A guest blog by former Celtic & Scotland defender, Jim Craig
“What time is this to come back?”
Dolores McCann (her Mother had been a great fan of foreign films) stood in that classic pose of the wounded woman – up to her full height and chin forward – as she glared at her husband who had just come in the front door. Before he could say a word, she gave him another volley;
“you left the house at half-past-two for a three o’clock kick-off, it only takes you 20 minutes to get to the ground, a match lasts only one-and-a-half hours plus ten minutes for the break and you’ve just walked back in the door at half-past-seven! So where the hell were you?”.
Wayne McCann (his father liked Westerns) tried to calm her down.
“Dolores, you don’t know what it’s like at football matches nowadays ; it has changed out of all recognition; a match goes on for much longer”.
“In what way?” Dolores asked.
“Well, for a start, the players and even the managers can complain about any decision that is given against them. If that happens, the referee then goes and has a word with firstly, the two assistant referees, then the fourth official and gets their comments before he reflects on the situation. If he is still in any doubt that he made the wrong decision then he can ask the guy upstairs sitting in front of a television screen what he thinks. And, of course, all through this, the managers and players of both teams can chip in with their comments. That all adds a fair bit of time to the match”.
“Aye…but turning up at half-past-seven is still a bit over the top…is it no’?”
“Well, no’ really……you see, nowadays you are not allowed to have a drawn game, so if the match is level at the full-time whistle, there is extra time, which takes a minimum of half-an-hour”.
“The time is still no’ matching up!”
“Aye, mibbe so, if that was the end of the match. But if the match is still level at the end of extra-time, then it goes to a penalty shoot-out. I told you…you are not allowed a drawn game”.
“ A penalty shoot-out disnae take long”.
“That might have been the case at one time but because so many keepers were being accused of moving before the ball was kicked, nowadays they are strapped in to a harness which anchors them in the middle of the goal. They can only move when the foot of the guy who is taking the penalty actually touches the ball. So, after each kick, the keeper has to be put back into the harness and it all starts again. And, of course, you get the complaints from the managers and players that the harness wasnae working properly or that the officials who put the harness on didnae put it on right. That all adds up to the time factor”.
“Did you go to the pub?”
“As God is my judge, Dolores, after the match finished, I came straight here”.
“Who won anyway?”
“That’s a difficult question… there was so much noise and kerfuffle both on the pitch and in the stands, nobody was quite sure what the final score was. And the guy who usually does the announcing had gone home. Somebody said that he had a date. Anyway, if you let me turn on the radio, I’ll hear the score there. And Dolores?”
“Yes”
Wayne walked over to the drinks cabinet and took out a couple of glasses. “I don’t suppose you would fancy a wee drink”
We will leave the smooth-talking Wayne to his attempts to mollify Dolores and reflect on the situation. What you have just read is probably the ultimate scenario for those who wish to tamper with the current rules of football. Do I think that the game needs radical changes like that? No but I do think that some change is necessary and in one specific circumstance.
Now, I was a professional footballer for 9 years and in all that time, I can put my hand on my heart and state with complete conviction that I never pulled any other player’s jersey. Did I try to half him in two with a tackle, yes! But no jersey-pulling. And, of course, I was penalised for the challenge.
Today, though, I feel that there is a lot of body-checking and jersey-pulling going on in every match. Very often the referee lets it go and then you get the ridiculous scenario at a corner kick when all those waiting for the ball to come in are pulling and pushing, with the referee watching it and ignoring it. It is a foul, ref!
When the referee decides that an offence has been committed, then the player will be spoken to first. If he does it again, he will be given a yellow-card. The problem is, though, that the offence might possibly have affected the play in the match, whereas the yellow card does not affect the player’s participation.
If the player is daft enough to do it again, then of course he gets another yellow and will be off. Most, however, are sensible and keep the head, so they go unpunished as far as the current match is concerned. What we have to find is a punishment that affects the match in which the transgression occurred. Which means that we have to consider the sin bin.
This works very well in rugby and gives the referee a means to punish an offence a little more harshly – yet more efficiently – than a yellow card but without having to go for the ultimate, drastic – and for many unpalatable – option of the red card. I hope it comes in soon.
“Never mind the beast from the east.
Dave King AKA The Mouth from the South is meant to be in court today re the Cold Shoulder.
How Ironic!”
(BroganRogan…)
HomunculusFebruary 28, 2018 at 11:19
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 11:09Sorry, I was always of the impression that the rules were the same at all levels, and that football had nothing to do with any other sports, regardless of how these other sports view technology, especially when those other sports constantly stop playing and allow the use of technology to support decisions without interrupting the flow of the game (although many commentators on these sports have complained at the delays taken to make video decisions).===========================Specifically with regards technology, how does having it make the rules any different.Of course the rules are the same at all levels, using technology to give the referee assistance in enforcing them doesn’t actually change the rules. Also, how is using a sin bin “draconian”, it’s anything but.
_________________
Introducing a change to the rules that needs technology to be administered correctly, makes the rules different between the haves, and the have nots.
