.. and why sites like SFM matter.
When SFM blasted off in 2012, we had a fair idea that Scottish Football had not only veered violently off the rails,but that it had done so deliberately.
Our intention was to try to help – in some small way – to steer it towards a straighter track, and to see it restored as a sporting institution and spectacle worthy of sporting principles. To see integrity restored to our national sport, to see honesty, fairness and adherence to both the laws of the game and land.
Of course we didn’t know what route our own journey would take, even although we were clear about the destination. What we did know about the journey was that no matter the route, the first leg started outside our own front door.
Who knew we would be taken on a magical mystery tour, blindfolded, spun around a few times, but still find ourselves at that front door. Via the road less traveled, the high road, low road and an endless series of shortcuts and wrong turns we hadn’t moved an inch.
On every stage of the “journey” the SFA, the SPL, and their quasi-legal tribunals & inquiries ducked and dived, twisted and bent the truth, and aided and abetted the greatest scam in the history of UK sport.
Newly coined idioms emerged; “Imperfect registrations”, “boiler-room subsidiary”, “emerged from liquidation”, “ethereal entity”, – and the real doozy; “other clubs could also have broken the tax laws had they wished” – all in an effort to;
1. pretend that what happened had not happened, that cheating was fair, that the rights of one football club were not enshrined in law but decreed by the heavens;
2. hope against hope that the rest of us had gone stark raving bonkers and would accept the “Santa is alive” fallacy as truth.
The facts were;
- That Rangers, having been subjected to the ignominy of administration, had now entered liquidation, leaving behind a mountain of debts, the vast majority of which were underwritten by us, by the taxpaying public.
- That almost £100m of funds was denied to the exchequer as the first ever nationalised football club, bought and paid for by the people of the UK, slid into oblivion, a trail of devastation in its wake.
- That in the course of that calamitous conduct of business, the SFA and the SPL were given false and incomplete information about the nature of players’ contracts. This in order to cover up a tax scheme that was (according to the man who devised it) operated incorrectly and thus unawfully.
Every football club in Scotland and their fans were cheated by a club which quite simply refused to play by the rules – even as the noose around its neck was being pulled ever tighter due to HMRC and Lloyd’s Banking Group taking steps to erect buffers ahead of the onrushing gravy train.
The result was that 140 years of history came to an end; an insatiable hunger for success ironically bringing about the ultimate and irreversible failure of a Scottish institution.
Not for them though, the recognition that they had transgressed. “It wasn’t Rangers – it was Craig White” was the cry.
I’m sure Hearts supporters in 1965 might have said the same about Willie Wallace after he missed a sitter in the final league match against Kilmarnock at Tynecastle. Had he scored, Hearts would have won the league, so Hearts should, by the RFC logic, claim that title anyway. Likewise Celtic fans could have pointed a finger at Georgios Samaras when his penalty miss at Ibrox lost them the league.
More facts: every football club in the world is the sum of its parts, onfield and off. We take the good that people do for our clubs and celebrate them. We have no right to cherry pick and ignore the consequences when people screw up.
Footballers – and administrators – are often gifted individuals given to moments of blinding inspiration which benefits their clubs. They are also often prone to reckless behaviours, the consequences of which we all have to bear. Murray’s knack of talking money out of trees and his reckless and irresponsible practices gave Rangers huge success, but that behaviour also – perhaps inevitably – led to the appointment with the buffers mentioned above.
The good and the bad. Both sides of the same coin, inseparable, inevitable, and there is no choice but to accept the whole package, not just the good bits.
In the circumstances, the hostility towards the old club was understandable. It was always a given that Celtic fans were unlikely to cut them slack as they headed towards an ignominious end.
However, had there been contrition, an acknowledgement of wrongs and some humility in response to talk of consequences, fans of other clubs outside of the Old Firm bubble may have extended some sympathy. But there was none of this. Instead, denial, arrogance, blaming others (“kicking us when we are down”, “who are these people?”) and a pugilistic reaction to the very idea of punishment. The outcome was an absence of sympathy for the plight of RFC.
Let’s revisit this; on an industrial scale, Rangers misrepresented (accidentally if you believe that the board of a PLC was comprised exclusively of halfwits and individuals unable to bite their own fingers) crucial information regarding compliance with registration rules, They subsequently withheld evidence from multiple enquiries into their conduct over these registration rules.
