LNS is currently back in the headlines. It might therefore be a good time to try to set out a timeline describing correspondence we had with the representatives of the authorities over discrepancies and anomalies that appeared to have arisen. None of this is necessarily predicated upon the recent findings of the CoS in the Big Tax Case, but stands on its own.
Back in February 2014 The Scottish Football Monitor wrote to Harper MacLeod, the law firm that the SPL had engaged to gather evidence for the Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) Commission investigating the full and proper registration of players paid by Rangers Football Club under Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) arrangements.
The initial set-up of the LNS Commission on 5th March 2012 by the SPL (View File) charged LNS with a look at EBTs from 1st July 1998 (when the SPL came into being).
In practice though, the Commission only looked at EBTs from 23 November 2000 onwards.
This change of date was based on the earliest side letter supplied by Duff and Phelps, although Harper MacLeod had requested ALL documentation from 1998 to March 2012 relating to ALL EBTs.
This prompted a series of letters to Harper MacLeod from The Scottish Football Monitor, although Harper MacLeod’s replies failed to address the issues raised.
The passage of time blurs memories but this archive is designed to remind readers of those blogs and correspondence, and the key points contained in them.
It also highlights the apparent inability or unwillingness on the part of the SPL and SFA to engage with us in any meaningful way.
NB: The SFA were informed of our correspondence by Harper MacLeod in October 2014.
It is extremely difficult to be concise in this situation. There are various strands of argument and details seemingly small, but vitally important – however the following is an attempt to make the material accessible and provides links to the relevant files in chronological order (links are in green).
- Item 1: The first SFM letter of 19th February 2014 to Harper MacLeod
- Item 2: The Annexes containing the documents apparently not supplied to Harper Macleod in the spring of 2012 along with other pertinent information about the testimony given to LNS during the Commission.
- Item 3: The SFM response of 29 March 2014 to Harper MacLeod’s reply to the first letter.
- Item 3.1: An SFM analysis of Harper MacLeod’s initial reply attached to response at 3.
- Item 4: An SFM blog of 5th September pointing out how the documents not supplied had a direct impact on the advice given to the SPL Board to accept The Decision of The LNS Commission.
- Item 5: The last letter of 4th October 2014 to Harper MacLeod answering points raised by them (see next) and thanking them for passing our correspondence to the SFA Compliance Officer who has so far deigned not to reply.
- Item 5.1: Harper MacLeod’s actual response to SFM 5th September letter.
- Item 6: An SFM Blog (Inc. a transcript of an interview between Alex Thomson and Stewart Regan).
- Item 6.1: Truncated version of above blog.
- Item 7: A clearer extract of key document from Item 2 Annexes
Having no locus to demand answers from the SPL or the SFA, all we can do is provide information – information that we believe presents a prima facie case that LNS was deeply flawed even before the latest developments in the Tax Case came to light. The challenge for us is this: what can we do about it?
It is clear from the meagre response we have received that the authorities are unwilling to engage with us, so it is fair to assume that further correspondence will be met with the same lack of response.
Are we merely a bunch of obsessed nut-jobs with our own take on the Flat Earth conspiracy? If that is the case, surely a few words of explanation to dispel our doubts would have had traction with the rest of the football public. Indeed the lack of any reply undoubtedly serves as confirmation of our belief that something may be seriously wrong.
The questions have been posed. The SFA appears to think that not answering them is a wise course of action. Given that anecdotal evidence presents a compelling case that the general football public are widely in agreement with us, are there any journalists out there who will take the time to look at what we have observed and what we seek clarification on?
There are undoubtedly inferences to be drawn from the evidence we have, and from the silence of the authorities.
The statement by Celtic on Friday 13th November is certainly a start in the process we wish to begin, but it only mentions the elephant in the room. It gives no clue about how it could be transported to another place.
In the first instance we at SFM seek only explanations, and despite the inferences mentioned earlier, we are still eager to be satisfied that rules were followed and justice done.
Is there really nobody in the MSM who has the courage to seek the answers we seek? I suspect not. What we do in the absence of that courage is important. We are at a crossroads. Either we give up on the game altogether and spend our Saturdays and Sundays doing other things – or we find a way to get these questions out of blog pages and into the mainstream.
We need an alliance of fans of all clubs to do that, and we will be looking to build that alliance. I would urge fans of all clubs to give this material to fan sites of their own clubs.