Whenever a player is sent to the sin bin, instead of receiving a yellow card, the effect of the penalty will be much, much greater, hence my use of ‘draconian’. Regardless, though, of what word I use to describe it, the punishment would increase infinitely from a wise player having to tone down his tackles (but somehow the unwise fail to get the message), or a wise manager substituting him before he gets a second yellow, to a punishment for the whole team of losing a player for 5 or 10 minutes, and in many cases at the whim of the very referees we so distrust already. I just don’t get the idea that giving more scope to referees to spoil the game than they already have, is a good idea.
The only situation I could see where a sin bin would improve the game would be where a player gets two yellows, both for non-contact offences, such as kicking the ball away or running to the crowd after scoring. I have always found a player getting sent off for two such minor offences is ridiculous, and less deserving than a player who gets a single booking for a possible ‘leg-breaker’. In that scenario we wouldn’t be creating a ‘game changer’, nor changing the rules by saying this offence merits a sin bin, but this one doesn’t, rather making the punishment more ‘fit the crime’. Indeed, if we are going to use the success of the rugby sin bin as a reason for introducing it to football, we should first look at how it’s used in rugby, and basically, it appears to me, it’s used to penalise foul play that falls somewhere between ‘naughty’ and a sending off. It is there to discourage ‘foul play’ developing into something far more serious, rather than the kind of action that currently earns a yellow card in football (if the referee is refereeing impartially).
ALLYJAMBO
FEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 12:25
_________________
Introducing a change to the rules that needs technology to be administered correctly, makes the rules different between the haves, and the have nots.
=================================
Why would the introduction of a sin bin require new technology.
Should we also not use goal line technology to confirm if a ball has crossed the line because it’s not available everywhere. The rules are still the same.
JIMBO
FEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 12:24
================================
Given the way Courts work it is potentially going to be weeks or months before they set a new date if it doesn’t go ahead today, which I assume it isn’t going to.
Jingso.JimsieFebruary 28, 2018 at 11:31
Re sin-binning: is the premise that certain cautionable offences be punished by a temporary removal, or that all cautionable offences be punished in this manner?I’m not in favour of either. I’ve seen too many matches where the ref gets card-happy, or a team loses the plot for a time & multiple cautions are imposed in a short period of the match. It would also encourage ‘simulation’ in all areas of the pitch.Re jersey-pulling: again, the Laws have the solution to this problem. Tell the referee to apply the Laws & tell the players that the referee is going to apply the Laws. Realise that ‘letting the game flow’ & ‘game management’ will suffer in the short term. Realise that players will get pinged wrongly until the problem lessens & players get it into their heads that pulling at an opponent, whether initiating or retaliating, isn’t to the benefit of their team.There’s been a few mentions of rugby union. They recognised an issue with a certain type of ‘clearing out’ at rucks, called a neck-roll. It was commonplace in every game, at every level. The referees & players were told it had to stop & it was initially refereed out of the game until players recognised that doing it was damaging to their team & they stopped doing it.
_________________________
Indeed, and in a sport where head injuries pose such a serious problem, we have to ask why that ‘tackle’ on Saturday only merited a 10 minute sin bin, instead of a sending off, before we compare the merits of rugby penalties for foul play to that of football. Like most of us, I’d imagine, I was unaware of the rule that outlaws that shoulder charge type of ‘tackle’, but on replay I could see how serious an injury could be if the offender’s shoulder makes contact will his opponent’s head, not to mention the possibility of damaging his own shoulder.
From memory, there was a time when rugby folk used to crow about how few rugby players ever got sent off (I’m sure that at one time, no home internationalist had ever been sent off in a game), but since the improvements in TV coverage, that has had to change, because people have become more aware of just how much violence, a lot of it deliberate, was being allowed to go unpunished in all sorts of stramashes!
Just need to wait until the summer for the big transfer news.
Daily Record SportVerified account @Record_Sport
Alfredo Morelos stays at Rangers as Beijing Renhe sign striker from Mongolia http://dlyr.ec/4iEYXK
HomunculusFebruary 28, 2018 at 12:39
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 12:25_________________Introducing a change to the rules that needs technology to be administered correctly, makes the rules different between the haves, and the have nots.=================================Why would the introduction of a sin bin require new technology.Should we also not use goal line technology to confirm if a ball has crossed the line because it’s not available everywhere. The rules are still the same.
_________________
When I’d earlier spoke of technology, or video evidence, it was in relation to the idea, as seemed to be what Jim Craig was referring to, of using the sin bin to stop jersey pulling and blocking. As the rules exists to stop it already, but it continues because the referees, presumably, can’t see it, then introducing this video evidence would be necessary. So far no one has made any suggestion as to what other type of offence Jim Craig might like to see punished by sin binning, so that is what I concentrated on.
So far a number of people have said yes, sin bins would be a great idea, but no one has given any indication of how they would work or improve the game, just that it works in rugby, so it must be great for football.
Can you tell me how it would work in football, what offences would be covered by it, and how we could ensure the referees use it fairly (maybe I should have said correctly) – without the use of video evidence?
The Daily Record is very half hearted in reporting that Morelos is staying put. Yes they mention that The Rangers knocked back three approaches but omit the much vaunted £20m price tag.
They also fail to mention that the two players the Beijing side did sign were for less than £250k !!!