As far back as 1996, Rangers PAYE affairs were being investigated by HMRC and incurring penalties (not a very well publicised event).
Then, for more than a decade, principally through the 2000s they failed to comply with taxation statutes and with crucially important (not merely bureaucratic) SFA rules designed to preserve the intergity of football as a sport. They cheated the revenue out of millions and the fans of every club in Scotland out of their aspirations for their own clubs.
Rangers however were still box-office, and there were 50,000 fans providing a market for the product the now extinct club had provided through the decades. Surely someone would step in and take up the Rangers cause? Surely those people would eschew the catastrophic errors of judgement that had resulted in the economic and existential demise of the original club? Surely they would also acknowledge those mistakes in an effort to convince the clubs and fans they had wronged that this was an organisation that recognised the interdependence of sporting activity?
Surely.
But no. Sadly, no.
Even then though, that matters little.
Why? Because the sins of the old Rangers cannot be visited on the new. The behavior of the new club is a matter for a different argument, but it isn’t relevant in a legal or regulatory sense to the old club. Legally or morally there is nothing you can do to them to ensure that a repeat of the same spivish behaviour does not occur.
So why the fuss? Why the six years of relentless campaigning by SFM and dozens of other football sites?
Because it does matter that the authorities themselves – including all the other clubs – and the MSM have gone out of their way to cover it all up.
No-one at the SFA will talk to fans who have provided them with evidence of wrongdoing in the matter of the 2011 Euro licence. No one will address the witholding of evidence from the LNS enquiry, nor the false premise upon which it arrived at some of its conclusions, nor the mysteriously shifting goalposts of the period investigated by the LNS enquiry, nor the acid-flashback consciousness of the newly arrived at – and totally irregular and unlawful – “imperfect registration” status.
What still requires to be done is to root out those who have enabled the big lie. We need to hold accountable those who have sought to bury evidence, to dispense with logic and to treat fans with contempt and ridicule when legitimate concerns are raised.
We need to replace those people with people of integrity, folk who love the game as much as we do, people who will not yield to intimidation or the dog-whistle.
There are foot thick rule-books in place in football, and the authorities have plummeted into the Asimovian depths of a regulatory Fantastic Voyage to circumvent those. The SFA Chief Executive even told our own John Clark that he would “do nothing” had he been presented with evidence of wrong doing (and he had been presented with such evidence).
Yet one simple rule would have saw the whole sorry escapade brought to a halt – the universal rule that requires people to show due respect and good faith to others.
As I said, we started this journey at our own front door. The authorities and their enablers in the media have been taking us on the Uber route for six years. But we still know the destination, and we will get there. The SFA, the SPFL and the MSM have been relentless in their dedication to half-truths and misdirection.
But the fans are even more relentless in their pursuit of truth and their determination to see our game returned to its status a a sport. That is why outlets like SFM are important. Not because we are any better than others, but because we give a voice to the people in the game who matter most – to the paying public of Scotland who turn up in numbers relatively greater than any other country in Europe. They need that voice. We are not going anywhere.
Wow! I post my response and it disappears into the ether. Have we started censoring?
Reiver, It's great to see you back on again.
Tried again.
Not even a "in administration" notice?
Ah Jimbo, it looks like the unlucky page thirteen is trying to thwart me.
Never been away Jimbo. I visited every day.
Nup. Nae luck.
Not even a pop-up saying it is a duplicate post. Oh well.
It would appear that we have lurkers who only want to read Ranger's bashing posts.
It might be an idea if they stuck with JJ's site.
Reiver, don't bother about those thumbsdowners. Your contributions are worth 10times.
Revier, whilst I have no doubt it is a simple technical glitch, it is one I hope is resolved quickly before it starts to look like the site is censored (which I don't believe it is!)
Yeah, I know your right DPD.
I'll give it another try.
It tells me this time that it is a duplicate comment.
Progress.
Reiver 22nd August 2018 at 11:25
' ….I'll give it another try.'
____________________
A post of mine disappeared yesterday, Reiver. I went to the bother of re-posting, which involved going into other source material to cut and paste text, only to find when I posted the re-post that it was a duplicate post, and the original was there.
I don't think there is any danger of censorship on the blog!
Ah Jimbo your memory must be failing if you can't remember that what people think of what I say doesn't register with me.
The advantage of having a huge ego. It doesn't even breach my extreme modesty.