These are not just words. There can be no movement on this issue unless our reach is extended. SFM alone does not have the clout required to bring the clubs to the table or the MSM to fair and balanced reporting. We need that alliance of fans desperately. We don’t seek leadership of that alliance – but we are happy to provide it if required.
This is not a campaign to have Rangers punished. I understand that Rangers fans (since their club is in the middle of this mess) are reluctant to see us as anything other than a bunch of Rangers haters.
That is unequivocally not the case from the perspective of the moderators of this blog. SFM is committed to justice, and to the integrity of the sport we all love.
Justice is ON THE SIDE of Rangers and their fans – it does not conspire against them. A growing number of Rangers fans are coming round to our way of thinking and our tone must reflect that. This is not a Celtic or Hearts or Aberdeen or anybody else v Rangers issue. This is a fans v corrupt authorities issue.
We all deserve answers, and hopefully our alliance will compel each individual club to act in the interests of the fans .
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 35s35 seconds ago Lady Wolffe rules she will hold 2 day hearing on 11 Feb Rejects SFA/King motion for preliminary diet in December
………. and its all over.
Audit Scotland’s report on the Lennoxtown land deal is out. If Ecobhoy is lurking who he like to comment?
Audit Scotland’s full report on the allegations made by @pzj_1 and his obsessed cronies https://t.co/Trl0RpfCMD
— Scotzine (@scotzine) November 24, 2015
easyJambo 24th November 2015 at 11:10 am #James Doleman @jamesdoleman 14s14 seconds agoCounsel for SFA ” I hardly need to remind you of difficulties Rangers, and Scottish football have faced” adds “this uncertainty must end”
=============================
Why didn`t Counsel for the SFA just say
May I remind you
They are the People
………….and so are we
Well you prevented him purchasing a larger shareholding!
Breathtaking arrogance from the SFA counsel (and by implication, the SFA). Basically, we have absolutely no obligation to explain any of our decisions to anyone, least of all a major stakeholder. Well tough, because now you’re going to have to do it under oath in front of a judge.
What’s disappointing and sadly predictable is that it has taken a billionaire with a grudge to force them to justify their actions rather than the member clubs.
Can we clarify timelines?
RIFC Plc AGM this Friday.
If share issue goes ahead how soon can this be organised?
Decision still awaited from Lord Doherty on Charles Green’s legal costs. (Maybe another week or two?)
When are Green, Whyte and other due in court for their case?
Ashley won interim interdict to keep full voting rights but no date as yet for a full review?
January Transfer window will give a possible indication of war chest.
Potential for Ashley to go to court for his £5m??
Ashley v SFA with regard to his fine – 4/5 Feb 2016
Ashley V SFA re DCK Fit and Proper – 28/29 April 2016
James Doleman thinks there are six ongoing cases re the club from Ibrox, the above is just 5, whats the other one?
wottpi 24th November 2015 at 11:50 am #
James Doleman thinks there are six ongoing cases re the club from Ibrox, the above is just 5, whats the other one?
=======================
King’s contempt case re RRL.
Other dates:
Dec 7-11 – Next Preliminary Hearing in the big High Court case
Dec 9 – King’s contempt in London
easyJambo 24th November 2015 at 11:54 am
Yes just picked that up from elsewhere.
Whats the date for that one?
Cheers EJ
It’s amazing, really. Both Rangers and the SFA are going to end up spending a fortune in the defence of a convicted criminal with apparently empty pockets, all the time being cheered on by a fawning press and support. Meanwhile, Rangers First have stepped forward to offload their members’ contributions to help fund this legal hell instead of purchasing shares as was the intention. It’s madness, utter madness.
They need to jettison King ASAP and see if Douglas Park can work with Ashley otherwise disaster awaits. Even then, judging by his actions it appears Ashley is done dealing with anyone.
Graham Spiers gets it!!
Further to the cases alluded to in James Doleman’s question above there are the following actions still pending/or waiting a decision.
Just a thought. The fans of every other club in Scotland are effectively picking up the tab for the SFA to defend their laughable decision on King’s “fit and proper” status. How do our 41 other clubs feel about that?
However Ashley has now shown us a possible way for the fans to hold the SFA/SPL to account in open court regarding a plethora of dodgy decisions. How about a crowd funded judicial review of the LNS process, just for starters?
