a number of issues in the latest stage of the dispute.
The judge has not yet published a full ruling outlining the detail of that dispute or the reasoning behind his decision.
In June he ruled on the meaning of one agreement after lawyers representing the rival camps were unable to agree the terms of that agreement.
A ruling outlining the reasoning behind that decision has recently been published online.
Rangers lost a round of the fight in October.
Another judge ruled Rangers had breached the terms of an agreement made with SDI.
Mr Justice Teare concluded bosses at Rangers had made a new agreement with another firm without giving SDI a chance to match that firm's offer.
SDI subsequently made further complaints
John Clark 19th July 2019 at 13:41
Corrupt official 19th July 2019 at 07:15 '..the Louden ..' '++++++++++++++++
Was I ever correct in believing that 'the' Louden was the one in Duke St, Glasgow? Aren't there now two Loudens, one of them being over Govan way?
———————————————————
You are correct John, with the Duke St bar proclaiming itself as, "The original".
https://www.rosemounttaverns.co.uk/pub/the-louden-tavern-duke-street.html
Corrupt official 19th July 2019 at 19:10
'..You are correct John, with the Duke St bar proclaiming itself as, "The original".'
+++++++++++++++==
Thank you, CO. It's been a while since I was in Duke St , and about an aeon since I was last anywhere near Govan!
John Clark 19th July 2019 at 13:41
Was I ever correct in believing that ‘the’ Louden was the one in Duke St, Glasgow? Aren’t there now two Loudens, one of them being over Govan way?
I would think it’s only fair if there are two, reflecting as that would do the fact that there are two clubs named ‘Rangers’ , one of them in Liquidation, the other now two months into its seventh yer of existence.
…………………….
And one that was painted in recognition of it’s founding father.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1152286694911225857?p=v
easyJambo 19th July 2019 at 18:06
10 0 Rate This
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17783081.rangers-lose-latest-round-merchandise-fight-mike-ashley/
Bosses at Rangers have lost the latest round of a long-running High Court fight over merchandise with Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley.
……………………
Will this bring an end to the pop up shop? The next ibrox home game could be telling.
I noted yesterday that the Director-General of the BBC told MPs that the BBC could become a subscription service.
"You could decide the BBC is a subscription service,” Lord Hall of Birkenhead told MPs. “It would be very, very different to the sort of BBC you have now, because you would be giving subscribers what they want, not the breadth of the population.”
On the basis of how the Pacific Quay people have protected and promoted the Big Lie and its creators, I would support moves to have it be reduced to the same low status as any money-grubbing, lowest-common-denominator ,unprincipled 'entertainment' subscription broadcaster .
20 minutes or so before the M'well v Morton kick-off, I heard James McFadden come out with the 'when Rangers dropped down the divisions' observation.
Jim Duffy did not volunteer any contradiction of that absolute falsehood.
But then, neither did Geoff Webster, who I think is not merely a 'presenter' but also has some level of editorial responsibility.
Why risk losing a few bob as match commentators or pundits for the sake of Truth?
BBC Radio Scotland is as thirled now to that falsehood as it ever was, and clearly no one is going to be allowed to speak anything like the truth when discussing TRFC on the licence-fee funded BBC.
If the BBC can be so wickedly unbalanced in a matter of 'sport', by its insistence on giving a section of the population the untruth that it wants to hear, then let only those who want to deny truth pay for a lying broadcaster, and rid the rest of us from the burden of the licence fee.
Off all people McFadden could never be accused of helping our Rangers. He has despised us for as long as he has been a player. At times there are folk who just don’t get involved or see it as either being pro or against new club idea. It’s a case of “if it smells like Rangers and looks like Rangers then it it’s rangers”. And there are a large large number of Celtic fans who are the same. There will always be a large number who will never accept it, but likewise a large number who don’t get involved or care. I don’t think it’s fair to assume every person who states what you proclaim as a lie is in some sort of conspiracy. I’ll stick up for Fad for as much as I know he hates Rangers I will never forget the memories of that night in Paris.
Darkbeforedawn 19th July 2019 at 22:50
'..Off all people McFadden could never be accused of helping our Rangers. '
+++++++++++++++++
well, in so far as he (under BBC 'pressure' ?) bows the head and talks sh.t. he helps propagate the nonsense that the original Rangers were merely relegated!
I have drafted the following letter to the DG of the BBC which touches on the point. I do not say that I will send it, but I may do.
"Dear Director-General,
Allow me to refer to what was reported (in 'Business Matters' online) yesterday as a quote from you:
“.."You could decide the BBC is a subscription service,” Lord Hall of Birkenhead told MPs. “It would be very, very different to the sort of BBC you have now, because you would be giving subscribers what they want, not the breadth of the population.”
And allow me to laugh hollowly!
Why, man, do you not know that BBC Radio Scotland has already partially adopted the subscription model?
I refer to the editorial policy of BBC Sportsound in relation to reporting matters concerning Rangers International Football Club plc and The Rangers Football Club Ltd.
Very briefly , BBC Scotland refuses to allow its presenters on its 'Sportsound' programme to permit discussion of the fact that Rangers Football Club, founded in 1872, ceased to exist as a football club entitled to membership of a professional football league in Scotland (and therefore entitled to membership of the Scottish Football Association(SFA) )when, as many football clubs over the last century have done, they died the death of Liquidation in 2012.