£20m – £250k. I smell something fishy going on here.
Maybe they are going to build a hotel outside the ground instead. Clever chaps.
Does anyone know if the weather has caused a problem with the King appeal today, maybe causing the courts to close? I’ve not heard anything, but wonder if problems might exist at the court, itself, or if King might find a ready excuse to ask for a postponement due to ‘travel difficulties’. I know James Doleman has been unable to attend, so we won’t get an update from him, though, hopefully JC and/or EJ will let us know what’s happening.
Good guys, them two
as is JD.
Just noticed I’ve only got 66 posts until I reach my two thousandth!. How time flies when you are enjoying yourself!
(that’s 65 now)
ALLYJAMBO FEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 13:29
===================
Don’t worry, JC and I are both here. I’ve been keeping Big Pink informed of progress. We should be finished this afternoon .
Sin Bins
Plenty of examples of when they could be used in this article from 2015.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/jan/14/breaking-the-law-sin-bin-football
There are pros and cons but the only way to see if they work, to the betterment of the game, is to try it. If it is not really suited to football then no harm done and we all go back to arguing the same-old same-old.
AllyjamboFebruary 28, 2018 at 13:29
1
0 Rate This
Does anyone know if the weather has caused a problem with the King appeal today, maybe causing the courts to close? I’ve not heard anything, but wonder if problems might exist at the court, itself, or if King might find a ready excuse to ask for a postponement due to ‘travel difficulties’. I know James Doleman has been unable to attend, so we won’t get an update from him, though, hopefully JC and/or EJ will let us know what’s happening.
Good guys, them two as is JD.
—————————
Funnily enough,someone from something called The SFMonitor has posted a couple of tweets.
Here they are:
SFM @TheSFMonitor17m17 minutes ago
Lord Davidson arguing for Dave King. Lords Carloway, Glennie & Drummond-Young hearing appeal.—————
SFM @TheSFMonitor16m16 minutes ago
Davidson’s pitch basically is that the Bannatyne went too far, too fast in making decision. Should have asked for more info on NOAL and King’s finances.
—————
SFM @TheSFMonitor13s14 seconds ago
David Johnston QC for ToP arguing along the lines of Lord Bannatyne in the CoS. Lord Glennie demonstrating a firm grasp of matters. Adjourned until 2pm.
King appeal is going ahead – and EJ is in attendance. No doubt we will get some detail later in the day. Court is currently adjourned until 2pm, but the broad outline of what happened is as follows;
Lord Davidson arguing for Dave King. Lords Carloway, Glennie & Drummond-Young hearing appeal.
Lord Davidson’s argument is along the lines that Lord Bannatyne went too far, too fast in his CoS judgement. He says Lord Bannatyne should have asked for more info on NOAL and King’s finances in general, and taken those facts into consideraton when making his judgement.
in rebuttal, David Johnston QC for ToP argued in accordance with reasons given by Lord Bannatyne in the CoS.
In summary, Lord Glennie demonstrating a better grasp of the issues than Lord Davidson and Johnston.
easyJamboFebruary 28, 2018 at 13:36
ALLYJAMBO FEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 13:29===================Don’t worry, JC and I are both here. I’ve been keeping Big Pink informed of progress. We should be finished this afternoon .
______________________
Good lads. I take it the case is going ahead
Looking forward to your reports, and I hope you both get home safely from your court duties. From what I can gather here in freezing, snowy Derbyshire, that Scotland is having it much worse, as always, but that a Red Alert has also been issued. I hope everyone is safe and warm, and that includes you, Jimbo. Get yourself cosy and don’t be going out unless you really need to
Allyjambo
February 28, 2018 at 09:42
“I’d imagine that the address in Govan that houses RIFC/TRFC is well flagged up at HMRC”
———————————————————————————-
There is a room in Somerset House Strand London, WC2 where, whenever RIFC /TRFC is in the news, see above.
ALLYJAMBO
FEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 12:57
==========================
It’s not like you to mis-represent what people are saying so I think I can reasonably assume people are talking at cross purposes.
I simply think that using the sin bin would be another option and act as a proper deterrent to foul play. There are occasions where the referee might not want to send a player off, for example if he already has a yellow and it is a fairly minor second offence but he wants to penalise him and his team. I also think it more effectively punishes the player / team and gives any advantage to their opponents, as it should.
Below is my first post in the thread, I’m not sure what more you want from me. If you simply disagree then cool. I absolutely respect your opinion and take your points. As I said in a subsequent post, I simply think the positives outweigh the negatives.
=================================================
I like the idea of a sin bin.
As Jim says that way the punishment is received in the game which the offence is committed.
I find it a tad ludicrous that a player can commit fouls in one game but end up missing an entirely different game. In fact it could end up that he misses a game against an opponent who is actually in competition with the team who were the opposition when the player committed the foul.
I like the idea that the player and team are punished and the opposition gain an advantage. It seems to work well in rugby. Where the players tend to just accept it, certainly in my limited experience. Though to be fair the general attitude towards the referee, and how they work with the players seems to be a totally different dynamic.
I’d go further, excessive dissent at the sin bin decision, it’s 15 minutes now, do you want to keep talking.