Aye John, I know.
That's why I'm posting all these short posts. So that we can get off page 13 as quickly as possible. Just in case, you understand, because it is so obvious that someone with my super-duper brain could never be superstitious.
While I am waiting looks like I have wee tip for everyone. (Innuendo not acceptable)
If you post and it does not go up on the thread then using the back button on your browser takes you to the same page but with your comment still in the text box. I don't think it is a property of my browser it is more likely to be the code on the SFM page that gives that effect.
This post is not for those swatty types who always take a copy of their comments before posting. Don't you just hate them.
Seeing as you're in attendance John, what are your thoughts on the D & P report that LM2 passed on?
JC
I don't know about that John. I tried to post a picture of Diane Abbot frolicking naked on Brighton beach and it wouldn't accept that.
Oops!
Sorry DBD I notice that I turned you into a Parcel Courier back there.
Ach well. You always spell MY name wrong.
Court report no. 1874 (I made up the number, but is probably close to the mark).
David Whitehouse v The Chief Constable. This was a damages claim relating to wrongful arrest, evidence gathering, and subsequent reputational damage.
I didn't know what to expect from today's hearing as the case has gone quiet since January. It looked as if it was going to remain that way when there was an adjournment before Lord Malcolm appeared.
There were two motions before Lord Malcolm, both related to the pursuer (Whitehouse) seeking payment of expenses related to earlier hearings. Both motions were abandoned after concessions by the respondent (Police Scotland) in the last 24 hours. Lord Malcolm also ruled that the pursuers expenses for today's hearing should be met by the respondent.
That was the gist of what, on the surface, were uneventful proceedings, with the pubic purse taking a hit once again.
However, you need to look at the back story to what has been going on. From what I know about the case, it's been very much delay, procrastination and obfuscation on the part of Police Scotland throughout.
Today's hearing actually goes back to where we were in January. Whitehouse had sought a summary decree against Police Scotland, but Police Scotland argued against Lord Malcolm such an early judgement, requesting more time to prepare their case, obtaining an affidavit from DCI Robertson and seeking a ruling on whether Police Scotland could be held liable individually, or whether the action should only be against the Lord Advocate (in which case he would claim immunity from prosecution).
Lord Malcolm acceded to Police Scotland's request back in January, but at the cost of meeting Whitehouse's legal expenses. A claim for circa £130,000 was duly submitted, but Police Scotland appealed the claim. The figures were put to a review body who confirmed that the claim was almost entirely justified. The money still wasn't handed over, resulting in today's hearing.
Yesterday, Police Scotland sought to negotiate a lower settlement figure with Whitehouse's legal team which was rejected, but there was clearly an agreement to pay at the end of it leading to the abandonment of today's motions. If payment isn't forthcoming, then I'd anticipate that Whitehouse may seek enforcement action through a summary warrant / sheriff's officers. I know from speaking to him previously, he has been scathing of Police Scotland's conduct throughout the legal process, so I wouldn't rule out further action.
In closing, Lord Malcolm advised counsel that he would try to publish his "opinion" on the earlier matter re the Lord Advocate, within the next two weeks. He warned counsel to set aside at least half a day to read it, so I suspect that it will be a lengthy piece.
Still no luck
Court report of today's short proceedings before Lord Malcolmn( see eJ's account at easyJambo 22nd August 2018 at 12:21
Very short proceedings. We went into Court at 9.57 a.m . Legals arrived a few minutes later. Counsel exchanged a few words between themselves, and Counsel for Whitehouse went to chat to the Clerk of Court. He spoke for a few minutes, and the Clerk said he would go and ask (presumably the Judge, who had not yet made an appearance). He returned a minute or two later, gave the word, and both sets of legals exited.
We sat on for perhaps ten minutes or so, then both sets of legals returned, obviously having had a conflab.
The clerk informed the Judge who then entered and proceedings began.
Counsel for Whitehouse then very briefly mentioned that there were two motions ,the first of which had by agreement been withdrawn, and the second of which, relating to the first and seeking an order for interim payment, he would now, with the agreement of his earned friend Miss Laurie, seek his Lordship's consent to withdraw.
Miss Laurie referred to an agreement reached yesterday evening and indicated she was happy with the position.
Judge Malcolm allowed the motion to be dropped, and awarded expenses for today's action to the Pursuer.
eJ puts the proceedings in context.