Instead, 'Sportsound' buys into what has become known as the 'Big Lie'- that is, that a football club newly admitted in 2012 to professional football and on that account newly admitted as a member of the SFA ,is one and the same club as the club in Liquidation.
In doing so, they have quite blatantly demonstrated a readiness to capitulate to pressure from one section of the population of Scotland.I see no reason why I should pay a licence fee to help the propagation of what is absolutely a lie.
Let us therefore make the BBC a subscription service. Then I need not pay to have lies battering my eardrums!
Yours etc "
Send it , JC , and please post his response ,if any .
John Clark 19th July 2019 at 23:40
Darkbeforedawn 19th July 2019 at 22:50
'..Off all people McFadden could never be accused of helping our Rangers. '
+++++++++++++++++
well, in so far as he (under BBC 'pressure' ?) bows the head and talks sh.t. he helps propagate the nonsense that the original Rangers were merely relegated!
I have drafted the following letter to the DG of the BBC which touches on the point. I do not say that I will send it, but I may do.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John – its your old mate Bogs here.
Don't tar James with the deniers brush just because he appears in the media and said some stuff. Or so the media said.
I see A Lindsay Herron was on SuperScoopbord tonight on that Clyde 1. Who is he?
Bogs Dollox 20th July 2019 at 00:23
'..Don't tar James with the deniers brush just because he appears in the media and said some stuff. Or so the media said.'
+++++++++++++
Not sure what you're saying here, BD.
I heard McFadden say the ' when Rangers dropped down the divisions'.
If he believes that to be true, he is manifestly buying into the lie.
If he does not believe it, then he's not being true to himself.
Darkbeforedawn19th July 2019 at 22:50
—————————
The 'looks like Rangers and smells like Rangers' is the only point that is allowed. It is the only point that is allowed by the SFA and the media. Anyone who does not subscribe to that point is dismissed. Jim Spence and Graham Spiers are the only two hacks who have said Rangers are a new club and neither contribute any more to BBC sport. It is a quite shocking state of affairs in a so called democracy that only one opinion is allowed. Even though the alternative opinion has legally binding facts behind it, whereas the one that is allowed has no legal backing whatsoever.
At the end of the day in Scotland 'Rangers' are considered to be superior to all others. Ergo, the views of Rangers fans are given a higher priority than that of other fans. Even though Celtic have achieved a treble treble, the media STILL give prominence to Rangers on a daily basis. It was forever thus, and personally gives me a lot of pleasure that my club being so successful can cause so much upset to the nation's powerbrokers, who are even willing to see tax go unpaid if it helps Rangers succeed.
John Clark – I wish you well in your efforts to educate the BBC on matters of Rangers' liquidation, but I fear you are on a hiding to nothing.
A year or two ago, I spent several months corresponding with the BBC on precisely the same matter. I sent umpteen emails to them, providing incontrovertible evidence of the demise of the original club, including a substantial list of links to the BBC's own reports from early 2012, all of which accurately reported the death of Rangers Football Club.
However, I was told that their subsequent 'same club' reporting, which rewrote history to describe the polar opposite of earlier reporting, was simply a result of an evolving story and that in any case the BBC had an editorial policy to base all discussions regarding Rangers on the conclusions of a BBC Trust report into the matter, paying particular attention to an Editorial Standards Committee decision that the BBC should make reference to, and distinguish between, a new and old company, rather than a new and old club.
Having read the BBC Trust report in its entirety, I could only conclude that if I wanted to read a copy in my local public library, I'd have to head for the fiction section. Suffice to say, the BBC's main driver in adopting their sacrosanct policy was advice supplied by the Scottish Football Association, who also provided such advice to the ASA, ECA, UEFA, FIFA and quite possibly the CIA, FBI, AA, RAC and YMCA.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22951447
John Clark 19th July 2019 at 21:55
John, in what context did McFadden find the 'need' to utter the following in the build up to a Motherwell v Morton match?
"20 minutes or so before the M'well v Morton kick-off, I heard James McFadden come out with the 'when Rangers dropped down the divisions' observation."
I'd be interested to know if he found cause to mention Hearts or Hibs relegations, or Dundee United's, and so on, or was he caught up in a discussion about the relegation of West Coast football clubs like Morton? I'd hazard a guess at no, he didn't and wasn't. I'd even say I am sure there was no link between either of the clubs involved in the broadcast and the apparent link to mentioning 'Rangers' in a way that suggests the current club, that started life in the fourth tier of Scottish football, is one and the same as the one currently languishing in liquidation.
There can be little doubt, regardless of McFadden's own honesty, that he was working from a script, perhaps a loose one, that the BBC provides it's commentators with to ensure that the word 'Rangers' is always mentioned, either in a positive way or just to push the 'continuity' propaganda. No doubt Celtic were mentioned at some point, too. You know? just to provide that BBC 'balance'.
Darkbeforedawn 19th July 2019 at 22:50
20 minutes or so before the M'well v Morton kick-off, I heard James McFadden come out with the 'when Rangers dropped down the divisions' observation.
Off all people McFadden could never be accused of helping our Rangers. He has despised us for as long as he has been a player. At times there are folk who just don’t get involved or see it as either being pro or against new club idea. It’s a case of “if it smells like Rangers and looks like Rangers then it it’s rangers”. And there are a large large number of Celtic fans who are the same. There will always be a large number who will never accept it, but likewise a large number who don’t get involved or care. I don’t think it’s fair to assume every person who states what you proclaim as a lie is in some sort of conspiracy. I’ll stick up for Fad for as much as I know he hates Rangers I will never forget the memories of that night in Paris.
