Fergus McCann v David Murray

ByAuldheid

Fergus McCann v David Murray

How Celtic Turned the Tables on their Glasgow Rivals by Stephen O Donnell:
A Review by Auldheid.

Stephen’s previous publication, Tangled Up In Blue provided a detailed history of the rise and fall of Glasgow Rangers FC PLC from 1872 until their demise in 2012. Clearly a lot of research had been done to cover the period in such detail and his follow up publication Fergus McCann v David Murray etc carries on with that tradition. It is a smorgasbord of a book with many different issues succulently served up in its 350 pages.

It tells of events under David Murray’s tenure at Ibrox which began in November 1988 and ended in May 2011 when he left Craig Whyte holding the rope that became a noose just under a year later in April 2012 when Whyte was found guilty of bringing Scottish football into disrepute whilst Murray claimed he was duped.

Readers of the book will come to the conclusion that if anyone did the duping it was David Murray and it wasn’t just Craig Whyte he duped but Scotland’s national game. If ever Murray were to be tried for crimes against Scottish football then this book would be cited as evidence.

It was against the background of David Murray’s tenure at Rangers that Fergus McCann first arrived on the scene in April 1989 with proposals to inject £17M of New Capital into Celtic that the Celtic Board rejected as per minutes:

Proposals put forward by Fergus McCann to provide finance for various capital expenditures were unanimously rejected by the Directors’; and then again in August of the same year: ‘Mr McCann’s latest proposals were discussed and it was hoped that this was a final discussion on the subject. Latest proposals were rejected by Directors.
Fergus later returned to the fray and the chapter on how he was successful in ousting the Board in 1994 is an informative read, particularly if in that period single parenting cares took precedence over caring for Celtic.

I was amused reading the tale of discontent aimed at the old Board after a Ne’erday 4-2 defeat to Rangers in January 1994 when a bemused Walter Smith was watching the hostility aimed at the Celtic Directors box, one fan in the main stand screamed at him, ‘What are you looking at, it’s got fuck all to do with you.”

For me anyway there were a few “not a lot of people know that” moments like that in the book.
The contrast between Fergus McCann’s and David Murray’s style was immediately evident, but the impact of Fergus’s shorter tenure from 1994 to 1999 became more than evident after McCann left and the author does not miss the role servile journalists played and hit the wall for turning Celtic supporters against McCann during his tenure, whilst they dined on Murray’s succulent lamb. A role that in the end helped bring about Rangers end, but not the culture of servility when covering the activity of Rangers FC PLC successor club from 2012.

Sky TV get it in the neck too and if David Murray played the part of Colonel Mustard in killing Scottish football through his financial recklessness and duplicity, Sky are the lead pipe whose toxicity still dictates the nature of the current state of play.( I said it was a Smorgasbord)

Fergus kind of did what it said on the tin. In his case a tin of nippy sweeties, but it was interesting to read about his early years when even then he was described as “a cheeky upstart” but his “idiosyncrasies” and appearance under a bunnet, disguised a sharp if impatient business mind where for him getting straight to the point was akin to procrastination.

So too has Murray’s early years been covered including his rejected attempt to buy Ayr Utd, a rejection by Ayr Directors, who considered Murray was too hot headed and most volatile, that infuriated him.

Their conclusion that he was trying to get Ayr United on the cheap with only £125k of his own money involved was an indicator of his strategy of using other people’s money to invest and not his own. Other people including unsuspecting taxpayers to a tune of £50 million or so.

As you follow the narrative of both Fergus McCann and David Murray and the events that surrounded them, you end up wondering how so many could have been fooled for so long by one guy, but when you have the Scottish media in your pocket it was difficult to separate fact from fiction during the tenure of both. You also wonder how Murray remains a Knight of the Realm since.

Luckily for Celtic Fergus knew business fact from PR fiction and avoided the illusion in which Celtic’s main rivals continue to struggle to this day.

The great pity is that few, if any of the Scottish main stream media will even give this book a mention, because if you don’t write about it, it never happened, except it did and this book is proof.

I therefore recommend anyone interested in the future of our game buys it and asks, is it not now time to revisit the purpose of Scottish football?

Auldheid

About the author

Auldheid author

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

1,240 Comments so far

John ClarkPosted on10:29 pm - Sep 4, 2020


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had occasion to have a look at this case (while listening to that rubbishy 1-1 draw).

It was an Appeal to the English Court of Appeal. 

"The facts:

  1. Mr Robert McKendrick ("the appellant") was one of a number of defendants to a claim brought by the respondent Financial Conduct Authority ("the FCA"). In the course of the proceedings two worldwide freezing orders ("WFOs") were made against him. He breached those orders in a number of different ways and admitted that he was thereby in contempt of court. On 1st March 2019 Marcus Smith J ("the judge") committed him to prison for a term of 6 months. The appellant appealed against that order, contending that it was far too long. At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal we announced our decision to dismiss the appeal, and indicated that our reasons would be given in writing. These are our reasons for dismissing the appeal.
  2. For present purposes, the underlying litigation can be summarised very briefly. The appellant was involved in a number of investment schemes, in respect of which investors suffered losses. The FCA brought proceedings in relation to the operation and promotion of those schemes. After a contested hearing in March 2018 before HH Judge McCahill QC the appellant was found to have acted in contravention of the provisions of section 397, and to have been knowingly concerned in contraventions of sections 19, 21 and 397, of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, including by the making of false, misleading and deceptive statements in relation to one of the schemes. Judge McCahill QC recorded that he had found the appellant to be "an evasive and untruthful witness on critical matters". The appellant was ordered to pay a sum in excess of £14.3 million to the FCA, for distribution to the investors. The appellant sought to appeal against that order, but permission to appeal was refused. On 23rd October 2018 he was made bankrupt on his own application."

 

The link to the appeal case is

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/524.html

the case I was originally looking at was 

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Vaswani-v-Hussain_-Judgement-30.7.20-APPROVED.pdf

in which a right chancer was  sentenced to two (concurrent) jail sentences of 6 months for not honouring some undertakings he had made to the Court.

Someone we know was, I think,  very favourably dealt with by the Court of Session and an easily satisfied FCA, eh, what?heart

View Comment

paraniodbyexperiencePosted on12:10 am - Sep 5, 2020


Anyone know why we have added the nice red stripe to our blue and white strip .

 

Reminds me of socks we once wore in by gone days of yore.