The walls of the Hampden bunker are definitely cracking. I’m sure that the denizens thought it was impregnable, and operated on that basis, so I expect a few of the top men to stage a tactical withdrawal shortly. Regan and Doncaster surely can’t survive (or even want to survive) much longer- but then this Scottish fitba’, so who knows.
From Martin Hannan in the National
“If Rangers lose today, the bill will be in six figures at least, which raises another interesting question – who is paying the legal costs of opposing Ashley? Is it King himself, the Rangers Football Club Ltd, or Rangers International Football Club plc? That might be one for the AGM.”
http://www.thenational.scot/sport/martin-hannan-battle-of-egos-with-ashley-could-prove-costly-for-king.10370?utm_medium=social&utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_term=Autofeed
easyJambo 24th November 2015 at 11:10 am #James Doleman @jamesdoleman 14s14 seconds agoCounsel for SFA ” I hardly need to remind you of difficulties Rangers, and Scottish football have faced” adds “this uncertainty must end”=============================There we have the key issue facing Scottish football in a single tweet. The SFA putting Rangers ahead of proper governance by the authorities.
_______________
Such a very good point EJ. In reality:-
Hearts (Dundee, Motherwell, Dunfermline etc) faced difficulties and the SFA/SPL applied the rules = Hearts (etc) continue to face difficulties until they sort them out themselves. Scottish football faces little difficulties (a few administrative ones perhaps) as a result.
On the other hand:-
Rangers, and their successor club, have difficulties and the SFA/SPL bend over backwards to ignore and adjust rules to help both clubs = Scottish football has much more than ‘difficulties’ to face, including complete distrust of them by supporters of all clubs and, not least, highly embarrassing court cases that could lead to even greater embarrassment.
Any difficulties Scottish football faces have been created by the Ibrox clubs and the men running Scottish football. How typically crass of them to try to use those ‘difficulties’ to weasel out of their responsibilities to stand up for their actions,
I don’t like Mike Ashley, but sometimes he just makes me feel a bit…………
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqZTP8-8wIs
Mods, any chance of getting this guy to do a podcast. It will go viral.
If the SFA consider that a billionaire , who holds 9% of the shares in an institution which is in “the fabric of our society” has no right to challenge their decision, what price the rest of us?
Just what is their view on the “wee people”?
We should be told !
Lest they forget, ” football is nothing without fans”.
Further to my post earlier; isn’t it interesting how the desperate support of RFC and TRFC has led the SFA into a court of law? I’m pretty certain that at least one Internet Bampot (RTC?) suggested this might happen, way back in the day! The danger for those guardians of our game, though, is that something might come out, under oath, that connects to other more serious cases doing the rounds!
I am not suggesting there is any connections for anyone to worry about, but meetings were held…
Oddjob, I’d imagine that “We don’t need to justify our decisions” is probably the best defence they had. We know that the approval was probably given on the basis of “Aye, he’ll have some money” and “The fans will go mad if we stop him taking charge”.
I imagine that there’s so little in the way of true justification that the SFA will back down before the court case in Feb.
Bizarrely, that’ll mean them hoping Ashley is successful in his battle with King and/or hoping that there is an insolvency event leading to King’s departure before the February date.
After all the trouble they went to in keeping a Rangers alive, they might now be hoping they die. Karma indeed.
At the start of this issue, when RTC was laying bare the extent of the cheating and connivance of the SFA, I posted my dearest wish on CQN.
It was that a Celtic shareholder, with no director or other direct connection to the club, would challenge the SFA, based on lost revenue and potential share value due to RFC’s crimes.
The person I had in mind was the litigious Denis O’Brien, a billionaire, with off the …,ach ye know.
It didn’t happen that way, but subsequently, an ordinary shareholder, Canamalar, did pick up the baton, hence Res12.
He was joined in his quest by a few blog heavy hitters, who have brought the Resolution to the inner bowels of Hampden, where it lies, about to explode.
Today’s court decision is another brick removed from the Hampden wall.
The utter arrogance of the SFA/RIFC brief stating that they don’t need to tell Ashley nuffin’,
is contempt of the highest order, which I’m sure Her Ladyship will have bookmarked.
Nawlite,
You’re probably right about their “defence”.