_____________________________
I'd suggest your comments, highlighted in bold, while probably true, are as a direct result of the lying propaganda pushed by the SMSM and, in particular, the BBC, that John has just written about.
Continually publish a lie and more and more people will accept it as the truth, or, at least, stop pushing against the lie. And the continuous and unremitting need to repeat the lie, particularly when there is no obvious cause to mention it, is proof that it is, indeed, a lie.
‘Bogs Dollox 20th July 2019 at 00:23
I see a Lindsay Herron was on SuperScoopbord tonight on that Clyde 1. Who is he?’
###########################################
Son of Allan Herron & proof that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. At one time, TRFC's in-house journo, with job title of Media Editor.
Yes, our SMSM…
and its malignant influence hanging over Scottish football continues.
I see that Chris Jack, The ET 'Group Senior Sports Writer' is happily continuing to have 'articles published under his name'.
Carry on as normal, nothing to see here.
After the debacle of the wholly made up article – complete with fictitious QUOTES from a living person – you would think that anyone with a shred of honour / integrity would have immediately resigned from the publication, [mibbees to avoid being fired], and learn from the humiliating experience.
Not so for a 'senior journalist' in Scotland.
Just carry on as normal.
The Internet Bampots know from long experience that the SMSM twists the truth, ignores the truth and blindly copies / pastes pitiful PR output as the norm.
But, I think this Jack shocker is the first time I've seen such a clear and dishonest attempt to fill the column inches.
Why would anyone buy an ET now?
DBD, this is your lucky day. Give me a call, I'm just back from Hong Kong and have some genuine, 100%, smells like, looks like etc Rolex, Rayban, Versace and Nike opportunities for you.
Darkbeforedawn 19th July 2019 at 22:50
“if it smells like Rangers and looks like Rangers then it it’s rangers”. And there are a large large number of Celtic fans who are the same. There will always be a large number who will never accept it, but likewise a large number who don’t get involved or care. I don’t think it’s fair to assume every person who states what you proclaim as a lie is in some sort of conspiracy.
……………
“if it smells like Rangers and looks like Rangers then it it’s rangers”.
I think it’s fair to assume every single person even if they don’t get involved or care know that a rangers was the most corrupt, guilty club in scottish football that left a list of creditors behind and brought shame on scottish football but is never mentioned in the same breath from any one person who come out with the ‘when Rangers dropped down the divisions’ observation.If they are going to pretend the club was dropped down let them not brush aside why they think they were dropped down.
ernie 20th July 2019 at 11:56
………
That made me laugh
It reminded me of some clothing i seen on holiday. At first glance it looked like Calvin Klein, but on closer inspection it was Galvin Glein.
Well, to be fair,
"…if it smells like Rangers…"
is probably an accurate comparison of RFC and TRFC.
Both are putrid.
I'll get my face mask…
Highlander 20th July 2019 at 10:10
'.., the BBC's main driver in adopting their sacrosanct policy was advice supplied by the Scottish Football Association,..'
+++++++++++++++++++
In strict fairness , Highlander,to the BBC executives, who defended their use of 'new club'/'old club' by reference to Scots law, they were constitutionally bound to obey the order issued by the BBC Trust not to use those descriptions.
Happily, the BBC Trust [ set up by Royal Charter, not by Parliament ]was itself dissolved in 2017, having previously been accused by a former Director-General, Mark Thomson, of 'fundamentally misleading' Parliament in the scandal over large pay-offs to senior executives.
It is amusing to read this extract from the Editorial Standards Committee's report:
"The ECS said it was "satisfied that although there had been a breach of the editorial guidelines in relation to due accuracy and the use of clear and precise language, it had not seen anything to suggest that the BBC had knowingly and materially misled its audience". (in the way, perhaps, that the Trust was alleged to have tried 'knowingly and materially' to mislead Parliament!)
Sadly, by complying with the order, and abandoning truth thereby,the BBC has been knowingly and materially misleading its audience since 2013!
The dissolution of the Trust two years ago should have been seized by the BBC to begin again to report the truth on their own account, or at least raise the question with Ofcom, which took over the monitoring of editorial standards.
If the BBC can speak untruth in the simple matter of Sport, what bigger untruths will it be reporting on, say, Brexit, where matters of real national importance are at stake, rather than the piddly little affairs of a seven year old football club trying to live on a bunch of lies?
https://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/17782969.rangers-lose-latest-high-court-battle-mike-ashleys-sports-direct/
……………….
Bundesliga club target Alfredo Morelos.
James Tavernier ‘tops Newcastle transfer wish list’ as Steve Bruce eyes Rangers captain
……………………..
Nothing like a bit of deflection that the ibrox clubs two best players are targets for other clubs keeps the fans who don’t really care asking about the real issues.
JC, absolutely!
The BBC is not at all what it used to be, [or what we thought it was].
The sooner a subscription model is introduced, the sooner we can all make a choice.
The impression I get is that outside of the UK, the BBC is still held in high regard – including its news coverage, (generally).
Perhaps the BBC is held in a higher regard by overseas consumers than by its UK consumers?
I would certainly agree that the BBC is 'probably' the best of a bad bunch amongst the global, MSM news outlets.