 

 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:43 pm - Sep 5, 2020


Tim Davie, I note from this morning’s ‘Scotsman’, addressed the BBC staff in Cardiff. He is reported as saying that ‘renewing the BBC’s commitment to being impartial is the “number one priority”‘

He warned staff that if they  wanted to be opinionated columnists or partisan campaigners on social media….they should not be working at the BBC.

He added ” Our research shows that too many perceive us to be shaped by a particular perspective”

I wonder if he made the same speech to the ‘liquidation deniers’ in Pacific Quay when he addressed them the other day?

Davie was referencing political partisanship.

However, impartiality is indivisible. 

And there is absolutely no doubt that BBC Scotland has for the last 8 years  steadfastly maintained the utter fiction that RFC of 1872 did not die as a football club, and has credited TRC with being  the very same club as RFC of 1872.

Argue as much as they like that they are only obeying orders from above, the BBC in matters relating to Scottish Football has shown itself to be very definitely ‘shaped by a particular perspective’ on Scottish Football that has been and is as damaging as any ‘particular perspective’ on politics .

Remember, in the matter of the liquidation of RFC of 1872, there is no scope for differences of ‘opinion: it is an absolute fact that ‘Rangers Football Club plc’ is in liquidation. 

It is a matter of fact that TRFC was newly admitted as a new club in 2012. 

And those in ‘public’ positions who deny those facts are either as thick as two short planks or lying through their teeth. Some may be both.

And one does not get to work at any broadcasting level if one is as thick as even one short plank!

 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on6:01 pm - Sep 5, 2020


paraniodbyexperience 5th September 2020 at 00:10

Anyone know why we have added the nice red stripe to our blue and white strip…

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

Don’t have a Scooby.

Must admit that I took no notice of the new kit launch in November.

But that is an interesting point you raise.

In my lifetime, I don’t remember red being included on the home top? (Apart from within the badge?).

The top looks like it has armbands on the sleeves.

The red over white stripes resembles the flag of Monaco, (initially thought it was Poland, but that’s white over red).

A cursory search with the SFA and generally, didn’t explain the inclusion of red on the top.

Not a very good-looking top anyway, IMO.  

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:40 pm - Sep 5, 2020


StevieBC 5th September 2020 at 18:01

'..The red over white stripes ..'

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I see it as a not so subtle move towards UK-ifying the Scotland national football team by dressing them in the colours of the Union flag, encouraging the world to persist in the belief that Scotland is really only just a part of England.

The SFA has, I think, already given the nod to letting players play for the GB team at the next Olympics.

 

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on12:04 am - Sep 6, 2020


I don’t think that the honour resides with RFC either John.
Pretty sure there is some Eastern European sides with more than 115 (I think that’s the number) trophies

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on12:12 am - Sep 6, 2020


Stevie BC
In the late 60s, Rangers brought out a new step with the intertwined RFC on the breast. The change included red socks with white tops.
Being in the middle of the 9 in a row era, there were lots of crisis charts on TV and radio. On one such occasion, Willie Woodbury, a guest on Scotland Today or some such, opined that Rangers troubles were down to losing the black socks with red tops.
It was at that time the (probably erroneous) shaggy dog tale that the red tops at the knees were representative of spilled blood.
The shaggy dog tale was promoted heavily by both cheeks btw.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on11:20 am - Sep 6, 2020


Thanks for that BP.

Yes, changes to strips can become controversial – so why the SFA would mess with the top colouring is strange, IMO.

(I thought you were going to write that back in e.g. the early 1900's Scotland played in a top with red in it!)

 

And from confusing colouring to confusing, (exasperating), SMSM content.

I typically don't read anything Hugh Keevins writes – and his effort in today's DR quickly reminded me why.

This journalistic nugget jumped off the screen at me;

"Rangers believe there is a lack of proper governance at the SPFL…"

smiley

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on2:55 pm - Sep 6, 2020


StevieBC 6th September 2020 at 11:20
“Rangers believe there is a lack of proper governance at the SPFL…” they want more placemen at the top. There fixed that for Hugh.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:23 am - Sep 7, 2020


Cluster One 6th September 2020 at 14:55

'… they want more placemen at the top. There fixed that for Hugh.'

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Exactly so. 

SDM 's hopes that the club he had , by his tax cheating, put at great risk, would somehow comfortably emerge from Administration, went agley.

Nobody bought the club out of Administration in order to carry on as before but wonderfully and gloriously  free of the crushing weight of debt he had incurred!

And the club died the death of Liquidation. 

It was then that the 'fix' went in.

The fiction was created that  'Rangers' did not die, and that a brand-newly created club was still the Rangers of 1872!

Such an absurdity! Such a perversion of truth!

and how disgusting that a governance body and Scottish Football generally should have been party , and continue to be party, to such nonsense.

And worse, that 'journalists' should have been party to the lie and give it support.

TRFC/RIFC plc are now plucking familiar strings on the lyre  that is the SFA, emboldened by their success in thus far getting away with a monstrous lie.

 

 

 

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on11:59 am - Sep 7, 2020


Beginning of the end ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-54053618

View Comment

wottpiPosted on5:15 pm - Sep 7, 2020


So watched the Womens Football Show on BBC last night.

Some good stuff but two howlers from the defence of newly promoted Aston Villa against Man City.

Poor stuff that was frankly primary school level.

Not wanting to get involved in a debate regards abilities between men & women etc but it did get me thinking when I noted that the sponsor panel used at interviews had Barclay’s splashed all over it.

A quick Google and it appears the Women’s Super League have a £10m sponsorship deal over three years.

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/fa-womens-super-league-barclays-sponsorship

I know some folk bemoan the quality of Scottish Football but it is surely of higher standard than the WSL and has one of the best support per head of population ratios in the world.

What is that guy getting paid £400k a year supposed to be doing for our game?

Even our last deal was only £2m per season when compared to the reported £3.3m per season for the WSL.

 

 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:35 pm - Sep 7, 2020


wottpi, totally agree that Doncaster has consistently undersold the TV rights.

BUT

I'd hold fire until we get the Scotland result tonight.

If Clarke can't secure a convincing win with his best team – against a ragtag collection of Czech players selected at extremely short notice,

then mibbees we should all just ditch men's football and watch the women instead?  At least they qualify for the World Cup.

no

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on6:37 pm - Sep 7, 2020


StevieBC 7th September 2020 at 17:35

'.If Clarke can't secure a convincing win with his best team ..'