Their problem now is that they are between the rock and the hard place. They will have to explain the decision, under oath in a court of law, or back down and give Mr Ashley a full explanation, as he requested.
I don’t think that Mr Ashley had any intention of keeping quiet, if he had been given an answer to his original request, and I still don’t believe he has any intention to so do.
He has backed them into a corner, and there doesn’t seem to be an easy way out.
Night Terror 24th November 2015 at 9:13 am #
@GoosyGoosy 23rd November 2015 at 9:47 pm Interesting prediction of events. How much of that is what you hope happens, irrespective of what you think will happen? It sounds like the ideal scenario of most interested non-Rangers fans to me. I’m therefore sceptical without a lot more justification for such a sequence of events.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Not based on hope at all
Based on a power shift from RRM with their WATP culture to MA and his ruthless capitalist oriented culture
The RRM are neither inclined nor capable of making the changes needed to survive and prosper
MA is playing the long game and will bite the bullets when the opportunities arise.
Hs target audience are potential customers for Sports Direct across Scotland. Football is a vehicle for building an audience for the brand.
The audience building strategy is to turnaround the two Mr Nasties (TRFC and the SFA/SPFL) and win brownie points
The governing bodies cannot be turned around until it is clear that TRFC is being sorted out
MA therefore sees TRFC at a strategic crossroads. An opportunity for fundamental change is approaching
Strategic issues have to be addressed at a time when the fan base has minimum leverage. That time is when the threat of closure is most real
There are 3 main strategic issues
Malfeasance by RFC (IL) / RIFC Directors in past 15 yrs. has gone unpunished. This has left a festering resentment among fans of other clubs. Justice has to be done and seen to be done.
CG chose sectarianism as the short term glue to bind Sevco to RFC (IL). The governing bodies connived at this strategy. It must be addressed this time round. Only an outsider will have the credibility to tackle it. That outsider cannot be MA. But it can be an MA surrogate like Sarver (Ashley) with a non-sectarian pedigree earned in the USA
The football governing bodies are corrupt. They cannot be reformed as long as TRFC remain unreformed
The MA strategy appears to be
Force current TRFC Directors to put the business into Administration/Liquidation and then resign
Concurrently
Force DCK out of the picture permanently
And
Force the SFA to take him seriously to ensure they cooperate when his surrogate Sarver (Ashley) asks for concessions prior to a CVA. This strategy will force management changes in the governing bodies
His chosen tactics are to use the legal process to incur massive fees for RIFC and the governing bodies. Each legal battle will be on an issue he feels he can win both the case and the costs. Key people in the governing bodies face exposure as incompetent and biased in court
I’m thinking that the income lost by the national team’s failure to qualify for Euro 2016 might hasten the SFA’s capitulation to MA. Every cloud, etc .
I suppose that’s the baw on the slates for the SFA – and, by proximity, the SPFL/SPL/SFL.
I wonder who’ll be in office by February; surely Regan & Doncaster will be off ASAP, having, of course, checked their legal insurance?
The other 41 clubs must band together publicly now & say clearly “No more in our name”.
Has Lady Wolffe already vindicated the Internet Bampots re: the SFA is corrupt and/or negligent ?
IMO, regardless of whether or not both the Ashley/SFA cases actually get to court next year, an external body has deemed that the SFA’s level of governance is ‘questionable’ – to the point where a judicial review is justified.
i.e. SFA governance is not fit for purpose, because if it was fit for purpose, then highly expensive legal challenges to SFA decisions would be rendered obsolete / unjustified.
Ergo, Regan has to fall on his sword. Now. [Yes I know !
]
However, if the SFA does go to court, then this is a massive fail on the SFA as a whole – and the fans and SMSM
should be demanding that the whole SFA hierarchy should be punted down the Hampden steps for wasting scarce resources.
Remember, this is the organisation which managed our last finals appearance in ’98. Almost 20 years of significantly failed revenue targets for Scottish football, and impacting grass roots level upwards.
And the cherry on the cake ?
There is no way – absolutely – that Ashley is going to spend his money/resources on having his legal brains simply question the SFA in court specifically about the reduced fine alone of only GBP 1K.
Both court cases would be worth attending – with massive bags of popcorn.
The SFA must be sh!tting themselves.
Good.
I note those giants of English Football Accrington Stanley (currently fourth in League 2) are reported to be telling T’Rangers Josh Windass (out of contract at the end of the season) is not for sale.