The perennial news ratings winner in the USA is Fox News, with its opinion driven coverage from typically thick-but-pretty presenters.
…and I used to get strange looks from American colleagues for readily admitting that I watched RT and Al Jazeera output to get some balance!
If the BBC can't accurately and honestly report on the Ibrox goings on, then any reasonable person would have to question the accuracy and honesty of BBC coverage of ALL other news items…
to state the bleedin' obvious.
Cluster One 1956.
I suspect UEFA will hide behind that excuse but what JJ's letter might do is annoy UEFA enough to realise the stance being adopted by the SFA conflicts with Article12 of UEFA FFP.
All UEFA rules work on the basis that clubs who have failed to exit from insolvency cannot claim to be the same club , ie legal entity, which TRFC Ltd clearly are'nt on their application.
The reference to Traverso is I suspect to alert him of the continuing anomaly that the SFA have created for UEFA given his response to Celtic shareholders lawyer in 2016 where he described TRFC Ltd as a new club/company based on the definition of a club and the forms it can take in Article 12.
Given that Res12 asked for UEFA involvement on the UEFA licence processing in 2011 in which SFA were fully involved, it is actually in UEFA's interest in terms of upholding the integrity of their competition to ensure that what happened in 2011 cannot happen again.
What if there is actually a case re McGregor and it went unnoticed until the group stage and a club eliminated in qualifying put the cat among the pigeons?
So UEFA really should be investigating the SFA and Celtic really should pass Res12 or a derivative at the next AGM.
RE: The Louden
There are actually 3 Loudens
Duke street
Harvie/Brand street (behind the District Bar)
The one next to ibrox
Hs
Allyjambo 20th July 2019 at 10:25
'…John, in what context did McFadden find the 'need' to utter the following in the build up to a Motherwell v Morton match?'
+++++++++++++
I had only just switched on the steam radio when I heard McFadden speak. I didn't recognise his voice and was wondering who it was that was speaking about 'Rangers' ,and how well they are doing, fifteen minutes before the Motherwell/Morton kick-off!
I assume that there had been some general chat about the premier league teams in general and the conversation had reached 'Rangers', with the BBC heads perhaps bowing in homage at each mention of the holy name!
I wonder if someone who is au fait with Twitter could ask McFadden what he meant. You never know he might reply with a sensible answer. Either way it would give us a clue to his integrity. As a well known blogger states,"For the avoidance of doubt," I don't do twitter.
Auldheid 20th July 2019 at 12:58
27 1 Rate This
…………
Thanks for reply.
Auldheid 20th July 2019 at 12:58
'…and Celtic really should pass Res12 or a derivative at the next AGM.'
+++++++++++
It's late of a Saturday night, Auldheid, but a wee alarm bell is ringing.
The Res12 people would have to be careful NOT to withdraw the Res 12 motion that has been in 'adjournment' (for 6 feckin years!) before they are certain that a replacement, differently worded, resolution will definitely appear on the agenda at this Autumn's agm and be debated and voted upon.
There is nothing the Celtic Board would like better than to have Res 12 withdrawn!
And they are no angels in this matter: if Res 12 is withdrawn, they would try everything to prevent a new Resolution getting on to the agenda.
After 6 years, it is clear that they, no more than the SFA, want the licence issue really and thoroughly investigated.
Phew! Jings, crivvens and michty me! Forgive my moment of panic. I'm sure the Res12 folk are more aware of these things than I!
John Clark
We are. Relax.
JC and Auldheid.
Isn't it so disappointing. depressing even, that we now know that those charged with running our clubs are prepared to use underhand methods to defeat their own supporters and shareholders in an effort to prevent an investigation into the likely wrongdoing of, not only of one member club (now defunct), but the SFA as well?
I very much doubt that the clubs and SFA are worried about the effect an investigation would have on Rangers(IL), they know, after all, that no action can be taken against a dead club and the current club is protected by the very fact it is a different club. It is, particularly in the case of the SFA, the fear of what might come out about their own, personal, actions and blind eye turning that causes this reluctance to seek justice. That and the realisation that a proper, fully publicised, investigation would blow the continuation myth right out the water as an explanation would have to be made as to why the current club is not responsible for the actions of the club we know is dead but those running the game wish to pretend is still living and playing at Ibrox.
Of course, anyone involved at Rangers at the time the (potential) fraud took place might feel the effects of any fallout, maybe even a criminal investigation.
Allyjambo 21st July 2019 at 09:59
'..Of course, anyone involved at Rangers at the time the (potential) fraud took place might feel the effects of any fallout, maybe even a criminal investigation.'
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Have you had a wee read at this link, Aj
http://www.bestcriminaldefencebarrister.co.uk/criminal-defence-barrister-blog/2015/october/06/personal-liability-of-directors-for-criminal-offences.aspx
from which I take this excerpt:
"..It is generally the case that examples of personal criminal liability for directors flow from the corporate criminal liability of the company of which they are a director. Having establishing the corporate criminal liability, the personal liability of the director depends upon their role in the company and the link to the criminal act(s).
Although the personal liability of a director is dependent upon the company having committed a criminal act it can be established even if the company has not been or is not being prosecuted.[my underlining]
The existence of personal criminal liability of directors is intended to ensure the accountability of those in senior positions at companies engaging in criminal conduct…"
—
There are some delicious sections in the Fraud Act 2006, e.g.