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I've just tuned in to Sportsound.

The pundits all a bit puzzled about Tierney's absence and the decision (apparently) to go with a back three. Billy Dodds  in particular sounding a cautious note about underestimating the Czechs.

I'm inclined to agree that it might not be any kind of walkover tonight.

 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:48 pm - Sep 7, 2020


If Scotland doesn't win tonight, a headline in the DR tomorrow could be;

"Scotland stopped by dud Czechs!"

or

"Scotland Bounced by Czechs"

or

"Blanked Czechs cash in against Scotland"

or possibly

"Scotland takes advantage of blank Czechs"

etc.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on10:11 pm - Sep 7, 2020


"Scotland's Stolen Czech Relief"

(Didn't watch, but sounds like we got lucky.)

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on8:01 am - Sep 9, 2020


International week not good for chat is it??

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on8:07 am - Sep 9, 2020


Yesterday’s news from Westminster and jaw-dropping developments at the Assange trial underlining that the rule of law and justice is being lost in a wider domain than that of Scottish football. Voices like ours are being reduced to plaintiff cries across sport, the law, health policy, and elsewhere.
Those voices still need to be heard though, because underpinning this new post-truth normal is a compliant post-journalism media.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:28 am - Sep 9, 2020


Big Pink 9th September 2020 at 08:07

”  . Voices like ours are being reduced to plaintiff cries across sport, the law, health policy, and elsewhere.’

“””””””””””””””

I think the pits have been reached when the UK Prime Minister can blandly admit that his Government is deliberately going to break International Law in a little ‘technical ‘ way. 
The British Government,of course, has a whole history of doing unpleasant things to people and peoples, but they generally made it ‘legal’ first, and claimed to be implementing the Law.

Buffoon Boris’ readiness openly to make light of ‘Law’ is quite a frightening development, betraying a cast of mind not far from that of Lukashenko and any number of despotically-minded toe-rag politicians in the world.

We all have a duty to ourselves to cry, ” here, haud oan a minute ,pal.’ in the face of untruth in governance of any kind: whether in international or domestic politics, or in local Government or in the fields of governance of the  Arts and of Sport. 

Some areas of life are clearly more important than others: a Boris or a Trump might actually kill you if their their political ravings and actions are given free expression.

The SFA can just about kill your sport and recreational pastime, by acting deceitfully and against the very concept of Sporting Integrity.

The failure of the Press to investigate and keep the lies of any and all ‘governance’ bodies in the spotlight may kill democracy itself.

The SMSM’s  ready abetting and fostering of a ‘sporting’ lie does not provide any assurance that they would resist any manic illegal actions of the UK government.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on12:46 pm - Sep 9, 2020


BP, you're right: these international weeks seem to suck the life out of footy fans in Scotland!

In relation to SFM 'asking questions the media won't ask',

it speaks volumes that you have to watch a supposed 'enemy' state media – Russia Today – to get any detailed coverage of the Assange hearing.

Personally, I've just realised why we are all destined to become grumpy old men like Victor Meldrew.

As we get older, our opinions of those institutions we had perhaps held in high esteem – like government, the media, the BBC, the legal system, even democracy itself – are significantly changed, and not in a good way.

It probably happens with every generation?

With experience comes weariness and cynicism: the whole 2012 Rangers debacle was just a microcosm of the real UK we live in today. 

And the SMSM was/is never going to publish the truth if it's problematic for some.

Today the burgeoning – and privatised – censorship of the internet is fast becoming a lost cause, IMO.

Maybe we'll have to go back to the original, manual printing presses to be able to share the truth in future?

indecision

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on5:49 pm - Sep 9, 2020


With the SMSM being openly mocked over on Twitter land with  their clickbait saga of the daily what club will be linked to Moralos this day.It shows that they have no shame.With the amount of laughs an article gets now, is looked on as better than any factual content and information  that that article can deliver, The SMSM is near the end of it's life cycle. No one i know now buys a Newspaper, and why should they.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:37 am - Sep 10, 2020


The hearing in the Whitehouse and Clark damages claim against the Chief Constable continues tomorrow.

If anyone is interested in listening to it live, full info is given on this link

https://scotcourts.gov.uk/coming-to-court/public-access-to-a-virtual-hearing

 

 

 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on1:21 pm - Sep 10, 2020


John Clark 10th September 2020 at 11:37
Thanks JC

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:06 pm - Sep 10, 2020


On Saturday last , when I posted about the new Director-General of the BBC having visited both Glasgow and Cardiff to address staff, I suggested that I might write to him.

I have now done so for the sake of completeness. If I get a reply it will ,I expect, be along the same lines as before, about the BBC Trust having made a distinction between 'company' and 'club' and that  it was the 'holding company' that died, not the transcendental spiritual essence of what constitutes a club!

If that kind of nonsense does come back, I will of course follow through with a rebuttal.

Here is the text of my letter, for the record.

"Mr Tim Davie CBE

Director-General,

British Broadcasting Corporation,

Brodcasting House, Peel Wing,

Portland Place,

London W1A1AA

Dear Mr Davie,

Let me first wish you well as you take up your appointment as Director-General of the BBC.

On 5th September, 'The Scotsman' reported that you had addressed staff in Broadcasting House, Cardiff on the previous day.

It reports that in your address you said that “…renewing the BBC's commitment to being impartial is the 'number one priority'” and that you “warned staff that if they wanted to be opinionated columnists or partisan campaigners on social media …they should not be working at the BBC” and that you added

Our research shows that too many perceive us to be shaped by a particular perspective”

May I say that, here in Scotland, many people do indeed believe that the BBC has a 'particular perspective' when it comes reporting on Scottish football matters.

It is the perspective, I believe, of a management too afraid to 'speak truth' which has for the past 8 years fostered and propagated a manifestly absurd sporting untruth , not just an 'opinion'!

That untruth is that a professional football club which was founded in 2012 and admitted for the first time into Scottish Football in 2012 is one and the same football club as a club that was founded in 1872 but which entered Liquidation ( having changed its name)in 2012, and is still in Liquidation even as I write.

You will know, I expect, that in 2012 when a professional football club in the then Scottish Premier League (SPL) suffered the insolvency event of 'Liquidation' it automatically lost its membership of that league, and, in consequence, lost its entitlement to membership of the Scottish FA , and thus ceased to exist as a playing entity in Scottish professional football.