=====================================================
King’s appeal rejected. King or NOAL can make offer for shares. more detail soon
Update:
SFM @TheSFMonitor 1m1 minute ago
King’s appeal rejected. King or NOAL can make offer for shares. more detail soon
Apologies.Just seen post above.
Do they (he) not have to make an offer on the shares?
ALLYJAMBO
FEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 12:57
When I’d earlier spoke of technology, or video evidence, it was in relation to the idea, as seemed to be what Jim Craig was referring to, of using the sin bin to stop jersey pulling and blocking. As the rules exists to stop it already, but it continues because the referees, presumably, can’t see it, then introducing this video evidence would be necessary.
————————————
If an official (referee/assistant referee) is unable to see and then adjudicate on the jersey-pulling & wrestling that goes on in all parts of the pitch, then, quite simply, that person is unfit to be a official.
The ‘six of one, half a dozen of the other’ argument simply doesn’t wash, either. It is unlikely that two players both start tugging away at each other’s shirts/shorts/arms at the exact same moment. It is up to the merry whistler to decide which player initiates the illegal contact.
The process for the referee should be exactly the same as deciding which player is responsible for the last touch when the ball goes out of play for a corner, goal-kick or throw-in.
We demand correct, split-second decisions on offside from officials who apparently can’t or won’t see a player holding onto/pulling another player’s shirt. Why do we expect one & not the other?
THOMTHETHIMFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 14:17
0
0 Rate This
Do they (he) not have to make an offer on the shares?
My interpretation was that either King or Noal CAN make the offer but at least one of them MUST.
Happy to be corrected, but if this is the case then we’re in for some jolly times.
For clarity, Dave King’s appeal has been rejected. Lord Glennie’s judgement includes a provision that NOAL or Dave King may make the offer – but the offer MUST be made. Written judgement to follow.
Also, Dave King allegedly emailed RIFC board this morning to inform them that NOAL would make the offer in event of failure of appeal.
I suspect the clock is ticking from now on compliance.
So 30 days?. to comply.
I thought King couldn’t make the offer as he informed the court that he’s skint.Also,did he not also inform the court that he had no control over NOAL?.
I can only assume the good folk at NOAL have told Dave not to worry.They’ll happily pony up the readies.
Yes! Some justice at last.
TRISIDIUMFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 14:10
Does “can” mean “must” on this occasion ?
TRISIDIUM
FEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 14:23
===============================
Genius
“I don’t own the shares it is NOAL, so they are in the concert party”.
“Fine, either you or they can make the offer then”.
“D’Oh”.
Knowing King,he’ll have some plan lined up.I’m sure he doesn’t want to part with around £11m to buy shares,especially in a business that’s on its uppers & now has a fair proportion of its assets tied up as security for a wonga type loan.
Only speculation on my part but I think some of the larger shareholders might see 20p in the hand as a reasonable get out.King would be left with a worthless business saddled with unaffordable costs,high debt & its assets in hock.He knows this.The only thing holding all this together is emotion.If Park,Letham etc decide enough is enough & are willing to cut their losses,they could walk away & leave King stranded.
I know it’s been asked before but if RIFC/TRFC goes into administration or is liquidated,does this get King off the hook.
As an aside.Club 1872 should not put one more penny into this until the mess is sorted,one way or another.
TORREJOHNBHOYFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 14:30
So 30 days?. to comply.
I thought King couldn’t make the offer as he informed the court that he’s skint.Also,did he not also inform the court that he had no control over NOAL?.
————
Are you suggesting king has lied in court to a judge.Wonder what that judge is thinking right now?
judges don’t like being lied to.
Looks like the TOP can was being kicked down the road but has now reached a cul-de-sac.
Agree with TORREJOHNBHOY that DCK will most likely have another trick up his sleeve, however hard to see what it will be at this stage.
Anyone with any sense should be looking forward to cashing in at 20p per share.
It will be the emotional ties that make the RRM stay and try to fight against the inevitable tide of problems due to their football club still living outwith it means.
One for the good guys today.
TORREJOHNBHOYFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 14:47
7
0 Rate This
Knowing King,he’ll have some plan lined up.
————
£11 mill for a striker that no one has heard of that some chinese super league club was desperate to get.
Maybe the plan was some known English club would put in a bid and that was the club the unknown striker always wanted to play for,the bid may have not been £11 mill but the ibrox club could not stand in his way and block any such move.
TORREJOHNBHOY
FEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 09:40
As expected,tonights fixtures are cancelled due to weather.
Glasgow Airport is also closed.I assume this means Mr Morelos won’t make it to China to complete his £20m move before the Chinese Transfer window shuts.
=============================
Last I heard the price was now up to £25m…and a new set of tyres for the St.Etienne bike!
AJ: re: Close Leasing crisis loan & possibly being used to cover HMRC payments.
I think that sounds ‘absolutely’ plausible.
King: losing his appeal.
I bet that will wipe the smile off his coupon…erm,
The final round of the TOP process?
Lords Carloway, Glennie and Drummond-Young heard the appeal.
King was represented as before by Lord Davidson QC and TOP by David Johnston QC.
LD set out six points he wished to raise with the Court as his grounds for appeal.