"12. Liability of company officers for offences by company
(1)Subsection (2) applies if an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate.
(2)If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of—
(a)a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or
(b)a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,
he (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
And, of course, the directors of a company in Liquidation are still accountable for their acts as directors of that company notwithstanding the Liquidation or the fact that they had resigned before the Liquidation
And, further, I suspect that if a wayward director had been acting in collusion with wayward directors of another company the directors of that other company could find themselves also being prosecuted.
Speaking entirely in the abstract, it is entirely right and proper that allegations of potentially fraudulent behaviour by company directors should be thoroughly ad independently investigated, for their sake if the allegations are shown to be unfounded, and for the sake of the rest of us if there is found to be truth in the allegations.
AllyJambo
Although the SFA role in 2011 is the catalyst for Res12 what has happened since is what they really fear.
1. The Judicial Panel Tribunal on Craig Whyte omitted to include his failure to pay the wee tax bill which would have brought focus on how that happened in 2011, given he gave an undertaking to pay it. He was charged with non payment of PAYE and VAT so why not the wee tax bill? Significantly LNS was involved with Regan in drawing up the Terms of Reference for that tribunal in Feb 2012 a few days after administration was announced. Was he informed of that failure and why it should be excluded or was he duped?
2. The Terms of Reference for the LNS Commission itself were skewed by the failure to provide SPL lawyers with HMRC documentation relating to the wee tax case charging RFC with negligent or fraudulent behaviour. Had that been provided evidence of specific dishonesty iro side letter concealment, but the non disclosure allowed LNS to state no question of dishonesty in concealing them.
Had all the evidence been provided the charges would not have been breach of registration rules but breach of the Articles relating to acting in good faith that are the basis of those made in relation to the UEFA licence 2011 in May 2018
3 However even there if what was reported in a statement by TRFC the day after non compliance charges were made, the period at the end of March 2011 was excluded from scrutiny that if true prevent any scrutiny of the basis on which the charges were made in the first place ie court testimony.
The significance of this is to focus on the monitoring period under CW and not the grant when SDM was the major shareholder trying to sell RFC and Dave King was a Board member.
The other significance was that under UEFA jurisprudence as explained by Traverso, breaches in the monitoring period did not attract sanctions until the following season. This removes the locus of Celtic shareholders as the argument Celtic were deprived of CL money in 2011 fell if only the monitoring submissions was being investigated . Clever stuff.
Luckily, usable documentation surfaced then that challenged the exclusion of the end of March and this was provided to SFA the night before the JPDT sat in June 2018. Three weeks later the CAS card is played and you have to wonder had that documentation not surfaced would the CAS card have been played? (This is all on the Res12 Archive btw.)
The pattern from the foregoing tells us that the Judicial Panel Protocol introduced a few years before might work for on field offenses but is totally inadequate for achieving justice where the SFA are possible offenders.
That is what Res12 is now up against but as long as supporters at large are ignorant of the issue, largely because sms do not focus on it or dont care, Scottish football is testimony to the adage " Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Celtic btw were presented with the same documentation relating to events at end of March 2011 in June 2018 and in August 2018 in presence of independent witnesses, with papers detailing the consequences in UEFA FFP terms of misrepresenting the status of the liability at end March 2011 as potential, when in fact it had become a payable and overdue under FFP, but for unfathomable reasons have decided to depend on the SFA continuing with a process that is clearly flawed.
Celtic shareholders will want to know why, but as all clubs are covered by the JPP, hopefully their supporters will start asking questions of their Boards of an organisation whose decisions in the past relating to a massive breach of trust by one club have been anything but just.
Allyjambo 21st July 2019 at 09:59
'…that no action can be taken against a dead club..'
++++++++++++++
Oh, I don't know about that, Aj.
The history books could/should show that Rangers FC of 1872 died an utterly dishonourable death, not occasioned by the run-of-the-mill business failure that even perfectly honest businesses can suffer but a death caused by its serial cheating both of the Football Authorities and of HMRC over a number of years.
Post-mortem expulsion from Scottish Football is entirely possible and appropriate.
And of course the absurd pretence that TRFC Ltd is the same club as that monstrous cheat of a club should be forthwith abandoned, and Scottish Football put back on the path of Sporting truth.
I’ve just read back through the last few posts from Auldheid and John Clark. Entirely more interesting that golf thingy over at Portrush. The clause in the companies act stating that former directors of companies in liquidation are still liable for corporate and personal misdeeds is a wonderful back stop.
John Clark 21st July 2019 at 14:29
Allyjambo 21st July 2019 at 09:59
'…that no action can be taken against a dead club..'
++++++++++++++
Oh, I don't know about that, Aj.
The history books could/should show that Rangers FC of 1872 died an utterly dishonourable death, not occasioned by the run-of-the-mill business failure that even perfectly honest businesses can suffer but a death caused by its serial cheating both of the Football Authorities and of HMRC over a number of years.
Post-mortem expulsion from Scottish Football is entirely possible and appropriate.
And of course the absurd pretence that TRFC Ltd is the same club as that monstrous cheat of a club should be forthwith abandoned, and Scottish Football put back on the path of Sporting truth.