We now await with interest Lord Malcolm's 'Opinion' on whether the Lord Advocate is absolutely immune from prosecution ( for any damages etc arising from the wrongful actions of the COPFS in the exercise of its duties, not on a personal basis!)
Today’s court proceedings cast the conduct of officers in Police Scotland in a very poor light. Even if nothing else develops from this particular aspect of L’Affaire Rangers it will feed the narrative, as espoused by JJ and others, in that there is a massive and well co-ordinated conspiracy to protect all things Rangers.
It is more likely that individual mistakes were made and that will be the rather underwhelming outcome. Like John Clark I look forward to Lord Malcolm’s written opinion.
It’s not over until the circumferencely challenged lady sings :-
“The liquidators of Rangers Football Club plc have launched a multi-million pound legal action against the company's former administrators.
The claim has been lodged by BDO against Paul Clark and David Whitehouse of accountancy firm Duff & Phelps at Edinburgh's Court of Session.
BDO are seeking up to £28.9m following Clark and Whitehouse's handling of the administration process.”
"During the course of the liquidation, questions have arisen regarding the strategy previously adopted by the former administrators, which have not, to date, been adequately answered.
"In seeking clarity, the joint liquidators have been left with no other option but to pursue the matter via the Scottish Court. The joint liquidators look forward to the resolution of this matter."
Sorry, Woodstein , accidental TD ?
So , with Lafferty going back , are the rats rejoining the sinking ship ?
Paddy
No problem
Very good piece on the perils of Chinese billionaires in football.
https://thesefootballtimes.co/2018/08/22/aston-villa-slavia-prague-and-the-curse-of-chinese-cash/
and there's more
Paul McConville February 19, 2012 · 8:14 am
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/daniel-cousin-mystery/
The Daniel Cousin Mystery – Why are Rangers’ Administrators Signing Players?
Conclusion
“As I said at the start, this whole mess is, in a nutshell, a sign of how the Craig Whyte administration operated. Last minute dashed with forms and money – moves made for PR purposes – failure to get the formalities right
Squeaky bum time.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13047376.Legal_drama_as_Rangers_enter_administration/
“They thought the club had 10 days to bring in an administrator to run it after owner Craig Whyte on Monday authorised the club to lodge a notice of intention at the court to place it into administration.
By mid-morning yesterday, events speeded up when it emerged HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) had also filed a petition for a court-appointed administrator over a Rangers' unpaid tax bill of £9 million. This is in addition to the verdict on a pending tax case, which could leave it facing a £49m bill.
What followed was several hours of stop-start legal argument, before it was revealed that Rangers had brought in financial advisers Duff and Phelps, despite HMRC's bid at the court to get authority for the appointment of interim managers to run the Ibrox club. “
https://www.facebook.com/SkySportsFootball/videos/458362704661472/
Some light relief (after a serious few days on here)
It is now seven and a half hours since I posted a link given to me that at last has possible documented proof`of club continuity and yet not one person has deemed it worthwhile to comment on never mind refute or confirm it. Plenty of TUs but nobody has anything to say.
I have yet to be convinced that it changes anything in our stance and have tried to post the findings of my initial search over the same seven hours but something in the system is preventing that.
Surely there are still at least a few people on here that do not ignore an opposing case.
To try to get the post accepted I will break it down into smaller pieces.
Regarding my post @ 10.12
It may be that it was an opinion of the administrators as all other evidence and natural logic suggests the statement cannot be supported but let's dissect it on here anyway.
I haven't had a lot of time to research it but have found it to be repeated in the August report to creditors from D & P. As yet I have not managed to get access to the final report which I believe was issued in October.
OK so it rejected the second bit so let me change it.
On the negative side, these statements in the reports did cause some concern in legal circles. One such concerned legal firm was Halliday Campbell WS who have published this piece –
<<webpage link removed>>
In it they have this to say.
But this of course is not definitive and returns us to the he said/she said side of the debate. But never the less I am pleased you have at last moved away from the nit picking minutiae.
Now over to others.
Success!
It didn't like the link. Any suggestions?
Many hundreds of words by the usual suspect but not a peep on providing incontrovertible evidence of precisely when and through what verifiable process the club left the company within the context of an incorporated club, despite umpteen requests for such proof.
You could be forgiven for thinking that no proof exists and that the much talked about separation of club and company was merely a fabrication to suit an agenda.