Was this meant to be another ‘We are still Billy Big Baws’ news story given that earlier in the month there was talk of Arsenal, Brighton, Fulham, Hull and Portsmouth tracking the lad and ratings of £1m being mentioned.
Given the midfielders scoring form (9 goals in 18 games) his contribution in his last six months to help gain promotion to League one will no doubt be more financially lucrative to AS than the paltry sum likely to be offered by the skint Scottish second tier club.
GoosyGoosy 24th November 2015 at 1:44 pm #
Key people in the governing bodies face exposure as incompetent and biased in court
*********************************************************************
Interesting stuff proposed by GG , but that last sentence sums it all up , nicely. Very nicely.
I cannot wait to see how this is going to be spun by the media.
PS I think you should have added “conniving” to that list.
The association’s lawyer attempted to defend this outrageous abrogation of the rules on the grounds that “Scottish football, and Rangers, have suffered” and that the “uncertainty must end.”
Sometimes you read something and then you have to read it again just to make sure you read it right. Well the above is one of those times.
If that is the line of defense for the SFA well I say FFS yes folks you read that right FFS.
Their day is coming, their Armageddon they have been waiting for seems to be on it’s way
I’ve done a full report on today’s proceedings which you can find here
https://lefthooked.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/mike-ashley-v-the-scottish-football-association/
Stevie BC
“The SFA must be sh!tting themselves.
Good.”
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
I can just picture “the go to man” Sandy Bryson’s office. Papers and expletives flying through the air in the scramble to find a way out of the latest predicament.
In the wise words of Lou Reed, “Your going to reap just what you sow”
Should be fun
Just your 8 legal matters for Sevco???
TRFCG’s claim on the BDO creditors pot.
Players’ claims over unpaid holiday pay
The non payment of the £250K LNS fine
The Big Tax Case appeal or otherwise
Ashley v SFA with regard to his fine – 4/5 Feb 2016
Ashley V SFA re DCK Fit and Proper – 28/29 April 2016
King’s contempt case re RRL :Dec 7-11 – Next Preliminary Hearing in the big High Court case
Dec 9 – King’s contempt in London.
The SFA a appear to have used intellectual property belonging to others here. The argument proposed by their man in court seems to be a version of WATP and ‘no one likes us we don’t care’. The top men at the SFA need to have thrawn defined for them because their arguments would appear to be aimed at producing such a response- that is definitely not a good thing from their position. FFS indeed.
6 simultaneous court cases – an extra star on the jersey is needed-it is truly an odious as well as possibly unique achievement -perhaps they are benefiting from the advice of criminals and ne’er do wells.
James Doleman 24th November 2015 at 4:31 pm
I’ve done a full report on today’s proceedings which you can find here
https://lefthooked.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/mike-ashley-v-the-scottish-football-association/
———
Bravo James, an intriguing summary. SFA coming across a bit high and mighty by more or less dismissing the authority of the court to review decisions they make. The full hearing should be a belter, there’s plenty of evidence of poor judgement and governance by the SFA since Murray, through Whyte, Green and now King.
Just to be clear, there still no ‘concert party’ case being brought by anyone regarding the March takeover? I got the impression that might be in the offing.
Excellent court report from James Doleman.Thanks to him and our own intrepid John Clark, at least we get to know what’s happening from reliable sources.. Would the SMSM have suppressed the truth if it was left to them? Oh hell, yeah. (in my opinion)
As suggested earlier, the baw’s on the slates all right, and that’s a high roof at Hampden. Surely the SFA must now wave the white flag, and give Ashley whatever he wants? Maybe reconvene on King’s F&P status, and allow Ashley to control TRFC if he wants?
But then, of course, King could object, and seek judicial review himself. Oh dearie, dearie me. Whit tae dae?
By trying to be “clever”, the SFA have put themselves in a really really bad place. The clubs need to get a grip on this PDQ, in my opinion, or a world of never ending and horrendously expensive litigation awaits, which, of course, the clubs will end up paying for.
Those who fly wi’ the craws get shot wi’ the craws is an old maxim, the truth of which the SFA are just now finding out. Farmer Ashley has his shotgun fully loaded, and he’s not short of ammo either. Stay away frae the craws would be good advice, but just a bit too late for the SFA, I fear.