___________
Which kind of backs up what I was saying, JC. The 'club' will be unaffected, just as the vile Jimmy Saville was/is by his post mortem revelations (pardon my distasteful analogy, but it's the most lucid one I could come up with). The supporters, of course, won't be unaffected by such things as change of history, but they're not what those blocking Resolution 12 are concerned with (other than in some cases being supporters of the deceased club, but still more concerned about their own part in the deception and/or cover-up).
In short, I believe those involved in blocking a proper investigation/inquiry are solely concerned with the effects the revelations might have on them, such as job loss, reputation loss, jail time?, and even own club revenue.
They are, each and every one of them, self-serving barstewards.
Allyjambo 21st July 2019 at 16:12
'…In short, I believe those involved in blocking a proper investigation/inquiry are solely concerned with the effects the revelations might have on them, such as job loss, reputation loss, jail time?, and even own club revenue.'
+++++++++++++++
It is clear that the SFA is in a heap of trouble of its own making.
They have been (rightly) told by TRFC Ltd that anything to do with the award of a UEFA licence to Craig Whyte's club for season 2011/2012 has nothing to do with TRFC Ltd-a wholly different legal entity/football club , that did not exist at the time the licence was applied for and granted!
It is the SFA's lie, (and it is a lie) that TRFC is the Rangers that CW owned!
A lie sworn to and adopted by all 5 of the parties who signed the infamous 5-Way Agreement ,but a lie which originated from ,and could be given force to only by, the SFA.[I fancy that King’s de facto denial that TRFC is Rangers of 1872 is a breach of the sworn agreement, and I would argue that the SFA is now at perfect liberty to take legal action against King on that score, but that's by the by]
Having so compromised themselves by that nonsense, how can the SFA approach CAS ? They would be , as it were, making allegations against ,and prosecuting, themselves!
Only the clubs that may have suffered as a result of the alleged wrongfully granted licence would have the right to bring an action to CAS, if everything was to be kept in the context of football jurisdiction.
And we can forget about Celtic plc or other clubs taking action.
Whereas, if we forget about Football and think instead of Law….
'John Clark 22nd July 2019 at 00:12
Having so compromised themselves by that nonsense, how can the SFA approach CAS ? They would be , as it were, making allegations against ,and prosecuting, themselves!'
################################################
I was under the impression that many professional bodies/organisations report themselves to their own regulators to enable investigations for possible misconduct to take place.
Why won't/can't/don't the SFA do this?
1.Confident there's nothing to see, or:
https://www.docdroid.net/4Gv6gru/sdi…l-judgment.pdf
Copy of SDIR v Rangers. Looks like it's going to cost a few bob and still no sales on the horizon.
John Clark 22nd July 2019 at 00:12 (nd Ally Jambo)
++++++++++++
It is clear that the SFA is in a heap of trouble of its own making.
They have been (rightly) told by TRFC Ltd that anything to do with the award of a UEFA licence to Craig Whyte's club for season 2011/2012 has nothing to do with TRFC Ltd-a wholly different legal entity/football club , that did not exist at the time the licence was applied for and granted!
=======
A wee bit of pedantry on my part that doesn't alter the thrust of your point about SFA difficulty in that Dave King was a Board member throughout 2011 but when the licence was granted on 19th April 2011, Sir David Murray was still the major shareholder and the Board was under his direction not CW's. In fact did SDM not force through the sale under pressure from the bank against the Board's wishes?
So whilst it was Craig Whyte who was in charge in the monitoring periods of June and September and continued with the misrepresenting the status of the money owed to HMRC began in March 2011 under SDM, the skulduggery wasn't all down to him.
Ally Jambo
There are people with something to fear , indeed in one of HMRC's short e mails an opinion was voiced that Rangers were possibly guilty of fraud and whilst no one was named, it was just a passing observation, individuals carried it out , individuals who are experts in the rules and how to interpret them to suit their purpose or argue they were being honestly followed or dispute them for so long the grass grows.
Oh and don't forget Ogilvie.
I am amazed that the SFA did not take up the opportunity contained in the Traverso letter of 8th June 2016 to use as an excuse not to pursue a new club/company as Traverso did in response to Res12 lawyer enquiries, but instead chose using the Scottish media and their own media man Darryl Broadfoot to try and airbrush Tarverso's " new club/company" words from the public record.
I would be surprised based on that if some horse trading were taking place now to trade off the same club myth against further pursuit of events in 2011 and thereafter.
It's a bit late now given how obvious that would be, but ya never know, whilst it would not bring about SFA accountability it would take some of the drive that was attributed by some to Res12 in the lead up to and after it made the AGM agenda.
Conclusions
97. In summary:
(1) Rangers was in breach of the Agreement by entering into the Elite/Hummel Agreement and by failing to offer SDIR the opportunity to exercise its matching rights in respect of Elite/Hummel’s offer.
(2) SDIR is entitled to the declaratory relief which it seeks.
(3) SDIR is entitled to an injunction in broadly the terms set out in paragraph 87 above, although I will hear counsel as to the precise form of that injunction.
(4) SDIR is entitled to the declaratory and injunctive relief sought in paragraphs 34(5F)(5I) of the AmPoC.
92. If relevant, I am satisfied that damages are not an adequate remedy for Rangers’ breaches. SDIR’s losses are likely to be in the order of many millions of pounds. Rangers has pleaded in §42A AmPoDCC that it will rely upon clause 16.3 of the Non-Exclusive Rights Agreement to limit its damages to £1,000,000. I accept SDIR’s submission that it would be unjust to deprive SDIR of the benefit of its matching right provisions.