The same club myth falls down on this matter regardless of everything else.
Highlander,
LM2 has provided a link that needs to be debated. Or is there now a block feature on SFM that means you missed my post at around 10.12 this morning?
Reiver 22nd August 2018 at 18:05
It is now seven and a half hours since I posted a link given to me that at last has possible documented proof`of club continuity and yet not one person has deemed it worthwhile to comment on never mind refute or confirm it. Plenty of TUs but nobody has anything to say.
===================================
The most likely reason you haven't had a bite is the fear of triggering yet another circular argument on what constitutes a "club", "business", "business and assets", "going concern", "legal entity", "basket of assets", "brand" "trading style" et al.
The "final" creditors report only referred you back to a previous creditors report.
Personally, I don't believe that D&P's description of a "going concern" sale was an accurate one of a business/legal entity/club that had failed to obtain the agreement of its creditors that would allow it to survive as a going concern. Therefore what the administrators sold could only be the distressed assets of a failed business/legal entity/club.
P.S. I’ve given my view, but I’m not looking for a response, nor will I engage in another circular argument on the subject.
I have tried various ways of providing the link to the Halliday Campbell article but are allowed.
Try searching for rangers again gratuitous alienations
Mark Guidi on Clyde SSB tonight declaring Stevie Gerrard to be “special” I was sceptical myself of his appointment but describing him in the same manner as Jose Mourinho described himself is more than a bit premature. It’s the sort of comment internet bampots might file away for future use. Not me though.
Reiver, the blog decides what gets debated not any one individual .
For my part OC/NC has never interested me . I don’t get involved in the argument and i’m probably not alone in that .
There are issues of far more importance to me , such as cheating , governance , lying to authorities, lying to fellow clubs , fit and proper suitability , refusal to comply with legal orders, and manipulation of accounts
EJ
So we are confronted with what is possibly a valid point from a company who was found not-guilty of wrong doing in the handling of the Rangers administration and our choice is not to give it an airing? I don't recall it being a point that has been raised before and if it IS new then surely it must be discussed, if only to disprove it. These are reports produced by a company that must adhere to set standards for fear of sanctions. If, as the Halliday articles suggest that History is not and asset there is an avenue for us to get a clear rule because of D & P's error.
We repeat over and over the points that claim that the 2011 licensing was a fix but don't complain that it is clogging up the site.Neither do we see any need to give it a separate thread like the OC/NC debate. A thread that's link is a small obscure one line compared to the page sized link to all other forums ensuring that the casual visitor doesn't go there.
We are starting to look like we don't want to hear opposing views. Does that not damage the site's reputation?
Reiver 22nd August 2018 at 18:14
legal firm was Halliday Campbell WS have this to say.
the joint administrators’ report suggests at certain points that various interested parties were going to purchase the “history” of the club but unsurprisingly that isn’t listed as an asset. and just as you can’t buy “history”, you can’t just sell sfa membership or a share in the spl.
…………..So legal firm say’s you can’t buy history.
Barcabhoy
I could fire the same back to you for asking for a subject to be ditched.
All the issues that you quote fall if it is shown that there was no continuity. It is integral to all the apparent corruption. It is the reason for the 5WA. It is the reason for private meetings in the Hotel du Vin. It is part of ever issue that you list.
I love every single poster on this site. Every one. It's by far the best football blog in the whole world. so stop arguing. Rangers died in 2012 that's it. There is a new Rangers, looking good I'm afraid. Deal with it.
CO
Spot on.
But that could be rated as an opinion just as D & P's assertion that they sold the history could. Until it is questioned in a court of law it has not been proven one way or another.
Because Halliday Campbell are lawyers doesn't mean what they say is true.
How many lawyers state that there client couldn't have committed the crime when to everyone looking on it is obvious they did. Don't trust a lawyer,
But it does need to be discussed otherwise, in our attempt to get rid of one troll, we are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Barcabhoy 22nd August 2018 at 18:49
There are issues of far more importance to me , such as cheating , governance , lying to authorities, lying to fellow clubs , fit and proper suitability , refusal to comply with legal orders, and manipulation of accounts
________________________________________________________________
Agree Barcabhoy. I am sick to the back teeth with all this nonsense re OC/NC. I read every post and maybe shouldn't. I know what I think about it!! Cheating is the thing we should be discussing.