It’s maybe worth mentioning that every victory in court costs Ashley nothing and his opponents a fortune in costs. This must be getting very expensive indeed for the losing sides, SFA and TRFC.
I do expect a MA concert party actions as the coup de gras should DCK not go down in flames on the 9th.
Seems so flagrant and easily proven with merely materials already in the public domain. I would reason that will provide the screws for the glib ones coffin lid.
Well,that was an interesting morning in Court 6.
The hapless Mr Dunlop, QC, inadvertently reinforcing what we all knew and know to be the case: that the SFA’s prime motivation was/is to save ‘Rangers’, even at the cost of all Sporting Integrity.
You’ve already seen ,and some have commented, on James Doleman’s tweet from the Courtroom this morning , about Mr Dunlop’s reminder to her Ladyship Judge Wollfe, that they were dealing with a decision made as far back as May and that ‘Rangers and Scottish Football’ had been and were being damaged and ‘we wish that to be ended as soon as possible’.
Mr Dunlop was not appearing for ‘Rangers’ but for the SFA!
Anyway, to the proceedings:-
Before Lady Wollfe, two separate petitions for judicial review of decisions made by the SFA.
The pursuers 1. Mike Ashley 2. MASH.
For the pursuers in both petitions: Mr O’Neill QC , with two bagpersons.
For the defenders, Mr Dunlop QC, with two bag persons
For an interested party ( presumably Mr King);Mr Hayes
Prior to the arrival of Lady Wollfe ( engaged on other business till about 11.00 a.m), the Clerk of the Court had a brief discussion with Counsel for both parties, to do with the Ashley petition, and the date previously set for a preliminary hearing ( December 11th).The discussion was about whether one day would be enough.the Clerk said that 4th and 5th February would be available, and some later two-day slots, if they wanted to check their diaries and agree a date. They did so, and a phone call was made.
Lady Wollfe arrived and Court convened at about 11.00 a.m.
Mr Sanderson opened by stating that they were seeking Directions on how to proceed with the petitions.
He explained that both Counsel had reached an agreement to allow adjustment to plea and arguments till the end of the current term (18th December), because the only argument so far submitted by respondent related to only one of the pleas. He said that they had also agreed to exchange arguments at least 14 days before the February , and to lodge with the court an agree ‘bundle’ of Authorities.
Lady Wollfe asked Mr Dunlop if he agreed that summary. He replied ” That’s what we agreed, to have a court time-table”
The judge then allowed adjustment of arguments over the period to 18th December ( last day of winter term) and agreed ‘bundle’ to be lodged with Court at least one week before )
Turning to the MASH petition, Mr Sanderson said that the date of 11th December set down for preliminary hearing was not going to be enough. He said that there were [ and what are our better schools coming to!] no ‘less’ than three pleas in the SFA’s submissions. These related to: the question of the standing of the petitioner, the failure of the pursuer to seek other remedies,and the question of ‘ad mora’ [ delay in raising an objection might be tantamount to acquiescence in the decision].
He expressed his view that it would be better if the SFA put in their substantive answers (as in the Ashley case). It would not be possible for him to deal with those pleas in a single day.He would need two. He wanted to move to a single day hearing of Preliminary pleas ( over a two-day hearing in total), in order to get to the substantive issues sooner.
Judge: How long do you think?
Mr Sanderson: 2 days, perhaps.
judge: And there would be a note of arguments and joint list of authorities?
Mr Dunlop: I see no good reason to…. I don’t understand my learned friend’s difficulties..He has answers 10 and 11…. the respondent’s case is there, and could be dealt with on December 11th. These are preliminary pleas, and if any of those succeed, then the Petition would be dismissed.
( And it here Mr D made his remark) The petition is based on a decision made in May.. damage to Rangers………and Scottish Football).
If we do tis on December 11th, then we get on and my submissions can be done in one and a half hours.It’s do-able in one day!
Judge: If we did that, what if the pursuer were to ‘reclaim’?
Mr D: It would be the same…..as in relation to, for example, the question as to the standing of an 8.2% shareholder…..
It’s about case management.
Judge: Which of the pleas ?
Mr D: The pleas on standing, relevancy, and mora.
Judge: If the Court is against you?
Mr D: then 2 weeks..
Judge: Mr Hayes?