1, That the Court had discretion to do what they wanted rather than just seek compliance
2. The impecunious position of King
3. The reliance of the Lord Ordinary (Bannatyne) on it being in the public interest.
4. That Lord Banatyne went to far and too fast in coming to his conclusion based on the information available to him and that other avenues were open to him.
5. Enforcement served no practical purpose if the individual was unable to comply.
6. That the enforcement action should be dismissed (although he had a fallback position of asking that the matter be referred back to the Lord Ordinary for further proofs)
The above entailed highlighting the same arguments that he placed in front of Lord Bannatyne. He sought to obfuscate matters arguing on the basis of the meaning of words, e.g. “causing” NOAL to do something wasn’t the same as having “control” of NOAL. He even described his own submissions as “excessively linguistic”
Lord Glennie in particular was quick to interject on a number of points, not least that there was no challenge made to the TOP and TAB findings themselves, only Lord Bannatyne’s decision.
In response David Johnston’s arguments were basically a reiteration of Lord Banantyne’s decision. He accepted a suggestion from Lord Carloway that the interlocutor should be amended to allow King or NOAL to make the offer, if the Court was so minded. His submissions lasted little more than half an hour.
Proceedings ended just after lunch, but not before Lord Davidson revealed that King had sent an email to the RIFC Board at 10:15 this morning to advise them that NOAL would make the share purchase offer if the decision went against him.
Lord Glennie immediately responded that such an offer would suggest that the impecunious argument was wrong.
TOP’s Counsel had nothing to add, so the three Lords entered a huddle for 30 seconds, before announcing the the reclaiming motion (appeal) was rejected and the interlocutor(as amended) would stand.
EASYJAMBOFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 15:43
————
Thanks. And i hope you got home safe and sound
Cluster One February 28, 2018 at 15:59
EASYJAMBOFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 15:43
———————-
Thanks. And i hope you got home safe and sound
===============
I did although it was slow going.
I should have added …..
There was a little humour in Court when Lord Drummond Young was asking about where King’s various trusts were based, i.e. Guernsey, Gibraltar and the BVI.
Lord Davidson joked “all the popular locations”.
Apart from a bit of time, what has DCK gained from this appeal ?
King had sent an email to the RIFC Board at 10:15 this morning to advise them that NOAL would make the share purchase offer if the decision went against him.
————–
Would NOAL have a board or shareholders that have agreed with this? And would it then be posted on their web site or an official statement?(£11 mill to come up with from any company should have a statement)
It has already been stated that if you don’t have records or documents 0r anything to back up what king say’s,then don’t believe a word that comes out his mouth
JINGSO.JIMSIEFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 14:18
ALLYJAMBO
FEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 12:57
When I’d earlier spoke of technology, or video evidence, it was in relation to the idea, as seemed to be what Jim Craig was referring to, of using the sin bin to stop jersey pulling and blocking. As the rules exists to stop it already, but it continues because the referees, presumably, can’t see it, then introducing this video evidence would be necessary.————————————
If an official (referee/assistant referee) is unable to see and then adjudicate on the jersey-pulling & wrestling that goes on in all parts of the pitch, then, quite simply, that person is unfit to be a official.
The ‘six of one, half a dozen of the other’ argument simply doesn’t wash, either. It is unlikely that two players both start tugging away at each other’s shirts/shorts/arms at the exact same moment. It is up to the merry whistler to decide which player initiates the illegal contact.
The process for the referee should be exactly the same as deciding which player is responsible for the last touch when the ball goes out of play for a corner, goal-kick or throw-in.
We demand correct, split-second decisions on offside from officials who apparently can’t or won’t see a player holding onto/pulling another player’s shirt. Why do we expect one & not the other?
_____________
Believe me, I am not supporting the referees in this, merely pointing out that whatever their excuse for missing any infringements, giving them another penalty to use isn’t going to make them any better at their job, just make the results of their incompetence even worse. We all have examples of their inconsistencies, and have complained they’ve booked our own team’s players for offences they’ve let opponents off with, a sin bin would just compound that inconsistency.
Two things I will say on the jersey pulling subject. Mostly it occurs at corner kicks, in crowded goalmouths with players between the ref and linesman and the offender, and I am sure there are plenty of players adept at ensuring they only do it out of the ref’s view. Added to that is the fact that, while the defenders usually have most to gain from this tactic, the attackers are often rather cute and grab a shirt and fall down, or the defender pulls his opponent’s shirt as a reaction. So what does the referee do? Except in the very rare occassion when one is ‘brave’ enough to give a penalty, he penalises the forward, for in doing this he is less likely to get pelters for getting it wrong than if he gives a penalty when TV evidence later shows the defender was innocent.
BORDERSDONFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 10:44 4 0 Rate This
dom16February 27, 2018 at 20:44For the record yellow cards in rugby can mount up and player receives a ban. ———————————————————Not sure that’s true Dom. Two yellows in the same game will get a red but I don’t think yellows carry forward to future games though. Happy to be corrected!
==========================
BD The SRU are a very interesting disciplinary body who take their role very seriously. It’s usually chaired by a Sheriff who is independent of the SRU.
There is scope one in the disciplinary code to sanction players who tot up “multiple temporary suspensions” – yellow cards. And it is at the discretion of the disciplinary panel how it is discharged.