Confirmation of Halliday Campbell
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/tag/gratuitous-alienation/
Chill Jimbo.
In my opinion the site needs to have a good look at itself or else it will lose the good reputation it has rightly built, and that is bound to be fractious. As you have noticed yourself we are attracting in increasing number of visitors who are only interested when what we find sticks the boot into the team in blue. There is a message in the increase in TUs that are more for the team a poster supports than what they say.
Jean
As I said earlier no matter how sickening it seems OC/NC is at the heart of all that you want fixed in the game.
DBD
Don't thank me. LM2 brought it to my attention and I felt that it was important for me to disprove it if I could. I don't believe what they said but it has been said and is out there from a source that should be reliable. there was much about Duff and Phelps handling of the affair that dumbfounded me so much so that I was not surprised when they were charged in connection with that work. The fact is though that they were found not guilty and that almost gives more credence to their views.
There is much else that denies continuation happened but if D&P's position is not challenged then I cannot be 100% in the NC camp.
By the looks of the reaction it may be that I will be in the unenviable position of having a shorter tenure on here than Kenny Miller did at Livingston.
Reiver 22nd August 2018 at 19:17 Don't trust a lawyer
D & P's assertion that they sold the history could. Until it is questioned in a court of law it has not been proven one way or another..
……………….
That i would love to see
Shug,
I take it you are supporter of one of the big two.
This is the response we diddy team supporters get slung at us all the time when we are genuinely trying to be impartial.
It's almost a "Yes, but who do you really support?" in reverse.
It is a perfect example of how the standards of this site are being allowed to slip. Say something about the Ibrox club that is not bad or say something about the Parkhead club that is not good (no matter how true) then the attacks start.
This site is NOT about club allegiance it is club independent.
CO
You're not alone in that
Reiver 22nd August 2018 at 19:52
Jean
As I said earlier no matter how sickening it seems OC/NC is at the heart of all that you want fixed in the game.
_________________________________________________________________________________
With respect, Reiver, please don't tell me what I want fixed. Fix the cheating and all else falls into place.
Jean
But claiming continuation IS cheating and was made possible by our administrators.
By the looks of the reaction it may be that I will be in the unenviable position of having a shorter tenure on here than Kenny Miller did at Livingston. …………. With comedy like that, i think you have a while longer
just catching up and not had a chance to read your link, but will in a second. But from what i'm gathering it is something D&P have said about selling the history.(sorry if i'm on the wrong track,just wanted to reply quick)
sold history…. They could say sold history all they want.Have they ever sold history before or after 2012?
And if they did sell they should have an itemised bill and sevco would have an itemised receipt.
anyway i'm away to read link.
Reiver 22nd August 2018 at 20:04
As I said earlier no matter how sickening it seems OC/NC is at the heart of all that you want fixed in the game.
_________________________________________
Rinse and repeat.
You're a quick reader Jean. I deleted them as quickly as I could.
The system has been chewing up my posts and throwing them out into the ether for me today and I thought it had happened again as I couldn't see it on my screen. I quickly split the post into three to see if I could get at least some accepted. The original appeared after I posted the replacements. I should have done a couple of refreshes first.
Sorry
Given today’s developments across the water perhaps what has been missing in our discussion of what really happened in 2011-12 is for someone at the centre of it all to spill the beans so to speak. There have been tantalising glimpses through the numerous and continuing court cases but as yet no Michael Cohen moment. Interestingly it was while investigating collusion with Russia that the FBI found out about the dodgy payments from the campaign fund. This may be what happens here too. In the meantime we are where we are. The dark clouds of doubt and suspicion remain over Rangers and will do so for ever until someone comes clean by accident or design. So can I ask if OCNC is off the table are the SMSM still fair game?
Reiver 22nd August 2018 at 20:36
0 0 Rate This
CO
You are of course correct and to find that bill of sale would settle the whole issue. That where I see the importance of this topic.
…………..
king wanted to bring the old club out of liquidation(i could have posted the article,but no upload image yet)
Anyway, to stop other clubs laughing at them. All king has to do is make public that bill of sale. if he has it, and all his troubles will go away and no need to spend millions on bringing the old club out of liquidation.But he better hurry up the liquidation prosess must be coming to an end soon.
Shug,
I take it you are supporter of one of the big two.
This is the response we diddy team supporters get slung at us all the time when we are genuinely trying to be impartial.
It's almost a "Yes, but who do you really support?" in reverse.
