It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One

Avatar By

Cluster OneDecember 15, 2017 at 18:57 ‘…For JC to put in …

Comment on It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One by John Clark.

Cluster OneDecember 15, 2017 at 18:57
‘…For JC to put in his diary 4 days next May..’
Extremely grateful to you for that information, C1.
I went in this morning to hear the latest in the BDO v D&P case,only to find that it had begun at 9.00 a.m when I thought it would begin at the normal time of 10.00 a.m. It was over and done with before 9.45, I think.
Happily, there was also the RFC Group Ltd v the Liquidators , which was on before Lord Doherty at 10.00 a.m, so I sat in on that.
This is the case in which  Henderson and Jones , who bought Craig Whyte’s  claim, and who are shareholders in The Rangers FC Group, are trying to claim  £2M from the liquidation pot.
In today’s business, BDO ( represented by Mr Dunlop, QC, were arguing that The Rangers FC Group ( represented  Mr McGregor QC) should be required to find caution [pronounced ‘cation’ as in ‘station’] in the sum of £100,000 before they were allowed to proceed with any claim because there was a likelihood that if they lost their action they would be unable to pay costs and expenses.
There was (to me) a complicated, unintelligible argument about whether the ‘noter’ ( the RFC Group) could be a ‘pursuer’ when it was BDO who had initiated the action in the first place, by knocking back the claim. That decision was based on the fact that the Ticketus deal was used to discharge the entire liability…..and the fact that “we have a company which is massively insolvent which has basically sold its claim to litigation funding…….where they would have complete immunity in the event of failure, and there is a very clear argument that the money that was sought was obtained by criminal fraud (even if that had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt)… on the balance of probabilities…..[ I confess that all three of us (the daily record chap, a freelance chap, and I) got lost in the string of other case references, but I think that was the gist of Mr Dunlop’s arguments]
On the question of quantum, Mr Dunlop continued, it is evident that we are going to have an evidential hearing, at least an 8 day hearing.The sum of £100,000 is entirely appropriate. I move the motion.
Mr McGregor responded: the noter would not be able to to satisfy expenses.BUT at common law, any award of caution is an act of discretion by the court.In his submission, the reality of the situation must be regarded.There were three questions to be asked:
1. which party is truly the pursuer it in the interests of justice for the noter to be required to find caution?
3.and if it is, at what level?
He invited the court to reflect on the claim:
there was the facility with the Bank of Scotland with £15M owed
there is an assignation agreement between the Bank of Scotland and the noter
the company  itself has acknowledged the outstanding indebtedness is £18M
there is a series of commercial documents that have not been ‘reduced’,
so the noter is entitled to pursue .
The £18M debt has been reduced to £2M : that was claimed and refused in 2014 by the Liquidator on grounds of fraud allegations.
But, my Lord, there was no criminal conviction.
The noters have lodged a note:does that make them the pursuer or originators?No, it was the Liquidators who initiated the action…( a couple of cases were referenced and cited at length on that point, with Lord Doherty making one or two interjections for clarity)
Mr McGregor continued, inviting the Court to look at the rejection of the claim on 14/09/17.The reason for that rejection was on  a basis of ” you might have a claim, but I’ve got a bigger one”, to set-off against   [{the liquidation pot??}]
The respondent [ the Liquidator] therefore is the pursuer, not the noter
In relation to the second question, it is not, in my submission, in the interests of justice for caution to be made.
Lord Doherty interjected ” On the basis of means? …  You have to be very  candid..”
My Lord, they argue on the basis of criminal fraud…..But Whyte was cleared!
On question 3, the issue of quantum, the Court should be mindful of the level of caution.It should not be fixed at £100,000 today, we need to see evidence..
Lord Doherty asked ” on what basis should it be fixed?”
Mr McGregor replied ” at a much lower level “.
Mr Dunlop in reply to Mr McGregor’s points on his first question, asked: Who asked the Court’s assistance? It is the noter.
There would be no attack if there was no note.
On the issue of quantum, he said there was no way this case can be determined:we are looking at an evidential hearing. What money was ever introduced by the Group?
Mr McGregor riposted in turn : there was a complete change of Directors. My learned friend ducks the  fact that none of the documentation has been ‘reduced.’