Re : Sports Direct Judgement
"SDIR's losses are likely to be in the order of many millions" – combine an invoice from SDIR for said losses (with 7 days to pay for example) together with a failure to qualify for league section of the Europa Cup & you have a financial situation which not many companies could survive .
Interesting to see how the smsm handle this judgement – my money is on they will ignore it .
naegreetin 22nd July 2019 at 17:45
Interesting to see how the smsm handle this judgement – my money is on they will ignore it .
================================
I'm just waiting for the announcement of a settlement with SDI, i.e. that SDI has acquired the rights to any fees obtained from the sale of Morelos and Tavernier.
So SD have a claim to many millions in compensation plus legal costs , Close are owed at least £4m possibly more , Elite and Hummel may now also seek compensation , Candeas fee dropped from 800k to 300k when it became apparent it was a distressed sale and Park Snr in financial trouble according to local gossip. Now is the time to strike if anyone is seeking payment as the Metro account is bulging with ST sales and the season not yet started. I imagine SD may get to ring fence whatever amount seems reasonable , while Close will send in the bailiffs to collect the security their loan was secured on. With the open secret that they are skint there will be no multi million pound bids from Beijing and even the 3m that was hinted at for Morelos would be seriously reduced . An administration event would seem likely with massive cost cutting and selling anything of value to keep the "company" on life support , of course high earners like the management team may be the first casualty and the likeable Mr Murty looking out his brogues for round 3 . Will the loyal still turn up to watch schoolboys ? Can they avoid relegation starting the season on -15 points and a threadbare squad? Can Mr Custard step in with a funding plan ? Even the Bears are beginning to smell the covfefe but where does it go from here ? The real Rangers* men turned up to save them from Green . Who is now going to turn up to save them from the real Rangers* men ? It's not looking good is it ?
Anyone waiting on the SMSM discussing the latest Court development for TRFC will have a long wait. I listened to most of the truncated ClydeSSB this evening and it was full of nothing but positive comments re Rangers and how exciting the coming season is going to be.
We have seen and heard all of this before Timtim! I feel an appeal coming on (assuming that is possible but I've no idea) with mounting legal bills but same old same old limping on?, As you say lots of cash about at the moment.
So what's the word on Memorial Walls Ltd.
They might want a million or so put to one side as well, to protect their position.
bordersdon 22nd July 2019 at 20:15
The previous club limped on and limped on. Administration could never happen, liquidation could never happen. They were too big and a fundamental part of the fabric of Scottish society, which would decline into civil unrest if anything bad happened to them.
How did that work out.
Ex Ludo 22nd July 2019 at 20:08 Anyone waiting on the SMSM discussing the latest Court development for TRFC will have a long wait. I listened to most of the truncated ClydeSSB this evening and it was full of nothing but positive comments re Rangers and how exciting the coming season is going to be.
________________
Well this season's court cases have certainly got of to an exciting start!
To go back to another court case, one I believe the club has dropped. The one v Charles Green over the bad deal he'd set up with SDI. I've read that the current case of TRFC v SDI has forced their hand on this as it shows King & Co were unable, with all their much vaunted expertise, to create a better merchandising deal with the same company. But I wonder if there was another cause for TRFC's decision not to pursue the case further (if I am correct that it's been dropped)?
Now if I was Charles Green's counsel, I'd have included in my submissions (perhaps after my case fees had ramped up a bit) that in my client's defence the point would be made that it was the best deal a new club could expect to get. It wouldn't need to swing the case Green's way (though it might), it's just that I very much doubt TRFC would want the 'new club' matter raised in court…again!
Only way to stop the two words all 'Rangers' people hate more than the words 'In Liquidation' is/was to drop the case. A shame really.
I've just read through the published judgement. Both the SDI and Rangers/Elite folk come in for slagging.
Mr Blair's actions and (conflict of interest?) roles are embarrassingly highlighted. Will he be considering his position? Is he still a solicitor? Are there consequences to come for him from this judgement?
Throughout, Rangers are shown to have been economical with the truth at best and downright liars on a number of occasions. Their default position seems to have been 'WATP' and the agreement means what we want it to mean.
Hopefully Elite/Hummel are not owed money by Rangers for activities to date and their likely claims will be for future lost profits. The fact that Elite were formally indemnified by Rangers probably makes their claim a slam dunk. Are Hummel in the same position? Would not surprise me.
And apart from those sums how will Rangers fund SDI's multi-million claim that is now on the way?
Unsure if Rangers can appeal this judgement. Is there benefit from kicking the can down the road?
After such a crushing judgement would they be able to convince a judge that there were grounds for appeal?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Sorry Hom I meant the current club!!
redlichtie 22nd July 2019 at 20:39
And apart from those sums how will Rangers fund SDI’s multi-million claim that is now on the way?
Unsure if Rangers can appeal this judgement. Is there benefit from kicking the can down the road?
…………….
James Doleman
@jamesdoleman
For those asking the judgment today in Sports Direct V Rangers Football club is a “declaratory judgment.” That hands it back to the parties to come to an agreement, the court will only get involved if this cannot be done.
………………..
The last agreement cost the club £3 mill to renegotiate this deal that they then wanted out of.
Only a PR exercise got the fans to buy unsold stock that saved the club paying an unsold stock bill.