Rule 14 if you want a look http://www.scottishrugby.org/sites/default/files/editor/images/scottish_rugby_guide_to_disciplinary_issues_2017-18_-_ref_address_removed_from_form_1_-_19_01_18.pdf
i recall the infamous Calcutta cup incident where the SRU banned John Jeffrey for 6 months. Dean Richards the England player was given a one match suspension.
Good question Paddy. Must have cost a fair bit.
CLUSTER ONE
FEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 16:05
King had sent an email to the RIFC Board at 10:15 this morning to advise them that NOAL would make the share purchase offer if the decision went against him…==============
Don’t understand the point of King sending the ‘alleged’ email, and the point of communicating this development to the Court.
Could King have been penalised further for failing this appeal / wasting the Court’s time ?
Weird, as it seemed to confirm that King had got his QC to tell fibs on his behalf in the previous Court hearing.
Must have been a good reason for King doing this.
Confused.com
EASYJAMBOFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 15:43
TOP’s Counsel had nothing to add, so the three Lords entered a huddle for 30 seconds, before announcing the the reclaiming motion (appeal) was rejected and the interlocutor(as amended) would stand.
———————————————————————————-
A huddle , a huddle!!!! Its a Celtic conspiracy, I tell you!!!
(PS thanks for all your efforts in keeping us informed and one step ahead)
WOTTPIFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 15:20
Looks like the TOP can was being kicked down the road but has now reached a cul-de-sac.
Agree with TORREJOHNBHOY that DCK will most likely have another trick up his sleeve, however hard to see what it will be at this stage.
Anyone with any sense should be looking forward to cashing in at 20p per share.
It will be the emotional ties that make the RRM stay and try to fight against the inevitable tide of problems due to their football club still living outwith it means.
One for the good guys today.
_____________________
And now that the club has outside secured debt, as well as the ever growing internal borrowing, how much less must the shares be worth than they were when King was first ordered to make the offer? An own goal, perhaps.
Also perhaps, could this be the reason for the Morelos nonsense? The debt might have gone up, but so has the value of the playing squad, so all is well. It’s not really, and no savvy investor is going to fall for it, but King will be pinning his hopes on the gullible emotional investors to see it his way, but as you say, 20p a share is now a very good offer, especially to those with no love of TRFC. We can be sure, though, that King is going to spin this to suggest it’s no biggy, he just loves financing lawyers with long running court cases.
Media campaign to commence soon, I expect.
Re TOP Appeal
Many thanks EJ for your reporting – out of curiosity , did you notice if any members of the Scottish media were in the gallery ?
Maybe it was to reinforce that he himself was ‘penniless’.
Lest we forget…
RIFC Annual Report 2015:
https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2015/11/AnnualReport2015.pdf
Page 58 —
‘New Oasis Asset Limited
Shareholder
New Oasis Asset Limited is a company controlled by the Group Chairman, Mr D King.’
RIFC Annual Report 2016:
https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2016/10/Rangers-Reports-and-Accounts-2016.pdf
Page 55 —
‘New Oasis Asset LimitedShareholder
New Oasis Asset Limited is a company controlled by the Group Chairman, Mr D King.‘
In the RIFC Annual Report 2017, this changes to:
https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2017/11/Rangers-Reports-and-Accounts-2017.pdf
Page 57 —
‘ New Oasis Asset Limited is a company in which the Group Chairman, Mr D King and his immediate family are interested.‘
When the concert party starts, it’s DCK’s NOAL. When the TOP bites back, it’s a ‘family interest’. Now kids, about that inheritance…
I suppose the next questions are that if DCK/NOAL has the required/reported £11m to hand for the share offer then is he at his ‘credit limit’ or is he really flush and does he have another £3-4m squirreled away that would have negated the need for the Close Brothers emergency (secured) loan.
Either he doesn’t have the cash or he has the cash but is like a duck arse and not coughing up for the good of his beloved T’Rangers (despite what he said when he came on board).
Either way it doesn’t look good in terms of a sustainable future.
PADDY MALARKEYFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 16:00
Apart from a bit of time, what has DCK gained from this appeal ?
____________
I think ‘time’ is something King deals in, either playing it long, or getting out smartish. I am sure he will have been up to something, we will never know about, while all this has been going on. Either using his ‘charm’ to somehow piece together the necessary readies, or finalising his escape plan. I reckon none of his fellow concert party members will have a clue to what he’s been up to either.
The announcement, in court, that he’s sent an email giving comfort to his fellow board members that the offer will be made, while his impecuniosity was still being cited, seems like another own goal, and makes me wonder why King’s own counsel revealed this, unless there is a legal requirement for him to do so.
naegreetin February 28, 2018 at 16:24
Re TOP Appeal
Many thanks EJ for your reporting – out of curiosity , did you notice if any members of the Scottish media were in the gallery ?
=====================
There was one lass taking notes in the public benches, although I don’t know if she was press or not.
Barring her and one guy who appeared for about 20 minutes, it was just JC and me. I suspect that the weather may have curtailed the number of journalists present.
James Doleman saying on twitter that he’s never known the inner house (appeal court) to come so quickly to a decision.