I speak, of course, of the lie that The Rangers Football Club(TRFC), founded in 2012, is the Rangers Football Club that was founded in 1872.

BBC Scotland ( TV and Radio both) refuse to acknowledge the truth that Rangers of 1872 is 'In Liquidation' and that as a matter of 'sports' truth and commercial reality TRFC simply cannot be Rangers of 1872 .

They are prepared to sustain the myth that RFC of 1872 was bought out of administration by a new owner, and was thereby saved rom Liquidation.

A look at Companies House records will show the nonsense of that myth.

I call upon you to put an end to the propagation by your people in Pacific Quay of that myth as evidence of the sincerity of your words to your Cardiff staff.

Yours sincerely,

me   "

I posted that letter by 'guaranteed delivery service'  ( I doubt if I could face a six months hassle over 'non-received' mail such as I had with the FCA!) It should be received tomorrow, according to the post office chappie.

 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:13 pm - Sep 10, 2020


Well, here's to tomorrow's hearings in the Court of Session! 

We have had Boris openly ready to break an International treaty for self-serving purposes.

We have a Crown Office owning up to 'malicious prosecution'. Why own up? So  that a wee deal can be done to keep dirty washing out of public view?

What might be the 'dirty washing' and whose might it be? 

And who is to be hung out to dry ( if anybody)?

Will we ever know? 

Sadly, there are no Woodwards and Bernsteins  in the SMSM who might try to find out.

The Rangers saga is not a simple football matter, not by a long chalk.

It runs very, very deep, I suspect.

 

 

 

 

View Comment

watcherPosted on2:41 pm - Sep 11, 2020


John Clark, first off thank you for your help, sorry I did

not thank you earlier. Been busy. You certainly know how

to get a reply. I sent an e-mail to Mr Preston yesterday and 

low and behold a reply today!! Unhappy with the outcome.

Here is his reply.

BBC News website, 10 December 2019, HMRC drops further £5m from Rangers tax claim

Thank you for your e-mail of 10 September 2020 , regarding the outcome of your complaint about the above item, which has been forwarded to the Ofcom Standards Team to respond.

In line with our published complaints procedures, Ofcom does not as a matter of course write back to individual complainants to explain the outcome and the reasoning behind its decisions, but all complaints are logged and acknowledged, and decisions are published on our website. Ofcom’s considerations about BBC online material are reported in Ofcom’s bulletin for complaints about BBC online material here.

After careful assessment, we did not consider the material raised substantive issues under the relevant BBC editorial guidelines that warranted further consideration by Ofcom. In accordance with our procedures, this decision was included on page 2 of Issue 17 of Ofcom’s Bulletin for complaints about BBC online material, published on 27 April 2020.

Yours sincerely

I have sent an e-mail back today Registering my disgust at OFCOM. I pointed out that it is a sorry state

of affairs when the BBC can lie with impunity and yet OFCOM does nothing about it. I note from the 

Bulletin that my complaint was the only one. Perhaps more people need to complain to get them to do anything. Once more many thanks John.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on5:28 pm - Sep 11, 2020


watcher 11th September 2020 at 14:41

'..thank you for your help ..Perhaps more people need to complain to get them to do anything.'

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Thank you ,watcher 

I think it behoves all of us as citizens (oops, sorry, Ma'am, subjects!) to be ready to challenge the deeds and words of people in public office when we think we have cause to believe they lie or mislead.

We certainly have an absolute right to have our questions at least acknowledged!

I'm glad you got a reply.

Any reply might be a tissue of lies, of course: but if that ever proves to be the case the liar can be nailed and held accountable. And equally, any one of us might be wrong in our facts and have to accept that.

But for  a public official or public body simply to ignore correspondence relating to his or its public functions is absolutely not on!

 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on5:32 pm - Sep 11, 2020


I was up in good time this morning, sat down at about 8.55 and dialled the number to get into the virtual court hearing.

The line was busy: and it feckin stayed busy up to 9.50, when  I abandoned hope of catching any of the Hearing.

Was anyone able to listen in?

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on9:06 pm - Sep 11, 2020


Unlikely to last:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ally-mccoist-revisits-2012-rangers-22669223

“The Ibrox legend was manager when the club was liquidated eight years ago.”

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:36 pm - Sep 11, 2020


borussiabeefburg 11th September 2020 at 21:06

'.Unlikely to last:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ally-mccoist-revisits-2012-rangers-22669223'

“The Ibrox legend was manager when the club was liquidated eight years ago.”

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

If that is genuinely in the paper it might cost someone his/her job!

It is, as you say, bbb, unlikely to last.

And that's Lambert off the Christmas card list along with the other Celtic former players who deny that RFC of 1872 died the death!broken heart

 

 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:57 pm - Sep 11, 2020


John Clark 11th September 2020 at 17:32

I was up in good time this morning, sat down at about 8.55 and dialled the number to get into the virtual court hearing.

The line was busy: and it feckin stayed busy up to 9.50, when  I abandoned hope of catching any of the Hearing.

Was anyone able to listen in?

You didn’t miss much.

Gerry Moynihan for the LA appeared to indicate that there were further admissions to be made regarding the period leading up to the first indictment (previously they only referred to actions post that indictment). GM will submit these to the court in the next week.  He anticipated that the documents would be made public in due course, or earlier on the direction of Lord Tyre.

The Dean of Faculty (Roddy Dunlop) acting for Whitehouse asked for a further six weeks to complete further interviews with witnesses.  Lord Tyre was unhappy about the amount of time requested. RD responded by saying that earlier witness statements were made prior to the “admissions” and needed to be revisited. He indicated that his time scale was conservative and expected to complete it sooner with cooperation from the Crown Office.  RD also indicated that he would review the quantum of the damages sought in this part of the action.

RD then sought an award of further expenses for any additional or rework required following the previous admissions, and the new ones still to come.  Lord Tyre reserved a decision on expenses until a later date.

Lord Tyre set a follow up procedural hearing for Tuesday 29th September at 9am.

The proof (if one goes ahead) is provisionally set for January.

The action against Police Scotland was not discussed, but the indication was that it remains as was, for the time being.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:13 pm - Sep 11, 2020


easyJambo 11th September 2020 at 21:57

'..You didn’t miss much.

Gerry Moynihan for the LA appeared to indicate that there were further admissions to be made regarding the period leading up to the first indictment ..'

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I am extremely grateful to you for that, eJ.  