How do king and co bluff any new agreement to the fans without king and co becoming a laughing stock with their past bluster.
Is there an embargo on the SDIR v Rangers (?) final judgement ? I suppose no news is good news .
I think the Memorial Walls case was dropped about 2 weeks ago and will now not proceed . They may have a few £££s at the moment but that has to last all season and will need group stage participation in Europa and even then they are looking at a loss , that's before taking SD, Close and possible Elite and Hummel action into account. Directors have also made it clear no more soft loans are available , barring silly money bids for players they have little hope of avoiding the inevitable. If you were a face painter would you extend them a line of credit?
Auldheid 22nd July 2019 at 16:47
'…A wee bit of pedantry on my part …'
+++++++++++++++++++
Not pedantry at all, Auldheid: rather a vital and sharp eye for correct reporting of important facts. I'm grateful to you for picking up my carelessness.
Timtim 22nd July 2019 at 21:14
0 0 Rate This
I think the Memorial Walls case was dropped about 2 weeks ago and will now not proceed .
………………
I can’t recall if it was dropped. This from 31 May 2019.
“Memorial Walls have been advised by their legal team that Rangers have no defence to the breach of contract claim and Rangers have not settled Memorial Walls claim for costs incurred and damages prior to proceedings being lodged.
“Memorial Walls are making no further statement at this time.”
……………….
Allyjambo 22nd July 2019 at 20:29
"……To go back to another court case, one I believe the club has dropped. The one v Charles Green over the bad deal he'd set up with SDI………."
+++++++++++++++
I posted this at the time, Aj, and haven't seen anything since to suggest that the 'motions' were related to the case being dropped.
I don't know enough about Court procedure to say whether a litigant has to enrol a motion asking the court's permission before he is allowed to drop his claim, but maybe he can, if he has agreed to meet all expenses without arguing the toss?
Have you seen or heard anything that I might have missed? If not, then the 'unopposed' motions' may have related to merely procedural matters, a suggestion by one side that was agreed by the other, without needing to involve the judge.
"The following motions were granted, unopposed, on Tuesday 9th July
A97/18 Rangers International Football Club Plc v Charles Green Anderson Strathern LLP "
redlichtie 22nd July 2019 at 20:39
+++++++++++++
Could you post a link to that judgment today, please, redlichtie?
John Clark 22nd July 2019 at 22:09
0 0 Rate This
redlichtie 22nd July 2019 at 20:39
+++++++++++++
Could you post a link to that judgment today, please, redlichtie?
……………….
For some reason i can’t get the judgment to open.
Timtim 22nd July 2019 at 21:14
'..I think the Memorial Walls case was dropped about 2 weeks ago and will now not proceed .'
+++++++++++++
At the Hearing of this case on 19th June, Lord Bannatyne decided thus:"
"……Otherwise, I grant periods of adjustment 3weeks, 3 weeks and 2 weeks, .and fix a date some 8 weeks from now, and give one week for caution arrangements to be made."
So Counsel for both Parties were setting their diaries for further action then.
But Mem.Walls had only one week to get the money needed for 'caution', or at least to secure an indemnity from a related company.[from my report:
"…First, the question of caution [ pronounced kayshon, of course!] It has been proposed that rather than the Pursuer putting up caution, some indemnity be provided by a related company.. We are approaching the stage where expenditure will increase, and we haven't yet seen a draft indemnity. I think it is appropriate that a diet be fixed?"
It could be that the Pursuer (Memorial Walls) were unable to do this, and had therefore to abandon their action.
Have you a reliable source for the 'dropping'?
Here you go JC https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/SDIR-v-Rangers-April-2019-Trial-Final-Judgment-July-22-2019-1.pdf
You won't enjoy paragraph 18 I'm afraid.
Allyjambo 22nd July 2019 at 20:29 "……To go back to another court case, one I believe the club has dropped. The one v Charles Green over the bad deal he'd set up with SDI………." +++++++++++++++ I posted this at the time, Aj, and haven't seen anything since to suggest that the 'motions' were related to the case being dropped. I don't know enough about Court procedure to say whether a litigant has to enrol a motion asking the court's permission before he is allowed to drop his claim, but maybe he can, if he has agreed to meet all expenses without arguing the toss? Have you seen or heard anything that I might have missed? If not, then the 'unopposed' motions' may have related to merely procedural matters, a suggestion by one side that was agreed by the other, without needing to involve the judge. "The following motions were granted, unopposed, on Tuesday 9th July A97/18 Rangers International Football Club Plc v Charles Green Anderson Strathern LLP "
___________________
Your reference might well be what gave me the impression the case had been dropped, and I have no further information on it I'm afraid. I can't imagine, though, that TRFC's counsel will see much point in continuing with the case in light of the mess King & Co have made of their current merchandising deal with SDI, which, even if they'd honoured it, doesn't appear to be any better than the one Green negotiated.
If the case is continuing then I do hope that what I suggest might be raised, even if only for the devilment
It could very well end the big lie if it had to be argued out in court as an acceptable defence for Green, but only if he can show that they are a new club, which they are.
But could you imagine the panic at Ibrox if Green's counsel did put this forward as a defence, even before the trial stage?
spikeyheid 22nd July 2019 at 22:32
'…Here you go JC….'
+++++++++++
Many thanks, spikeyheid.
I shall get on to the High Court of Chancery and ask why I wasn't emailed a copy of the judgment!