Perhaps they have felt all along that it was a waste of their very expensive time, and wanted to make their thoughts obvious amongst the legal fraternity with this unusually quick judgement.
From the story on the BBC website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43231582
“The trusts had indicated they would not be willing to have their funds used for the share offer”.
Changed their minds then, or more Glib and Shamelessness?
I wonder how this result would have been spun (if not ignored) without our very own intrepid court reporters doing another marvelous job. It will be interesting to see if the hacks even bother to check on here before just publishing the Level5 flyer.
Thanks again to John and Easy, it’s amazing the difference the truth makes.
easyJamboFebruary 28, 2018 at 15:43
‘…Proceedings ended just after lunch, but not before Lord Davidson revealed that King had sent an email to the RIFC Board at 10:15 this morning to advise them that NOAL would make the share purchase offer if the decision went against him.’
______________
I think my notes show that after lunch and immediately Mr Johnston had finished presenting his case, and before Lord Davidson got up to spoke, Lord Carloway remarked to Mr Johnston ” should we not show in the interlocutor that the shares are owned by NOAL?” and Mr Johnston agreed.
I think Davidson then began to recap some of his arguments, and it was only after a few minutes rehashing three of his arguments[ 1) that it not for the TAB to decide on impecuniosity but for the Court, and
2)that the validity of the Public Interest argument did not allow it to be used ‘oppressively’ and
3) that the Court, in asking an impecunious person to make an offer to buy shares which he had to tell people he could not pay for would be putting him in an impossible position]
that he told the Court about the email from RIFC plc saying that NOAL would make the offer in the stead of King , and that Lord Glennie made his remark about that destroying the ‘impecuniosity’ argument earlier used by Lord Davidson.
I may of course be entirely wrong, but I did not get the impression that it would be okay for NOAL to make the offer instead of King.
I’m not quite sure where that leaves matters: the appeal was rejected, and I suppose that means that King is still required to make the offer personally, and is not able simply to transfer the legal obligation to another legal person which volunteers to pay.
It may be that the Takeover Panel’s interest will be that the minority shareholders will be seen to be getting treated fairly, and they will be happy to accept that the offer be made by NOAL.
But having brought the Courts into a disciplinary action against King, acceptance of that deal leaves King unpunished, and opens the door for other chancers to cock a snoot at their ‘Regulation’.
We’ll have to wait to see the interlocutor, I suppose.
And do feel entirely free to correct me on any point, of course.
[I got home about half-past four, having to walk part of the way because the snail-like stop/start of the bus would have taken three times as long as walking did over the half mile still to go.]
Does anyone know if King / NOAL will need to provide proof of funds, or will that be unnecessary as the club is not listed on any market.
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 16:42
The announcement, in court, that he’s sent an email giving comfort to his fellow board members that the offer will be made, while his impecuniosity was still being cited, seems like another own goal, and makes me wonder why King’s own counsel revealed this, unless there is a legal requirement for him to do so.
—————
Jingle Jackson headline by the looks of it. THE OFFER WILL BE MADE.
Pull out special inside with lots of people with big smiles
someone did say on here the bigger the smiles the more they are hidding.
(sorry if i can’t remember who it was)
I can’t remember if these happened in court or not…
1. King claims he is penniless and can’t afford to pay
2. King claims he has no control over NOAL
The email referred to in today’s proceedings suggests 1. may be true but 2. must be false. If both of these prior statements were made to a judge, will that judge be taking an interest if he was lied to?
Thanks to JC and EJ as ever for their efforts today.
HOMUNCULUSFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 17:06
1
0 Rate This
Does anyone know if King / NOAL will need to provide proof of funds, or will that be unnecessary as the club is not listed on any market.
————-
getting funds for the prospectus is going to be good one.
club 1872 or a charity match maybe even add a pound to the match programes
EasyJambo, think you are usually on the ball re the current T’Rangers Plc share holding.
Do you have an idea who the runners and riders may be for taking up a 20p offer?
Despite what I said earlier re emotions playing a part in people saying put can it be confirmed if the fellow members of the concert party take up the offer with everyone else or are they excluded from the offer and stuck with their lot being they are in the party that tipped over the 30%.
Whilst the revelation about the e-mail to the Board looks at first like an own goal, could it have been an attempt by King to avoid the Court making a personal judgement against him?
As was noted, NOAL (location-wise) may not be an easy target for legal sanctions should they actually demur over this ‘over-investment’.
Are DCK & NOAL jointly and severally liable with regard to funding the offer? Can King do a body-swerve?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Thanks to EJ and JC. Because of the hookup with BP today, we were able to get the news out to folk. Sadly, because James Doleman was snowbound our guys were the only credible media source present.
Great stuff again guys and we are all grateful for your toil.
Why pay £25 million for an uncapped (full) 21 year old with a current market -value of £900k when you can get this guy on loan ?
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/43226759
JC @ 17.01 28 Feb
Like you , I feel it would seem logical for DCK to organise the offer in his name as the TOP named him in their action & DCK replied with the appeal (in his name) so you would think the TOP will insist DCK acts on that basis even if the shares were originally purchased by NOAL funds – either way , an offer has to be made – something for Messrs Park , Letham & Taylor to contemplate amongst others whether to bail out @ £0.20/per share .