I am interested in big Roddy's observation:

'RD responded by saying that earlier witness statements were made prior to the “admissions” and needed to be revisited'

What does that mean? That the earlier statements were knowingly untrue? Or that they were made on the basis of what the statement signatory believed at the time to be true  but now that the 'truth' has been established the statement signatory can revise his testimony to match?

Questions like this are of course well OT, in that they have no connection to football  except the loose connection that the persons seeking damages were the Administrators of a football club.

It's interesting all the same, that a  football club's  crooked  dealings in respect of tax dodging and lies to the SFA , has brought up , via a civil damages claim by its Administrators,  questions about the integrity not only of police but of the COPFS.

And those kinds of questions are far far more important than mere football.

 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:52 am - Sep 12, 2020


easyJambo 11th September 2020 at 21:57
Thanks for the update

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on12:48 pm - Sep 12, 2020


I'm still flabbergasted that – as far as I'm aware – not one person has resigned, or been fired,

since the Crown Office admission of its "malicious prosecution" in a court of law!

Separately, IMO, this shocking exposure of OUR Scottish criminal system has had nowhere near enough media coverage either.

Does the CPS, Police Scotland, the Scottish Government and the SMSM have their very own, informal, '4 Way Agreement'?

It stinks even more now.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:34 pm - Sep 12, 2020


StevieBC 12th September 2020 at 12:48

The Lord Advocate is one of the Scottish Ministers. He (or she) is appointed by the Queen, on the advice of the First Minister. 

He (or she) is the senior Scottish Law Officer and the head of COPFS (not CPS which is in England).

Police Scotland operate under the auspices of the Lord Advocate, and all prosecutions on indictment are in his (or her) name. 

Basically the Scottish Government choose the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate runs COPFS. COPFS tell the Police what to do. 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:57 pm - Sep 12, 2020


H, so going by that food chain,

someone from Police Scotland would/should have been ‘resigned’ immediately after the Court admission?

Unless I’m missing something, it just seems that no PR crisis management is required – because there is minimal SMSM coverage of a scandalous story, IMO.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:37 pm - Sep 12, 2020


StevieBC 12th September 2020 at 15:57

'..someone from Police Scotland would/should have been ‘resigned’ immediately after the Court admission?'

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

On the face of it, the taxpayers ( you and I among them) are already out of pocket by the awards already made to Whitehouse and Clark, with the possibility that several millions more of our money will go to them by and by.

In so far as police officers were following the instructions of the  the two Lords Advocate who were successively involved it's hard to see how they bear any responsibility for the actions they took [the manner in which one senior officer is alleged to have taken  some actions might be questionable, and perhaps disciplinary action might follow] But, overall, I think the polis were merely carrying out orders, even if through gritted teeth.broken heart

As regards the COPFS, it's a matter of public record that at least one PF was bemused by the orders given and the decisions made , rescinded, and re-made, it seems, almost off the cuff by the ultimate decision maker.

I sat in Lord Bannatyne's court-room several times and heard the most unenthusiastic presentation of a case by the Advocate Depute that I imagine I will ever hear. Several drafts of the indictment, so many, it seemed, that Lord Bannatyne with justifiable irritation had on one occasion to ask whether he had a copy of the latest one.

It is not with hindsight that as a layman not at all 'learned in the law'  I say that I felt then that this was a prosecution apt to fail: there was no heart in it.

The Administrators had reported to the Police their suspicions that something had been not quite right about the purchase of RFC by Whyte. 

The Police investigated. And those who  reported their suspicions that  a possible crime had been committed are themselves arrested, and they and a few others are incompetently indicted and put  on trial, and then the charges are all withdrawn!

Net likely result : millions of pounds from you and me to be paid in compensation …

Two Lord Advocates and numerous lawyers in his Crown Office staff were involved in the whole botch-up.

The sensitivities are ,well, extremely sensitive.

But the polis are probably not responsible for the shambles of a prosecution.

 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:13 pm - Sep 13, 2020


There are a couple of issues with holding the Lord Advocate personally accountable for the malicious prosecutions related to RFC/Sevco/D&P. 

While David Whitehouse was successful in his appeal to the Inner House of the Court of Session that the Lord Advocate should not have immunity from prosecution, the Lord Advocate at the time, Frank Mulholland, has moved on.  He was appointed as a Senator of the College of Justice in 2016, so is now Lord Mulholland and a judge in criminal cases and the High Court or civil cases at the Court of Session.

Judges do have immunity from prosecution for actions related to their office, though I suspect that his current role will not protect him from his actions as Lord Advocate.

The reality is that any liability will be met by the state, i.e. the taxpayer.  Whether or not Lord Mulholland will be forced to resign from his judiciary role in the event of multiple adverse outcomes in the current legal proceedings is a moot point.

 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on12:52 pm - Sep 13, 2020


"…But the polis are probably not responsible for the shambles of a prosecution."

Just like the 2012 football governance shambles: those who were really responsible evaded any punishment.

e.g. Murray and Ogilvie should have been banned sine die from Scottish football, IMO.

It was twisted to become HMRC's 'fault' – and even yesterday the SMSM was reporting that Dundee United had 'created' bitterness in the game – for not voting a Rangers directly into the SPL!

Going back to the original query: if everybody involved has 'brass necked it' since the malicious prosecution admssion so far – then any resignations / firings seem unlikely now? 

It's the taxpayer who will be punished – via massive payouts – for 'legal governance' incompetence/corruption?

And those who were really responsible just carry on…? 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on1:04 pm - Sep 13, 2020


John Clark 12th September 2020 at 23:37

I have not attended any hearings, however just intuitively I think it is just as likely that the Police overstepped the mark themselves, rather than being instructed to do so.

Crown Office do not issue search warrants, either they or the Police make application for them, it is a Sheriff who grants the warrant. In my view any mistakes are likely to have been made during the search, where the Officers went beyond the terms of the warrant.

I would also argue that whilst the Lord Advocate and Crown Office might have overall responsibility for the investigation what they will do is instruct the senior Police officers. They will then instruct the officers carrying out the work and make day to day operational decisions.

I would not absolve Police Scotland of any blame in a flawed investigation / prosecution. Let's not use the Nuremberg defence.

 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on3:35 pm - Sep 13, 2020


Homunculus 13th September 2020 at 13:04
…………
I myself blame them all, from the top to the bottom, all wanted to bask in the limelight of being the ones who were part of a collection of people who did the right thing by the institution that was the ibrox club.
The light shinning on them now though is not the light they want.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on4:29 pm - Sep 13, 2020


I note St Mirren's Jim Goodwin has let rip at the SPFL for essentially trying to force them to go ahead with their game v Hibs yesterday without a keeper.

