It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One

Avatar By

HomunculusDecember 19, 2017 at 09:48  AllyjamboDecember 19, 2017 at 08:07=====================================That would …

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

HomunculusDecember 19, 2017 at 09:48 
AllyjamboDecember 19, 2017 at 08:07=====================================That would be the same JJ who a few days ago was exclusively conjecturing that Johnston had bought King out.Companies House Bombshell“This Companies House bombshell has gone largely unreported in the SMSM. Colour me surprised. So how did Johnston acquire his significant control? One could make a cogent case for Johnston buying out King as it kills two birds with one stone”Then exclusively conjecturing even further“Is Sir Bribe & Lie behind the Johnston putsch? Will he step up to provide the £7.2m quantum required to keep the lights on? Or is Johnston going it alone with a view to raising this quantum at The Rinse & Dry Share Issue?Developing story….”From today’s shot in the dark. The “reader” even says it’s pure conjecture.“Something happened on/about Nov 15th with respect to Johnston and the rest of the board. Was he told to basically put up or shut up with regards to shareholder loans? Looking back, Gilligan resigned (or was forced out?) from the Board on May 22, just days before the £3M payment to Sports Direct. Was he given an ultimatum to pony up some cash and did he step aside or was he forced out when he refused? And after seeing this back in May, did Johnston succumb to a similar demand in November to retain his board seat? There’s no proof one way or the other, but the circumstantial evidence is persuasive.”It’s classic conspiracy theory stuff, a series of questions suggesting something, rather than any substantiated statements.

I know there is some bad blood between JJ and our site, mostly emanating from his side, but I’m pretty certain the ‘reader’ in this case is not JJ, the writing style is completely different and he admits fallibility. I’d say, however, unless someone can show his understanding of what constitutes ‘significant control’ is wrong, that he’s come up with the best explanation of what’s going on.

The writer makes it clear that, apart from his research into ‘significant control’, he is merely going on circumstantial evidence, and so it is mostly conjecture, but it makes sense to me and is, at least, worth our consideration, unless, as I say, someone can debunk his understanding of what ‘significant control’ means. If he is correct, then each of the directors who have made loans to RIFC have significant control, because in their positions as directors and major creditors, the company (company because it’s RIFC plc) might very well live or die at the whim of one of them. That to me is a very important thing to consider when discussing the club’s future, and, again, if the ‘reader’s’ facts (on significant control) are correct, then it matters not what he says by way of conjecture, or where it was said. What matters is that each member of the board has the power to influence the direction of the club, and a falling out of the board could lead to a loss making business having to raise money to pay back a ‘soft’ loan at rather short notice. The loans in these circumstances aren’t really all that soft, for they are the revolvers that each could hold to the others’ heads in a Mexican Standoff scenario!

I would imagine that the requirement to announce ‘significant control’ is to let other shareholders know that certain individuals have this power.

On conjecture. I’d say there is nothing wrong with conjecture as longs as it’s based on one or more verifiable facts; it is, after all, what we all get involved in on here – taking the known facts and discussing what they might mean and how they affect Scottish football. Even if we get it wrong, hopefully we are making others think about the subject and so not just accept what the SMSM publish, or don’t publish.

Does anyone know if his understanding of ‘significant control’ is correct or not? If it is wrong, then his conjecture is a load of mince, and I have wasted everyone’s time on here. 
Me – 18   Everyone else – 111111

Allyjambo Also Commented

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Big PinkJanuary 2, 2018 at 13:54 
AJI suspect the TDs are not from SFM folk (remember the ratings are available to all manner of trolls). It is a disgusting world-view if made in earnest. A shocking way to score a point if not.

I didn’t, for a moment, suspect they were from anyone who posts here, even the more prolific troll posters are better than that, I am sure. 

For some time now I have had the feeling that there is someone, or some people, coming on here and just TDing a number of posts without bothering to read their content, either out of malice or as some sort of concerted effort on behalf of people with reason to dislike our message. It really is quite strange how, suddenly, a number of posts receive one, two or occasionally three thumbs down in very short order, and often posts like uth’s, that could offend no one, receive these petty TDs as a result. 

I can honestly say that I have never read anything from our regular, or occasional, posters that might suggest they would TD anything relating to that terrible day. I include, of course, all supporters of Celtic and RFC/TRFC who have, over the years, made their arguments on SFM. My experience of Celtic supporters talking of that day is one that leaves me certain in the knowledge that only the basest of their support (and we all have them) were not badly effected by the disaster and in full sympathy with the deceased, their families and the wider Rangers support. 

I can still remember that night, sitting in the Queens Arms in Edinburgh, watching the death count rising on the TV, waiting for one of our mates we knew was at the game, getting more and more nervous until he appeared. It had a lasting effect on me.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
upthehoopsJanuary 2, 2018 at 08:52 29 2
Rate This
On this day in 1971, the Ibrox disaster happened during a Rangers v Celtic game at Ibrox. 66 fans died in a crush. Some of us remember that day, some of us may even have been there, while some of us would not even be on this earth at the time. We are all football fans. Nobody should go to a football match and never return home. Rest in Peace.