Mr Hayes: The continued uncertainty is an important factor…I would adopt Mr Dunlop’s approach.
Judge: Which would be your pleas,the first and the fourth?
Mr Hayes: I happy to go with what Mr Dunlop…..
Judge: How long?
Mr Hayes: One or two days
[The clerk of court speaks to the Judge for a minute or two]
Judge:All of the issues should be dealt with in first hearing of two days-11th February. I will allow adjustment of Petition and Answers up to a fortnight before 1st hearing. Notes of argument not less than 1 week before the hearing, and a joint ‘bundle’ of Authorities.
Court rises.
That’s the best I can make of my notes, I’m afraid. Maybe instead of doing a woodwork evening class I should get into the old Pitman shorthand!
I didn’t catch the spelling of Mr Hayes or Hay’s name, nor whether he’s a QC or ‘just’ an advocate. My apologies to him.
This tweet today from James Doleman may not be very long, bit it conjures many thoughts and images of how the SFA have operated throughout this whole shambolic Rangers affair.
Counsel for SFA ” I hardly need to remind you of difficulties Rangers, and Scottish football have faced” adds “this uncertainty must end”
I guess when an individual or organisation requires a QC to act on their behalf, they instruct the QC of their general argument, then the QC uses his/her skills to try and make the argument succeed. It is only just the start of this particular case but it seems clear to me from this one tweet that the SFA are confirming their only motive all along has been to help Rangers as much as they can. Only my view of course but where does the help end? If Rangers and Scottish football have suffered so much in their eyes does a hugely successful Rangers take away all the pain? It would be funny if it wasn’t actually unfolding before our eyes.
This really is going to be interesting when it goes to the full judicial review. I would not want Mike Ashley to be involved in my club, but I am delighted his actions, whatever his motive, are finally seeing such an aloof, arrogant organisation being called to a court to explain their actions. Let’s see if they’re willing to treat a Judge with the sneering contempt they’ve treated ordinary fans.
For the avoidance of doubt, there are no discrepancies of any significance between James Doleman’s report and mine of today’s proceedings: he has gone to the extra trouble of incorporating background material that was not actually mentioned in Court. (We all got sight of full copies of the petitions in their full legalese, but only when the business finished.)
I think Counsel for the respondents was Mr O’Neill. James has Mr Bodine. I wouldn’t swear to my version, but I think I may be right.
You might be right John. As you will recall it was hard to hear counsel names.
Compare and contrast the SFA’s attitude wrt their decision on Dave King (none of your business) with the EFL when they had to come to a decision on the F&P status of Massimo Cellini – a full statement with a handy link to the PDF of their full judgement
http://www.football-league.co.uk/news/article/2014/football-league-statement-massimo-cellino-2115682.aspx
Deary me,the amount of court visits in and around the entity from Govan looks as if it’s also going to take the Scottish legal system down with it,well one side of it,where will it end ,the SFA and their surrogate child are so deep in trouble of their own making that it appears they have managed to attract some decent council to help them ,but could it be that their council might just be not at their best and introducing school boy errors into the game that will allow the good Lord or Ladies to make the descision we all know they should be delivering,well if mother & child have money,all be it someone else’s ,to throw away,who are the legal system that can refuse this money.
OMG the SFA are so unprepared! Imagine stating as their defence, they don’t need to answer. The windows of their Ivory tower must be boggin, because they never saw this coming. Dragged from their world of rigged commissions and retired judges, they have fallen into the real world, of real judges. A world of perjury and pain. A world where you can’t just make the rules up. There is NO discretion.
I have a feeling Uncle Mick has them exactly where he wants them. He will not deliver a head shot, because whatever his plans for Sevco, it will suit him to have some of the bent and buckled, sprinkle rose petals along his path. He probably only had to ask in the first place. He obviously misjudged how easy that would have been. Maybe even surprised at how easy and cheaper, that would have been.
As Auldheid pointed out. Res 12 has them possibly implicated in a £300K fraud. They still have time to stick the rap on Rangers(I.L.) and say they lied to them, but to continue the blockade on answers after the fact spells heap big trouble. Especially when you are sitting on a £95 grand, tax free back-hander from the beneficiaries of said Euro license.
I still think it will take a crowd-funded effort to provide the SFA head-shot, because Ashley will get what he wants and stop squeezing. Maybe Craigy’s trusty tape recorder will get there first, but coont me in on the crowd-funding. “The Journey” must go right to the terminus.