However, rules is rules and all that. If you don't have a recognised goalie available then just play with what you have got in your squad.

In the words of Ross County's Roy McGregor, should they not have just 'Taken their medicine' given these unusual times.

Luckily a club, who are supposedly driven by self interest,  stepped up with an emergency loan arrangement so St Mirren could take the field with a half decent keeper instead of a converted outfield player.

Not sure if to be critical of my club for not telling St Mirren to 'go do one' and stew in their own juice or to be proud of an organisation who, despite being shafted a few months ago, was willing to step up and assist when a fellow member club of the SPFL needed some help.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on4:34 pm - Sep 13, 2020


I'm starting a book on the number of stitches macho maddog Morelos will have on his injured knee on Thursday . 

5-10     6/1

10 million +    18/1

0 –    1/10

Lipread McAllister when he was being carted off the park . And there's a man who's missing his barber .

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on4:53 pm - Sep 13, 2020


Cluster One 13th September 2020 at 15:35

Whilst I agree with blame being spread I think it's highly unlikely that Francis Mulholland, born in Coatbridge and attended St Bernard's Primary and Columba High wanted to " … bask in the limelight of being the ones who were part of a collection of people who did the right thing by the institution that was the ibrox club."

I think like a lot of other people he made mistakes with the investigation and prosecution. 

 

 

View Comment

wottpiPosted on5:40 pm - Sep 13, 2020


paddy malarkey 13th September 2020 at 16:34

Caught some of the radio commentary yesterday and then some of the 'afters' so was expecting to see a horrendous tackle on Sportscene.

However, totally innocuous, no reaction from the ref, no reaction from any of the players. Morelos shows a poor touch and Edwards, probably expecting better control, takes a clearing kick at the ball as it comes loose.

I'd be raging if a defender wasn't attacking the loose ball. Unfortunately, Morelos has jumped in to regain the situation and the lads boot has caught him in the knee.

Ref totally correct and anything else, including the pundits on Sportscene calling for a red, is well of the mark IMHO.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:27 pm - Sep 13, 2020


Homunculus 13th September 2020 at 13:04

'.I would not absolve Police Scotland of any blame in a flawed investigation / prosecution'

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Behind the point I was trying to make ( not too clearly) was that the decision to prosecute and to continue the prosecution even when ( as now appears) it was apparent at some determinate stage that there were no safe grounds for doing so was the fault of the COPFS which was directing the prosecution.

Police officers ( at least one) may have acted beyond their brief,  but what is going to cost the taxpayer is the fact that the brief itself (i.e. the decision that there was evidence enough to charge people with  crime (s) and arrest them is now acknowledged to have been rash and unsound right from the off.

A monumental kcuf-up when, who knows? a little bit more savvy might have been exercised to better effect

Aggresssive and 'overzealous' police officers can be disciplined. 

Can Lord Advocate(s)?

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:52 pm - Sep 13, 2020


wottpi 13th September 2020 at 17:40

 IMO  ,  Morelos bottled it , and we were told at an early age that if you bottle it in a tackle , you'll end up injured . 

 

 

 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:33 pm - Sep 13, 2020


paddy malarkey 13th September 2020 at 20:52

'.. if you bottle it in a tackle , you'll end up injured . '

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

when you bottle it in a physical tackle, indeed you do suffer physical injury.

When you bottle it in a moral sense, as when you shirk your moral obligations and create myths to try to justify yourself, you suffer injuries that will not heal. 

Ask anyone in office in the SFA, SPL or SFL 'what did you do in the 'Rangers saga'? 

They know they destroyed belief in the integrity of Scottish Football as a sport by making a nonsense of it by creating a myth.

And that self-knowledge will haunt them for the rest of their miserable lives, bluster though they may. 

Their epitaphs will have the unwritten words hovering above the stone or urn , 'this man was a cheat , liar, and betrayer and abuser of the office entrusted to him'

 

View Comment

fitbawfanPosted on12:07 am - Sep 14, 2020


John Clark 3rd September 2020 at 22:54

The only way forward for TRFC is to acknowledge the truth:

======

JC while browsing a link i found myself at Companies house, and while there took a look at TRFC accounts 2019, which is a bit of a puzzler as there are two companies listed claiming to be The old RFC.

Firstly: THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
Company number SC425159
Incorporated on 29 May 2012

Secondly: RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC
Company number SC437060
Incorporated on 16 November 2012

Both still claim in their yearly accounts strategic report to be Rangers Football club formed in Scotland 1872

So anyway a little intrigued and knowing my knowledge of company filings to be sadly neglected, I had a look at both, namely their yearly accounts.

TRFC Club limited shows
Year Ended 30th June 2019 Total Revenue 51.326
Year ended 30th June 2018 Total Revenue 31.618
Operating Loss 12.259

RIFC shows
Year Ended 30th June 2019 Total Revenue 53.171
Year Ended 30th June 2018 Total Revenue 32.163
Operating Loss 11.647

I doubt TRFC will ever acknowledge the truth when not one but two companies registered in 2012 can pretend to be the same entity, and more so appear to just willy nilly pluck figures from thin air.

regards
ff

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:03 am - Sep 14, 2020


JC 13 Sep. 20.27

“Aggresssive and ‘overzealous’ police officers can be disciplined”

It is my understanding that the DC at the forefront of arrests and investigations, including some unsavoury behaviour in a police station, was in fact Promoted!   Now a DCI I believe!

Lets see how his career pans out.

 

 

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:15 am - Sep 14, 2020


edit – He might have been DS not DC at the outset.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on11:48 am - Sep 14, 2020


Questions I think ought to be answered over the 'malicious prosecution' are;

1. What was malicious about it?

2. Did the PF's office prosecute while failing to meet their own standards for prosecution?

2. Did any police officers lie to the PF?

3. Was evidence fabricated?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:34 pm - Sep 14, 2020


Big Pink 14th September 2020 at 11:48

Questions I think ought to be answered over the 'malicious prosecution' are;

1. What was malicious about it?

2. Did the PF's office prosecute while failing to meet their own standards for prosecution?

2. Did any police officers lie to the PF?

3. Was evidence fabricated?

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

1. My understanding is that the fundamental problem was that the arrests and detention of the individuals involved proceeded without an evidential basis to support the charges. That points to a prosecution "without due cause"

2. In addition to the previous answer, a decision to proceed regardless, in the hope that something would turn up would make such a prosecution as being "with malice". It is clear that the PF's office failed to adhere to their own standards for prosecutions.