It is a perfect example of how the standards of this site are being allowed to slip. Say something about the Ibrox club that is not bad or say something about the Parkhead club that is not good (no matter how true) then the attacks start.
This site is NOT about club allegiance it is club independent.
Think if you are the real Reiver then you would already know that I'm a Hibee as we have mentioned this before you left anyway just my opinion and I will leave it at that no need to reply thanks.
Yeah CO, but what someone could do that would help us but doesn't is not proof of anything.
This is where we stand on just about everything. I am still firm on my position on everything but I am aware of all these "possibles" and my decision is made on weight of evidence but the people we really need to accept that there is corruption involved are the day to day fan. They need a quick hit piece of proof. Try spending half an hour to an hour informing them of all the ins and outs that lead to the proof and you will be talking to yourself after ten minutes The media too need an incontrovertible fact to force them to print. That is what we need to find.
The media:
These roadless hills have always been a refuge for rogues and reivers, a lawless area in times past where cattle-rustlers would hide their stolen beasts in secret clefts and hollows.’
Shug
No I don't remember that you are a Hibby. I see so many posts on so many sites that this old brain has given up remembering. On the other hand if I had spoken to you once in the 1970's my memory would be 100%
As to my identity. When I returned BP was so convinced that I was who I said I was that it was he who retrieved my avatar for me. It may have been my email address that convinced him.
If you want to know where I stand with regards to LM2 pop over to the OC/NC thread and check out my response to him yesterday.
Reiver 22nd August 2018 at 21:25
Surely it is in the interest of the creditors to have the best people representing their interest and that any potential buyer/suitor should not have had their name slandered in the terrraces and have paid journalists track them to the USA.
Just a thought not requiring an answer.
The internet abuse that shocked Miller, his beauty queen girlfriend Becky …
I don't care how much Lawman is disliked on here. I love him.
This is for him whether he likes or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNsTtBMm4YM
I love you Lord Jesus, My love above all things.
I have just come on to the blog for this evening and I find again that people are not citing the posts they are replying to or commenting on., as if they expected that everybody had only just read their immediately previous post.
This makes it difficult for others to know for sure what the point at issue is that the poster they are replying to had raised, and so makes their response difficult to relate to.
It only takes seconds to cut and paste a poster's name and time and date of his/her post, and to put the relevant issue in his/her post by quoting a few words or a
sentence or two from the post.
And drawing a line to separate the original comment from the reply!
Most of us do. It would be good if we all did!
John Clark 22nd August 2018 at 21:47
Sorry if that is me JC,trying to do too many things before i have an early night
Shock! horror! gasp!
In less than an hour after I made a post on why Reiver didn't get a response to his post of some hours previous about OC/NC, we have the circular argument reignited.
So D&P say they sold the "business and assets". Pendant alert ….. note the use of the word "and" and its usage in common parlance.
Darkbefordawn tells us that the "business" is the "club" … (so D&P must have sold both the "club" and its "assets")
However even LNS tells us he doesn't know what constitutes a club when he says "it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club". However he adds that a club comprises at least "its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground". That sounds like "assets" are part of a "club" or is it a business.
Thus if DBD is right, then LNS and I are wrong
If LNS is right then DBD and I are wrong
If I am right then LNS and DBD are wrong.
Guess what? We've got a circular argument.
The problem is that, unlike the Res 12 stuff (if it goes to CAS), there is no conclusive way to resolve or end the OC/NC argument. If Res 12 doesn't go to CAS then it will end up like OC/NC with believers and non believers, and endless circular arguments thereafter.
Even in the Court of Session and when I've been in attendance, we have had various parties dance around the head of a pin with some repeating the "owned and operated" mantra, Rod McKenzie declining to say if Rangers was relegated for fear of having the SPL rulebook and the 5WA opened up, Charles Green's counsel saying that only a basket of assets and a trading style were bought (he should know as he bought them) and Lord Brodie telling us the that the court doesn't deal with metaphysics.
The only hopes we have left of a legal determination are Henderson & Jones / Wavetower's floating charge claim and BDO's negligence claim against the administrators, both of which could prompt some discussion about what was bought and sold.
Bugger! I've got myself embroiled in another pointless circular argument. I need to take a day off.
John Clark 22nd August 2018 at 21:47
————————————————————————————-
" I find again that people are not citing the posts they are replying to or commenting on."