CLUSTER ONE
FEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 17:11
—————
Jingle Jackson headline by the looks of it. THE OFFER WILL BE MADE.Pull out special inside with lots of people with big smiles someone did say on here the bigger the smiles the more they are hiding.
=======================
The article is credited to a ‘Dave Finlay’. [?]
But in the absence of any SMSM at the Court today, and due to the length and detail of the article…
it looks like Level42 had already prepared their copy/paste instructions in advance?
HOMUNCULUSFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 17:06
Does anyone know if King / NOAL will need to provide proof of funds, or will that be unnecessary as the club is not listed on any market.
______________
I would imagine that if proof of funds is required, at all, it will be required by anyone making such an offer, perhaps more so in a case where the person ordered to make the offer had to be dragged through court to make him comply.
I’d like to think that the TOP, and the courts, will be keeping a close eye on Mr King’s progress, and ensuring everything is done by the book, with no smoke and mirrors allowed to disguise the true financial state of the club in the offer document, giving the impression of a more valuable investment than is the true position.
JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 17:01
——
Thanks JC
MACFURGLYFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 16:59
******************************************
That piece is strewn with grammatical errors and seems to have a fair few ‘chopped’ words. One would think the mouse was moving too quickly during a copy and paste exercise?!
CLUSTER ONE
FEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 17:14
==============================
Will there have to be a prospectus if it is simply a case of contacting everyone who was a shareholder when the Concert Party acted and offering them 20p per share. I realise that might not actually be that simple, could they make an announcement in a newspaper to make the offer.
I suppose they really should provide a prospectus, so people can decide if keeping the shares is financially attractive. Rather than cashing in just now.
Ouch, I just bit my tongue, I forgot it was in my cheek at the time.
redlichtieFebruary 28, 2018 at 17:18
——-
So NOAL agree to buy the shares and are granted permission by the Appeal Judges to do so. They then decide not to make the offer, or procrastinate, as King tip-toes away saying, “Nothing to do with me, they said they would do it, pursue them”.
That would be very sneaky.
“The Offer Will Be Made!”, (maybe) but not by King. Sounds about right.
MACFURGLY
FEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 17:33
=============================
My take on what the guys have reported is that he has been told that either he or NOAL will have to do it.
If NOAL don’t that leaves it up to him.
REDLICHTIEFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 17:18
Whilst the revelation about the e-mail to the Board looks at first like an own goal, could it have been an attempt by King to avoid the Court making a personal judgement against him? As was noted, NOAL (location-wise) may not be an easy target for legal sanctions should they actually demur over this ‘over-investment’.Are DCK & NOAL jointly and severally liable with regard to funding the offer? Can King do a body-swerve?Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
_____________
I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet that the answer is no, because the ruling is that one of them must make the offer. Even if the NOAL email offer is genuine, King will not be off the hook until the final result of the offer is known, and any shares that he has to buy are paid for. I believe today’s ruling, as with all previous rulings, was made against King, not NOAL, and so it is he who must comply, but he can buy them in NOAL’s name, using NOAL’s money. Of course, that might not stop King trying such a con.
HOMUNCULUSFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 17:31I suppose they really should provide a prospectus, so people can decide if keeping the shares is financially attractive. Rather than cashing in just now.
—————- @Heavidor4mReplying to @_John_Smith1967Never made a profit, huge losses, rising debt, reliant on loans to remain solvent, significant outstanding capex. Who’d want to make an offer for that?
Easy Jambo
John Clark
All supporters interested in an honest game should be grateful for your efforts to keep us/them informed.
Cutting to the chase – why is Dave King allowed any position or role direct or indirect in Scottish football? Do we have to wait until he has added further disrepute to that of his predecessors (when he was also a Board member) before he can be shown the door?
What is being demonstrated here is that Scottish football is ungovernable as long as charlatans like King and his cohorts are allowed to participate in the game.
To paraphrase Churchill ” You cannot reason with a liar when he your head is up his arse.”
AllyjamboFebruary 28, 2018 at 17:37
Aw Naw. No another club separate from company diversion?
Is DK the club and NOAL the company?
John Clark February 28, 2018 at 17:01
I may of course be entirely wrong, but I did not get the impression that it would be okay for NOAL to make the offer instead of King.
========================
We both heard the same discussion, but perhaps have interpreted it differently. I just took it that by adding NOAL to the interlocutor, it was in effect saying that it made no difference whether it was King personally or NOAL who made the offer.
By adding NOAL, it suggests that it was only King who was named previously. I do recall some discussion in the previous hearing with Lord Banantyne when the TOP counsel indicated that the TOP didn’t mind whether it was King or NOAL who made the offer. In any event, both hearings came up with the same conclusion that King is NOAL and NOAL is King for all relevant purposes.
It was rather odd to hear Lord Davidson continue to argue the point about de facto control, when he acknowledged that the TOP and TAB findings were accepted and not being challenged.
Grateful thanks to the intrepid JC and EJ for their efforts today. May I ask if there is a time limit specified within the ruling?…seems to me Mr.King has used/abused more than enough of this commodity already.