3. There are allegations that the Police may have misled the PF's office or other agencies, e.g. to obtain search warrants. That may become apparent in the separate action against Police Scotland.

4. I don't know about fabricating evidence, but there is strong evidence to suggest that the police acquired a large number of documents during their searches, over which legal privilege had been claimed

View Comment

scottcPosted on4:26 pm - Sep 14, 2020


fitbawfan 14th September 2020 at 00:07

John Clark 3rd September 2020 at 22:54

The only way forward for TRFC is to acknowledge the truth:

======

JC while browsing a link i found myself at Companies house, and while there took a look at TRFC accounts 2019, which is a bit of a puzzler as there are two companies listed claiming to be The old RFC.

Firstly: THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
Company number SC425159
Incorporated on 29 May 2012

Secondly: RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC
Company number SC437060
Incorporated on 16 November 2012

Both still claim in their yearly accounts strategic report to be Rangers Football club formed in Scotland 1872

So anyway a little intrigued and knowing my knowledge of company filings to be sadly neglected, I had a look at both, namely their yearly accounts.

TRFC Club limited shows
Year Ended 30th June 2019 Total Revenue 51.326
Year ended 30th June 2018 Total Revenue 31.618
Operating Loss 12.259

RIFC shows
Year Ended 30th June 2019 Total Revenue 53.171
Year Ended 30th June 2018 Total Revenue 32.163
Operating Loss 11.647

I doubt TRFC will ever acknowledge the truth when not one but two companies registered in 2012 can pretend to be the same entity, and more so appear to just willy nilly pluck figures from thin air.

regards
ff

 

There are, of course, two companies, FF. TRFC is the club, as is and has always been (at least since 2012), and RIFC is the holding company. The disparity in the accounts is because TRFCs accounts are rolled up into RIFC alongside any other income RIFC may have. Of course, they are both the original RFC subject to requirements at the time

 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on5:00 pm - Sep 14, 2020


I think it's the posts which are being sued not the people.

Both the Lord Advocate and the Chief Constable have changed since the relevant times if memory serves.

There may be individual (named) Police officers being sued as well, I haven't seen that. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on6:30 pm - Sep 14, 2020


Sportsound currently:

"a broken organisation" says Stewart, 'looks like an organisation that is corrupt'  I don't have faith in its decisions'…. no integrity

says Stewart Gilmour former chair of St Mirren. "If one or the other of the 'Old Firm' had no goalkeeper available would they have had to play?"

Imagine saying that the SPFL lacked Sporting Integrity!! Who woulda thunk such a thing?

 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on9:39 pm - Sep 14, 2020


"a broken organisation" says Stewart, 'looks like an organisation that is corrupt' I don't have faith in its decisions'….

no integrity says Stewart Gilmour former chair of St.Mirren…

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

Aye JC, but if Gilmour had used those exact, same 'brave' words back in 2012, about the SFA or SPL/SFL, 

then I'd eagerly listen to whatever he has to say today.  

…but he didn't so I won't!  indecision

View Comment

wottpiPosted on3:04 pm - Sep 15, 2020


Can anyone confirm if the following is correct?

Yesterday there were reports that Hearts were the only team outwith the Premiership who were regularly testing players and then they have now been given permission to play teams who do not have testing regimes.

Therefore when are the remainder of the SPFL teams supposed to start testing or is it now not required in the lower three tiers?

Given the announcement that three Hamilton youth players have tested positive, what chances of Covid circulating amongst part-time teams etc and not being detected until it is too late.

What does the 'P' in the SPFL stand for?

 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:04 pm - Sep 15, 2020


wottpi 15th September 2020 at 15:04

"What does the 'P' in the SPFL stand for?"

""""""""""""""""""""

How about : pernicious, perfidious, perverted, pusillanimous, penurious, perjured, pisspoor….broken heart

View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on7:33 am - Sep 16, 2020


SPFL, P………….Has to be the main man within it, Peter !

View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on7:38 am - Sep 16, 2020


I wonder if someone can come up with what these numbers refer to……….

332: Rangers

235: St.Johnstone

231: St.Mirren

200: Hamilton

197: Hearts

46: Dundee Utd

44: Motherwell

38: Kilmarnock

35: Ross County

35: Livingston

24: Hibs

17: Aberdeen

4: Celtic

 

Anyone ?

 

 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:42 am - Sep 16, 2020


reasonablechap 16th September 2020 at 07:38

'.what these numbers refer to…'

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Insufficient information, I'm afraid.

Which 'Rangers' is referred to?— Cove Rangers, Berwick Rangers, The Rangers FC of 2012, or the Liquidated Rangers Football Club  of 1872,sadly no longer participating in Scottish professional football?

 

 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:22 am - Sep 16, 2020


I see the 'Queen's Eleven' supporter, that man of truth and integrity, Murdo Fraser ,opened his mouth to speak about the 'malicious prosecution', writing in today's 'The Scotsman' that the Lord Advocate's admission 'should send shivers down the spine of anyone concerned about the integrity of the Scottish legal system'

Hypocritical of a politician who had nothing much to say about the lack of integrity of his 'Queen's Eleven' which cheated Scottish football for a decade or the lack of Integrity of the Scottish football authorities in their cringing readiness to create and sustain the sporting and commercial myth that a club founded in 2012 is that very same 'Queen's Eleven' that was founded in 1872.

Utterances by the likes of Fraser who clearly shares in belief in the Big absurd Lie send shivers down my spine.

Bad cess to him.

 

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on3:12 pm - Sep 16, 2020


EasyJambo
It seems then, that either the entire prosecutorial system has broken down, or there has been some commission between the police and crown to ‘get’ their men.
Allegedly.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on3:34 pm - Sep 16, 2020


It’ll be the same old, same old . Secret meeting with interested parties , decision on way forward taken , plan actioned regardless of collateral damage , any questions deemed to be underming attempts to catch the baddies , all supported by a compliant and equally corrupt SMSM . It’s how the establishment rolls . 

And on the Castore strip fiasco , weird to see all those supporters desperate to get their money into the new club , especially as they declined in 2012 and let the original club die .

