Harper Macleod and LNS


Oddjob says: November 14, 2014 at 10:00 pm ‘If they were detained …

Comment on Harper Macleod and LNS by John Clark.

oddjob says:
November 14, 2014 at 10:00 pm
‘If they were detained under Scots Law, and then arrested, I believe that they will now be charged..’
I was prompted by mungobhoy’s summary to have a look at the progress of the Criminal Justice( Scotland)Bill ( a result of Lord Carloway’s Review). The minutes of the Parliamentary Committee ( 4th Feb 2014) make interesting reading on the subject of doing away with the distinction between ‘detention’ and ‘arrest'( which distinction is apparently unique to Scotland).
And I am much taken by and, frankly, surprised at, the way that the parliamentarians in committee really do get right into the serious business of questioning ‘witnesses’ and the recommendations made by Lord Carloway. I get the impression that our MSPs, like the rest of us, are aware that they too might one day get their collars felt, and don’t want the Law to give too much power to the constables to bang people up on spec!
The Bill has a long, unspecified way to go, and meantime, as you say, there is ‘detention’ and ‘arrest’ as too different things.

John Clark Also Commented

Harper Macleod and LNS
I am genuinely intrigued in the question of what would happen if the sale of a company was declared fraudulent, after its assets had been further sold on to a new entity.
So, household duties variously attended to, lunch taken, and Stuart and Tam just signing off, I have sent this email to the email address of the Financial Times newsdesk:

“Are you having a wee look at the story that broke yesterday, about the arrest of Paul Clark and David Whitehouse ( of Duff and Phelps),and the issue of a warrant for the arrest of Craig Whyte, in connection with the sale to Craig Whyte by Sir David Murray of the then Rangers Football Club in 2011?
My interest is in understanding what would be the effects on current shareholders in Rangers International FC plc if, and it may be a very big IF, it were to be proved that the sale of the club to Whyte had been based on a huge fraud, and had to be declared null and void by the Courts?
Would this put them in the category of purchasers of, in effect, stolen property (albeit in perfect good faith), which still in law belongs to Sir David Murray and the pre-sale shareholders ?
Is there any actual precedent of a company having been fraudulently purchased, run into administration and liquidation, its assets sold to fraudsters , who set up a new company, go public, raise millions from institutional investors ?
How would such a mess be sorted out? On the face of it, and presumably, the ‘goods'(the assets as they were immediately before the sale) would have to be returned to the pre-sale owners as legally belonging to them. But this would mean that every investor in the ‘fraudulent’ new club would lose all their investment!
Has this ever happened?
Looks like a good story, and the major shareholders in RIFC plc must surely be worried? Have they been contacted?

Yours in intense curiosity

Harper Macleod and LNS
mungoboy says:
November 14, 2014 at 10:32 pm
‘..(Cheers Theresa).’
Aw, mungobhoy, there’s a limit! 😀

Harper Macleod and LNS
Bryce Curdy says:
November 14, 2014 at 9:14 pm
‘.. Assuming some sort of illegality is confirmed, what are the likely implications? .’
I have tried to find any kind of precedent where a company has been fraudulently purchased and then sold on.Haven’t found any so far.

But it’s absolutely mind-boggling to contemplate the possibilities.
RFC would still belong to SDM.
The Administration/Liquidation nullified, and the ‘status quo ante’ before the ‘sale’ restored.
Creditors and debenture holders of RFC piling in to get some kind of payment.
Fresh Administration with no hint of jiggery-pokery,
A failed CVA, genuine liquidation ( no private selling-off of the assets), but with no possibility of any kind of buyer prepared to risk the big tax case.
Spiv ,and also, of course, the honest, shareholders of RIFC plc absolutely stuffed, with their ‘shares’ totally worthless.
MA a ‘victim’, having to go after individual spiv directors to get his loan and other monies back.

Could our legal and commercial and Sporting systems handle that kind of mess?
It would probably require a special Act of Parliament to re-write whatever the legislation might currently say about contracts and company law, so as to allow a crime to be overlooked because not to do so would pose impossibly conflicting claims on rules of equity and justice etc etc.
Any commercial lawyers on here to give us a steer?

Recent Comments by John Clark

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

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

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

Football as a glue of ‘community’

Of community trust,

of basic honesty,

of the  Corinthian spirit,

of sporting integrity….

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

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

in this little country of ours.

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

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

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

I have only the haziest understanding of that concept.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a decently worked out rationale for the concept?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who knows?

About the author