Wow! I know we are not meant to put much store on the thumbs up or down, but two people have given thumbs down to this post! Who on earth could find fault with a post respecting the dead from the Ibrox disaster?

It kind of confirms my belief that there are people coming onto this site who don’t read the posts, but are assigned with the task of creating the appearance that there is some disagreement with posts that mostly criticise Rangers(IL) and TRFC and hit the TD button without thought.

Alternatively, of course, it could just be that others, like myself, have difficulty hitting the correct symbol on tablets or mobile phones, I certainly hope that is the case here.

Thanks to Upthehoops for reminding us of that sad day, something we should do every year as a mark of respect for those who died on Scottish football’s worst day.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DarkbeforedawnJanuary 2, 2018 at 03:48 
Stevie BC, the issue with declaring himself bankrupt is it stops him holding any director role in a company in the UK and possibly South Africa. I can’t see him doing that “for the sake of the club”. I think like Murray before him he likes the limelight. He knows very well the best option for the club would be resign as any acting party in the club and still provide the soft loans. It would take all scrutiny away from the club and could leave the chairman role to someone more respected such as Alistair Johnston. That would stop the risk of the TOP ruling having such a huge impact on the club. It’s the selfless and obvious choice to make and he could still be seen as the saviour from abroad saving the club through loans, but he wouldn’t get the same exposure he so much craves. His defiance is what will lead to his downfall and his selfishness could lead lead to the downfall of the club.

DBD, though I used your above post to highlight the impossibility of separating club from company, I have to agree, to some extent, with the thrust of the post. While I am not sure that by declaring himself bankrupt that King could escape the wrath of the TOP and CoS, he isn’t going to do anything for the benefit of your club if it doesn’t benefit him, or save him, at the same time.

That said, however, King’s ‘ownership’ of the NOAL Trust was established in court to the judge’s satisfaction, and I doubt that he would get away with making further loans to RIFC plc through it or any other hidden avenue, once declared bankrupt. Indeed, despite my limited knowledge of bankruptcy laws, I am certain that King (or anyone else) can’t just announce bankruptcy and clear themselves of all fiscal responsibilities, they have to prove they have no money to meet their debts, and as far as we know, King doesn’t have any – and if he had, the court would make sure the funds in his NOAL Trust would be used to meet them, as far as possible, with, I am sure, an investigation into what other (disguised)investments he holds. One thing’s for sure, he would not be allowed to ‘lend’ any money to RIFC/TRFC, and, if he does, indeed, have substantial debts, his creditors might well force the return of his existing RIFC loans to meet his debts.

One thing’s for sure, the law will not allow someone to avoid the consequences of breaking the laws and regulations of the land by availing one’s self of the laws of bankruptcy! While a little tax cheating scrote like Barry Ferguson might get away with transferring his assets to his wife, just prior to receiving his tax bill, King and his money are already on the court’s radar and I doubt that even his Masonic connections would be enough to let him get away with further fraudulent behaviour.

Something I am sure of, and has to be considered before wondering if bankruptcy is a way out for both/either King or RIFC, and that is – you have to have debts that you demonstrably can’t meet before you can petition for bankruptcy. Unless King has very substantial debts, that outweigh, at least, the funds held in the NOAL Trust, then he has no grounds to declare himself bankrupt.

Recent Comments by Allyjambo

Fans for Judicial Review – Counsel Opinion
jimboDecember 9, 2017 at 17:38

I think the problem is that not all the catering facilities are up and running yet, so once the ovens are all fired up and radiate heat to the stand seats…Tynecastle will be concomitant with the @rses of the SMSM21

On a slightly more serious note, are they complaining that their new media section puts them in a similar position to that of the paying supporters? 

Fans for Judicial Review – Counsel Opinion
woodsteinDecember 9, 2017 at 14:22

I think the bears would love that to be the reason, or even for McInnes to feel he couldn’t work with any, or all, of the board, but I suspect it had a lot more to do with the financial state of the club, added to everything else, such as the personalities he’d have to deal with.

I may be wrong, but Graham Murty doesn’t exactly give the impression he’s delighted to be the manager of this ‘massive’ football club, and isn’t exactly throwing his hat into the ring for the job on a permanent basis.

Fans for Judicial Review – Counsel Opinion
Looks like the battle is on to see who can come up with the biggest amount of eyewash to deflect from the fact that Derek McInnes turned down TRFC because he didn’t like what he discovered when he did his own ‘due dilligence’. From the Scotsman:

Derek McInnes turned down Rangers because he didn’t feel properly wanted by the Ibrox club, ex-player Steven Thompson has called the handling of the managerial search by the club’s board an “absolute disaster”, and Fiorentina become the latest club to join the race for Moussa Dembel
Read more at:

Derek McInnes didn’t feel wanted Derek McInnes turned down Rangers because he was told by Aberdeen chairman Stewart Milne that, in order to speak with the Ibrox hierarchy, he would have to resign from his post at Pittodrie. Protective of his legacy and unsure about how much Rangers wanted him, given the six-week delay since the sacking of Pedro Caixinha, he decided to stay. (Daily Record) Thompson: Rangers search an “absolute disaster”Rangers’ failure to land Derek McInnes as new boss after a six-week wait has been called “an embarrassment”, “a shambles” and “an absolute disaster” by former striker Steven Thompson. The BBC pundit, writing in his column for The Herald, went on to praise McInnes for showing “guts” to turn down the position and remaining loyal to Aberdeen Football Club. (The Herald)
Read more at:

Graeme Murty is the new favourite to become the next permanent boss at Rangers. The interim manager recently guided the side to two consecutive victories over Aberdeen and has been instilled as the front-runner among the bookmakers. The club have confirmed that Murty will remain in charge until at least the end of this year. (Scottish Sun)- Rangers have taken a thinly-veiled swipe at Derek McInnes, saying they agree with Aberdeen that it would be best if he stayed in the North East because it’s a “big step” to take over a “massive club”. (The Scotsman)- Graeme Shinnie believes Aberdeen will now go on and finish best of the rest in Scottish football for the fourth season running. (The Herald)
Read more at:

So, Derek McInnes didn’t go to TRFC because ‘he couldn’t feel the lurve…’!

Fans for Judicial Review – Counsel Opinion
sannoffymesssoitizzDecember 8, 2017 at 18:42

On the previous blog, ‘Who is Conning Whom’, Sannoffy posted Tom English’s rather wordy article about the bears’ response to yesterday’s pathetic statement. Fair enough, he highlights the poor quality of it and the embarrassment it is causing the Ibrox support, but when he comes to covering the effect on McInnes, and what he’s had to put up with in the past six weeks, he does it in the following, again wordy, way:

‘There was no need for such a soap opera. When Caixinha was sacked, McInnes was immediately identified by Rangers as their number one target.They looked around to see who else was there, as they’re obliged to do in the interests of the club. They returned to McInnes. Thought about it again. And thought about it some more.All of that soul-searching, in the wake of their blunder with Caixinha, was understandable, but it should have been over weeks ago. Rangers’ loss to Hamilton at Ibrox on 18 November really ought to have been the trigger for action. They’d had more than enough time to get their ducks in a row by then.From Caixinha’s sacking, Rangers took 40 days to make official contact with Aberdeen – and then got knocked back. What does that say about the effectiveness of this board? And what does the rejection from McInnes do to their prospects of landing a manager of substance? Surely the first questions their next target will ask are, ‘Why did McInnes turn it down? What is it about the club that he didn’t like the look of?’In turning down Rangers’ approach, he has also made it harder for them to secure a manager with the kind of track record they require.McInnes had become fed-up with the disruption the episode was causing in his professional life. Through their prevarication, Rangers planted seeds of doubts in his mind.’

Not one mention of the many, many media articles covering TRFC’s support. Now I’m not going to go on about the pressure these articles put on him, or that it was such an obvious form of ‘tapping up’, but it’s clear English has deliberately not mentioned that so many of his fellow journalists, supposedly with ‘in the know’ contacts, just knew he was coming to their favourite club, with most not even prepared to countenance the thought he might not.

And in the highlighted section above, Mr Tom English, journalist! Where exactly did this ‘disruption’ come from? Is it good journalism to mention something as serious, and pertinent to the article, as ‘disruption’ in the target’s professional life, but not explain what form that disruption took? It couldn’t have been TRFC, as they hadn’t gained permission from AFC to talk to him (but if you know it was, or they did it through an intermediary, why is your article not about that?). So where did it come from, how was the cause of this disruption articulated to him?

Of course we know that the main cause of any possible disruption was the blanket, over the top coverage by the media. Not in a ‘will he, won’t he’ repeated ad nauseam fashion, but in a ‘he can’t refuse, he dare not refuse, he’d be mental not to, he’s coming’ repeated every day kind of fashion. 

But, of course, Tom English had already poo pooed the very idea that the media coverage was over the top on twitter, and insulted our own blog into the bargain, before scuttling off in true SMSM fashion.

There’s a whole chunk missing from that article on what was so very wrong, and so very embarrassing, about the whole McInnes to ‘Rangers’ saga, and Tom English and his media buddies are all a very unsavoury part of it. That is why he’s chosen not to mention it.

Who Is Conning Whom?
StevieBCDecember 8, 2017 at 16:49

Just as with Chris Jack, having a PR ‘strategy’ is one thing, having the right people to carry it out is something else entirely.

As you so correctly point out, the only open ‘process’ that was being carried out was via the media, unless, of course, he knows/thinks he knows that illegal (in a football sense) approaches were made directly, or via DM’s agent. Even if such approaches/tapping up, were just a figment of his fevered imagination, I’m not so sure that he is wrong when he talks of a process, for as sure as King dodges the truth for a living, he also delivers instructions to the media via Level5/Traynor.

I’m sure that in his desperation to earn his weekend’s share of the succulent KFC, Mr Rather Large Derek Johnston has inadvertently let the cat out of the bag. It’s fortunate for TRFC and Traynor that nobody pays much attention to that buffoon amongst buffoons!

About the author