Harper Macleod and LNS

By

Smugas says: November 15, 2014 at 10:14 am I think I see …

Comment on Harper Macleod and LNS by ecobhoy.

Smugas says:
November 15, 2014 at 10:14 am

I think I see the point you’re making. The knicking of Grier and Whithey for the 2011 transaction order and clark and whitehouse for, well as yet unknown, may not actually be connected or need to be. It’s just to get them in four cells in a corridor in the full knowledge big bubba is in the fifth.

This assumes of course that the four haven’t been caught red handed having a wee pre admin meeting in 2011 as to be fair the original D&P release stated they had.
=================================================
I’m afraid at this stage it’s all supposition and personally I’ll be very careful about commenting on detail as I have no wish to make internet legal history by becoming a test case on the operation of the sub judice rules.

This is a whole different world from commenting on civil procedures. It’s serious and I wouldn’t knowingly do anything to harm an accused’s right to a fair trial.

In the old days when newspapers used to have actual journalists and plenty of them it was common to use a reporter – who had not previously been involved in reporting on the alleged crimes – to report on the actual court proceedings.

This reduced the risk of the reporter ‘importing’ information which hadn’t been disclosed to the jury or the court into his report. It’s really easily done as there’s a lot of pressure on a court reporter no matter how skilled and professional they are.

I don’t actually know if any are left these days and court coverage is left to freelance agencies to provide and they only cover the bits that they know will earn them cash. So they pop in and out when they get the nod. They don’t have the luxury of sitting-in covering one trial all day.

The problem about the agency way of working is that important and critical things can be totally unreported and what is reported ends-up favouring one side or the other. Not by design I’m sure but that’s what can happen.

However – I have to say that there are more than enough Big Bubbas in the system to allocate 1 per cell. Are you listening ‘tiny’ ❓

I was also quite surprised to see the elevel of detail released by the media last night as to the charges allegedly faced by those arrested.

It struck me as very strange indeed and wonder what lies behind the move. Of course it may be as a consequence of the cross-border arrangements.

At the end of the day I think it’s fair to assume that these are ‘holding’ charges which move the process along a bit and let lawyers speak with their clients about the best way of extricating themselves from this very unfortunate state of affairs that they find themselves in.

I make no assumption of guilt or innocence wrt any of those involved in what is primarily the mincing machine of the criminal justice system which simply grinds along no matter whether it’s lamb or gristle that’s fed-in.

ecobhoy Also Commented

Harper Macleod and LNS
South0fThe Border says:
November 15, 2014 at 1:36 pm
ecobhoy says: November 15, 2014 at 11:02 am:

In the old days when newspapers used to have actual journalists and plenty of them it was common to use a reporter – who had not previously been involved in reporting on the alleged crimes – to report on the actual court proceedings.
____________________________________

As long as they don’t use journalists from the sports department unfamiliar with court protocol. In Harry Redknapp’s tax evasion trial, a reporter not only named a potential juror undergoing the selection process (he had a name identical to a well-known footballer) but also reported on evidence given by a witness when the jury had been sent out!
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/48623
==============================================
Back in the day football journos – except for a very few exceptions – were failed news reporters and would never be allowed anywhere near a court.

They also tended to have no shorthand and as they made-up stories out of thin air they tended to be something of a liability covering a court-room 😆

But at least they knew their limitations and kept well away. Now they are experts in law, finance, feudal tenure, geology, economics, insolvency, AIM regulation, complex business issues, overseas tax shelters, bus company operations, EC State Aid regulations and international extradition procedures. They still know nothing about football right enuff

Some things never change 😆


Harper Macleod and LNS
Bryce Curdy says:
November 15, 2014 at 1:43 pm

ecobhoy 1:17 pm

A question I have had in my head for some time, namely how can such a complex chain of events be unravelled?
========================================================
I have no idea whether what has recently unfolded forms part of a complex chain of events or something easily exposed and understood once the necessary evidence is assembled.

Hopefully we will have the answer to your question once the unravelling is completed.

I have learnt in life not to jump to final conclusions too hurriedly before most of the jigsaw is in place as that’s a sure recipe for making mistakes and often BIG surprises.


Harper Macleod and LNS
With the repeated ‘shocks’ being inflicted on McCoist the electrical wiring insulation at Ibrox must be deteriorating at warp speed.

Or perhaps the rusting steelwork isn’t providing a strong enough earthing bond to keep the manager ‘grounded’.