I use a small program called printkey2000. It allows me to capture part/all of the screen and save it in various file formats.
I have a folder with these files which I can then copy and paste.
I used to be able to do that on Scottish Football Monitor but that has gone now because there is no upload available.
I can do it on any other site.
https://printkey2000.informer.com/5.1/
Just sayin like.
easyJambo 22nd August 2018 at 22:09
The problem is that, unlike the Res 12 stuff (if it goes to CAS), there is no conclusive way to resolve or end the OC/NC argument. If Res 12 doesn't go to CAS then it will end up like OC/NC with believers and non believers, and endless circular arguments thereafter.
================
Its not exactly clear what the CAS involvement might be from this:
http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11788/11441992/rangers-could-face-cas-hearing-after-successful-challenge-against-sfa
An SFA statement read: "This preliminary issue raised by Rangers FC challenged the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA's Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal to hear the case, and contended that the notice of complaint must be determined by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
"Having received submissions on 26 June the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal have issued a decision upholding the preliminary issue raised by the club.
"The Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal proposes to continue consideration of the complaint until parties consider next steps and terms of reference for any remit to CAS."
Now are the JPDT carrying on investigating the notice of complaint whilst all parties consider the next steps on terms of reference for CAS?
If those terms of reference take all knowns in 2011 and 2012 into account, then although it might take longer, justice will be served whatever the outcome. However as there are enough knowns to suggest that outcome will not be to The Rangers liking and they will not be able to prevent the world (or Europe and UEFA) hearing such an outcome, then I'd be surprised if they want CAS any where near the case.
Nope I think that all parties will be trying to negotiate themselves out of a snooker and that will be the first job of the incoming Compliance Officer.
Celtic are aware of the position and if I were Peter Lawwell I'd be chalking my cue (Oh er missus)
Barçabhoy 22nd August 2018 at 18:49
"..For my part OC/NC has never interested me . I don’t get involved in the argument and i’m probably not alone in that ."
But you are of course interested in the cheating by RFC(now IL),and in how that cheating was 'undetected' for a goodly number of years by persons who, one can reasonably assert, failed in a very basic duty of their office by not 'detecting' it, or, worse, betrayed their office and Scottish Football by not calling it out when they did detect it!
The 5-way agreement under which our Football Governance bods ( who so signally failed to spot the cheating and/or failed to deal properly with it when spotted) signed up to the lie that 'Rangers' did not die in the way that Gretna, and Third Lanark, and other clubs which , on account of insolvency, lost their entitlement to participate in Scottish football, is believed by many of us to encapsulate the rottenness at the heart of Scottish Football.
I, and I think many others, believe that the cheating mentality of the SFA ( and others) which ignored/tolerated/supported the awful sporting cheating of SDM is the same mentality which allowed and continues to allow the cheats of the present Ibrox board to claim something to which they are not now, and never have been, entitled to, namely, the name and sporting history of the old Rangers of my boyhood, and my father's boyhood, and my grandfather's 3 year-old-hood ,namely, that RFC somehow survived Liquidation, hale and hearty and free from squillions of pounds of debt!
We all want a clean sport. There are bad guys who dirtied the sport. There are even 'badder' guys who helped them. And there are even worse guys in the SMSM who facilitate them!
In short, in my view, to be indifferent to the nonsense of TRFC Ltd being allowed to claim unearned titles and honours is not really an option: tackling that nonsense is central to re-establishing truth and integrity in our sport.
The exhaustive list of assets available for D+P to sell from the CVA Proposal, courtesy of Paul McConville:
https://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/rangers-cva-proposal1.pdf
Assets in the Administration Estate
4.11
The assets of the Company, listed at Schedule 6, currently consist of:
Ibrox;
Murray Park;
The other heritable properties and leasehold interests of the Company;
The Player Contracts;
The SFA Membership;
The Company‘s share in the SPL;
The Goodwill and intellectual property rights;
Stock, plant and equipment and cash at bank;
Amounts owed to the Company (other than the Player Transfer Fees);
The High Court Proceedings; and
The Player Transfer Fees.
Jimbo
https://youtu.be/1W_l6I11z9s?t=2
My post at 23.41: I swear on my last wee drop of Johnny Walker Red that I did draw a line separating the point I was replying to from my reply!
If my earlier observation was unjustified because the 'fault' was not the poster's, my apologies!