View Comment

fitbawfanPosted on3:52 pm - Sep 16, 2020


reasonablechap 16th September 2020 at 07:38
I wonder if someone can come up with what these numbers refer to……….
332: Rangers
4: Celtic

====

At a rough guess the amount of penalties voted to be awarded to each team, during a masonic meeting by those fine whistlers with rolled up trouser legs while wearing an apron and sporting a rams head 🙂

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:25 pm - Sep 16, 2020


332: Rangers

4: Celtic

==========

Draft versions of the 2018/19 Annual Accounts.

 

For 2019/20, the number of draft versions are expected to be;

1690: Rangers

4: Celtic

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on4:48 pm - Sep 16, 2020


I wonder if someone can come up with what these numbers refer to……….
332: Rangers
4: Celtic
………….
Adverts for season tickets at the bottom of a puff piece in the SMSM in the last 4 years

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on4:51 pm - Sep 16, 2020


paddy malarkey 16th September 2020 at 15:34
And on the Castore strip fiasco , weird to see all those supporters desperate to get their money into the new club , especially as they declined in 2012 and let the original club die .
………….
How do the supporters get money into the club if most are asking for a refund as the replica kits are so bad;-)

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on5:14 pm - Sep 16, 2020


Big Pink 16th September 2020 at 15:12

'.It seems then, that either the entire prosecutorial system has broken down, or there has been some commission between the police and crown to ‘get’ their men.
Allegedly.'

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

The starting point, I believe, is the fact (?) that it was the Administrators themselves who alerted the Police to their suspicions,no doubt providing them with some documents that might have indicated why the Administrators were suspicious.

Following up, the Police presumably thought that somewhere in the  document chain there was mention of the connection between Whyte, Grier, MCR/the Administrators and D&P getting and keeping the gig, and something that suggested that there might have been some collusion in the matter of the financing of the purchase.

It's unlikely that the Crown Office would authorise continuance to prosecution if there was insufficient evidence.

They would hardly prosecute with the intention to fcuk the prosecution up deliberately! Easier and safer just not to prosecute, for lack of evidence..

Is it possible, is it likely, is it believable that the Police would have had a motive for falsifying evidence just to  try to get the people who 'killed 'Rangers' done for that 'crime', out of some kind of desire for revenge?

Or is it conceivable that the Police might deliberately have intended or been led to sabotage the prosecution  by insultingly provoking  a solicitor while seizing material that the solicitor had which was legally privileged, in order to achieve that end?

Clearly there was a major 'bol's-up, one way or the other. All charges against all accused dropped, prosecution abandoned. 

Accidental incompetence, or deliberate intent  to protect  other people of great influence not already charged?

Will we ever know, if settlements are made on a non-disclosure basis?

View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on6:11 pm - Sep 16, 2020


I wonder if someone can come up with what these numbers refer to……….

332: Rangers

235: St.Johnstone

231: St.Mirren

200: Hamilton

197: Hearts

46: Dundee Utd

44: Motherwell

38: Kilmarnock

35: Ross County

35: Livingston

24: Hibs

17: Aberdeen

4: Celtic

=======///============

Fitbawfan

At a rough guess the amount of penalties voted to be awarded to each team, during a masonic meeting by those fine whistlers with rolled up trouser legs while wearing an apron and sporting a rams head

=============%%%===

No, but it does have something to do with penalties.

It is the amount of days since each team were last awarded a penalty in the SPFL premiership.

 

Looks like old Karla (Moscow Central) couldnae lace Peter’s boots. The Celtic heid honcho must have been inserting double agents into the masonic lodges. 

 

 

 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on6:20 pm - Sep 16, 2020


I think the main positive thing we should take from this is that the Lord Advocate, Crown Office, The Chief Constable and Police Scotland are not above the law, or exempt from it.

It was Lord Carloway  Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General, Scotland's most senior Judge, who said that.

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2019/11/19/the-lord-advocate-of-scotland-is-not-immune-from-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-supreme-court-of-scotland-considers-relationship-of-scots-law-with-the-european-convention-on-human-rights-and-the-huma/

 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on6:24 pm - Sep 16, 2020


Will we ever know, if settlements are made on a non-disclosure basis?

=======

JC, on the face of it, it would appear that by admitting 'malicious prosecution' the Crown Office has admitted its liability: the monetary value of that liability is to be determined.

Any NDA would be a wholly separate matter – you would think?

The Crown Office is in no position to dictate what can/cannot be divulged about this collapsed criminal action(s).

All they can do is offer an NDA – for a price – to be added to the monetary liability.

Likewise, it would seem that the victim's could agree a monetary value – but politely decline any offer of an NDA.

I hope no NDA is accepted, so that;

– the taxpayer will not have to pay more

&

– information can be publicly shared, so that those responsible can be questioned further – and mibbees be forced to take some personal responsibility?

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on6:47 pm - Sep 16, 2020


It's funny what you can do with statistics. Or more importantly the ones you chose to quote

This is from June this year

RANGERS top the table when it comes to the frequency of penalties handed out in the Scottish Premiership according to a new data analysis.

According to the CIES Football Observatory, since the 2017-18 season, Gers have on average obtained a spot kick every 411 minutes – a total of 23 from 105 matches.

Rivals Celtic sit seventh in the table having earned 14 penalties from 106 games in this period, averaging one every 681 minutes – four and a half hours behind their Ibrox counterparts.

Hamilton and Kilmarnock sit just behind Rangers in second and third, being awarded penalties every 477 minutes and 502 minutes, respectively.

The table is based on the nine Premiership clubs who have taken part in all three campaigns since the study began in 2017.

Motherwell are cut adrift at the bottom of this table having only had 13 penalties in their 106 games – giving the Steelmen an average of 734 minutes for every spot kick awarded.

———————————————

 

 

 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:24 pm - Sep 16, 2020


Homunculus 16th September 2020 at 18:20

'…I think the main positive thing we should take from this is that the Lord Advocate, Crown Office, The Chief Constable and Police Scotland are not above the law, or exempt from it.'

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

The truth of that , of course, would be proved only if ( God forbid!) any of those  three office -holders broke the law and was indicted, charged , tried and found guilty!

Bear in mind that we are now living in a (UK) society where a buffoon of a Prime Minister has publicly declared that he will  be happy to break the law! broken heart

(credit t o Advocate General for Scotland  Richard Keen for resigning his office rather than accommodate the buffoon)

View Comment

Comments are closed.