Recent Comments by ecobhoy

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
jimmci says:
April 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm

And why did we not get the panel’s reasoning together with the decision last night?
———————————————-

Simples ❗ The Decision was the easy bit 😆 The explanation to sell it was the hard bit and despite a nightshift they appear to have fluffed their lines AGAIN 🙄


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Allyjambo says:
April 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm

Might I suggest that SD’s main interest in this meeting was to put the RIFC board straight on some matters regarding the security over the IP and just how watertight it is, rather than to discuss funding or any ‘amicable’ discussion how best to move the club forward!
———————————————————-
You might be right but would SD want the club suffering another Insolvency Event? Perhaps they were asking for the second loan tranche of £5 million which the new board apparently rejected on taking control.

I have undernoted a reply I made to parttimearab last night which may have been missed but may also be relevant.

3. Insolvency events

(i) The inability of the Company to pay its debts as they fall due within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”);
(ii) The issue of an application for an administration order or a notice of intention to appoint an administrator in relation to the Company;
(iii) The passing of a resolution or order for the Company’s winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation;
(iv) The declaration of a moratorium in relation to any of the Company’s indebtedness;
(v) The making of any arrangement or any proposal for any arrangement with any of the Company’s creditors; and
(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

Now I haven’t a clue whether that has anything to do with the SPFL Rule Change. But it’s clear that there could be various stages in an Insolvency Event and perhaps the rule change is to cover all eventualities which might not have been previously defined in the Rule Book.

In particular I look at:

(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

And I think of the various charges which have been placed on Rangers assets wrt the £5 million loan. I have previously posted that the contracts wrt a Default Event could see the assets pass to SportsDirect without any court hearing and SD also already has the power to appoint a Receiver to deal with any of the assets that pass to it via a loan default event.

Now that might not ultimately lead to a full-blown Insolvency depending on what SD actually decide to do with Rangers. But looking at the above I wonder whether with the SPFL rule change that just taking control of the assets is enough to be classed as an Insolvency Event under SPFL Rules?

Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead ?

But does the rule take effect immediately or from the new season?

It seems that if it is immediate and Rangers suffers an Insolvency Event then that would be an automatic 25 points this season and 15 next season. Assuming it is able to survive death a second time.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am
________________________________________________

From what I saw, all criticisms emanating from ICTFC was directed towards the SFA machinery and not towards CFC. Similarly, I have seen no evidence of any criticism of ICTFC being put forward by CFC. I see that fact as quite telling.

Celtic were quite entitled to make all the statements they made and had the boot been on the other foot, in the circumstances I am sure KC at ICTFC would have done likewise.

Similarly, had the situtaions been reversed w.r.t. the foul, I would have expected CFC to back their player robsutly in the same way that ICTFC did.

This is about governance of the sport, not internecine disagreements between member clubs – for which I am yet to see any cause advanced from either party.
——————————————-
Couldn’t agree more!


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

My view is that Celtic played this one wrong (only in the public nature of it)and it was easy for media outlets to infer cause and effect in the Celtic/Compliance Officer actions.
———————————————–
There is some merit in your view IMO. However there’s a balancing act to be achieved which requires an answer to what the officials saw, didn’t see, or decided or didn’t decide on Sunday.

All I heard in the ground, leaving the ground, on the train, in the pub, was real anger and disbelief at the decision which worsened with the TV replays.

I do think Celtic fans were due an explanation and tbf to Celtic I doubt if they could have forseen what an absolute hash the SFA would make of it. Obviously the SMSM has ridden to the rescue of the SFA so what’s new about that?

But we’re still awaiting the answers requested. Will we get them? Not without keeping the pressure on the SFA on all fronts where Hampden’s dark secrets exist.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Gabby says:
April 24, 2015 at 10:18 am

If Celtic really, really felt they needed to send a letter, then this is the type of thing they should have sent…
———————————————
I disagree as the letter you suggest goes way beyond the immediate point which is simply: ‘Please explain how the decision was arrived at’. I say decision because when Celic sent the letter it seemed there had been no decision reached but that the incident had been ‘missed’ by all officials.

Once the SFA provide that info then Celtic can make a decision as to if and how it should proceed with the matter.

My credo in a situation like this is not to give any leeway to a slippery character or room for manoeuvre. Ask the straight simple question and take it from there once the basic position is established.

Never jump fences too soon and never ever jump fences you don’t need to especially if you don’t know what lies in wait on the other side.


About the author