Lord Doherty went off to consider the matter.
He returned after about 20 minutes or so, more or less.
This is what he pronounced:
“1. I find that the noter is a pursuer
2.I find that there is credible testimony that the noter would not be able to pay if he were to be unsuccessful in the action
3. the noter will be ordered to find caution
4. the indication is that the proceedings are being funded by a 3rd party
5. it is not necessary that the noter’s case should be strong. I can’t say anything about the relative merits:there are sound arguments on both sides.
6. caution will be ordered
7. on quantum, there is likely to be a lengthy evidential hearing, we are at a relatively early stage, and it would be premature to make a full assessment.  I order noter to find caution of £25,000 in the next six weeks, to cover expenses up to and including proofs”
Mr McGregor asked for permission to consult his learned friend for  moment. This was granted, and after  short whispered exchange,Mr McGregor told the Judge that there had been prior discussions during which £35,000had been mooted as caution but expenses of the motion were not included:simply an offer of caution.
Mr Dunlop observed that there had been an offer of caution , but no concession on expenses.
Lord Doherty said: I shall allow expenses-the Respondent to pay.

And that was that.

John Clark Also Commented

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…… 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.

Recent Comments by John Clark

Fans for Judicial Review – Counsel Opinion
my post of 00.18 above: put the word ‘way’ between ‘any’ and ‘related’ ( in the last line)
Geez,how I miss Betty who checked my written work!

Fans for Judicial Review – Counsel Opinion
I am going off to bed now, cheered and warmed by a visit to
I love it when the cheats are cornered by the  integrity of HMRC
Would that a cheating football club now in Liquidation, and a five year old club pretending to be that liquidated club,  had been dealt with by the SFA in any related to truthfulness and sporting integrity!

Fans for Judicial Review – Counsel Opinion
Dave King was given until  (I think 12th) April of this year to make his offer.

He did not comply.

It was not until October that the Takeover Panel Executive took him to Court.
That annoyed me, but I can appreciate that it was a new experience for them, to be defied by some chancer of a chairman of a plc. 

Lord Bannatyne is taking a long time to pronounce judgment.

That annoys me as well.

I ( who posted quite recently about the heavy workload of judges) would never dream of ‘murmuring the judges'(is that still an offence in Scotland?)

But no child is waiting more excitedly for Santa than I am for Lord Bannatyne’s judgment .

Which , of course(?), will simply have to be to make an order failure to comply with which could conceivably end with our Dave( user of the big word ‘concomitant’) being held in contempt, and his assets seized. and he himself possibly being arrested and sent to the pokey next time he visits Ibrox.

No harm to Dave, of course. I neither know nor wish to know the man.

But very definite harm to the rottenness at the heart of Scottish Football, which allowed the nonsense of the Big Lie, and the total abandonment of the very concept of Sporting Integrity by those charged with the duty to ensure that our sport is administered with complete integrity.

Fans for Judicial Review – Counsel Opinion
FinlochDecember 9, 2017 at 08:57
‘…..And on a larger scale if our government have provided funds in any way during the period do we as fans have the right to take action against the government or the government the right to take action against the SFA?….’
According to the Freedom of Information reply to be found on this link

and my old-fashioned pencil and paper addition skills, the Scottish Government (i.e. you and I as tax-payers) has,between 25 March 2011 and  13 June 2017,made payments totalling £6,692,307.14.

I reckon that on that basis, we tax-payers sure as hell have a right to ask demanding questions of the SFA and/or insist that Aileen Campbell MSP, Minister for Public Health and Sport,start asking questions about the integrity and honesty of the SFA before any more money is shelled out to them.

Fans for Judicial Review – Counsel Opinion
HelpumootDecember 9, 2017 at 00:23
‘..Yes, John, I remember both of those films.’
Aye,your blog name ‘helpumoot’ is , surely, straight from the Beano’s ‘ little Plum’ character ( good Lord, 1953!)

I was buying the Beano as a 10 year old when Little Plum was introduced.

With ‘um’ added on to nearly every second word to indicate that he was a ‘Red indian’ like the ‘Geronimo’ Redskins of the cowboy movies of that era.

I googled.And I saw this:
“This was artist Leo Baxendale’s first strip for The Beano, and remained the character he was most fond of. It was taken over by Ron Spencer in 1962.
It ran from 10th October 1953 (issue 586) to 18th October 1986”

How co-incidental that the name Baxendale should feature on a blog that, essentially, owes its origins to the advice on tax avoidance that was proffered by a certain struck-off lawyer named Baxendale to a most dishonourable knight of the realm.19

About the author