Otherwise what’s the point. Ashley winning is not necessarily fitba winning.
So the SFA is continuing to ignore the HMRC win, the dodgy RIFC/TRFC accounts…
…and by default is also continuing to ignore all the Scottish football fans with legitimate concerns about the quality of governance in Scottish football…
…but yet at the same time the SFA wants these same fans – including us Internet Bampots – to buy their new, overpriced football kits for themselves and their families ?!
Mibbees to help offset pending, exorbitant legal fees ?
Don’t think so Regan.
Given the totting up on ongoing cases, Tweet of the day as far as I’m concerned.
wottpi 24th November 2015 at 8:50 pm #Given the totting up on ongoing cases, Tweet of the day as far as I’m concerned.
Donald innes @Donaldinnes1 7 hrs7 hours ago@jamesdoleman James. Is it true all Scottish courts now have an official Rangers end?
==============
Good one !
Still think we need an official listing of all the dates for the multitude of legal fixtures.
Mibbees TRFC cheerleader Chris Jack at the ET could have “The Wee Blue Book” published ?
On the AGM this Friday if the shareholders could have 1 question answered honestly what would/should it be?
Alan McRea
The President of the Scottish Football Association
Oh how empty a position you have taken,stuck in that bunker of deception ,how many times have you faced your football public to spout words of encouragement to fans all over Scotland about your blueprint to take our game forward,eh,none,how come,surely you had a vision and that’s why you got the gig,what’s up Alan,is the job not what you thought it was going to be,spill the beans and you might have a chance of making a name for yourself in Scottish Football history ,go on ,you know it’s the right thing to do.
Valentinesclown
Hands up if you think we should start again
valentinesclown 24th November 2015 at 9:01 pm #
On the AGM this Friday if the shareholders could have 1 question answered honestly what would/should it be?
================================
How much has the club spent on parking fines outside the Court of Session?
Valentinesclown
on the AGM this Friday if the shareholders could have one question answered what would/should it be.
fixed that for you
wottpi 24th November 2015 at 8:50 pm #Given the totting up on ongoing cases, Tweet of the day as far as I’m concerned.
Donald innes @Donaldinnes1 7 hrs7 hours ago@jamesdoleman James. Is it true all Scottish courts now have an official Rangers end?
==========================================
WATP = We Accumulate Trial Proceedings?
Scottish Football is causing Armageddon in the legal system. When does this fall into the category of disrepute? Ah, but who would level the charge? FIFA? Now that would be trully ironic…
Corrupt official 24th November 2015 at 8:41 pm
‘…Otherwise what’s the point. Ashley winning is not necessarily fitba winning.’
_______
And that’s a very good point that does need emphasising.
The real canker at the root of Scottish Football was not that there was a rotten club owned by a wealthy cheat, but a rotten club that was supported in its rottenness by the very governing body of our Sport.
And the rottenness that tried to protect and defend the rotten club was deep enough not just to defend that club to the death, but even to deny that it died, and to cobble up an integrity-busting agreement with a new entity that they allow to trumpet itself abroad in the market place, and seek investment into, as being the same entity as the club that is in the living death of Liquidaion.
The enormity of that offence , when you think about it quietly , is quite staggering. We have all been ‘duped’, and for years.
Leaving aside questions of monies lost, and sporting achievements denied to a whole lot of honest sports clubs and players, is there any one of us who does feel , first, betrayed as if by our best friend, and secondly,outraged?
Ashley winning this or that court case against the SFA is only relevant insofar as being taken to Court in any kind of connection with the new entity might expose the SFA and its ‘links’ with the cause of saving a ‘Rangers’ now, and prompt further examination of how it may have ‘helped’ Rangers in the past- in ways that went far beyond the acceptable.
In my opinion.
With regard to the unpreparedness of the SFA case today, May I remind you all of the sheer cheek of Jim Farry when he refused at first to appear at the tribunal set up to probe the Cadette affair, that cost him his job. Then George Peat as President of the SFA walked out of an enquiry into a Neil Lennon case then came back 15 minutes later and took his seat to continue judgement on NL. The sheer effrontery of the man who thought he could pass sentence on anyone without hearing all the evidence was enough for the late Paul McBride QC to tell Peat that he would see him at the door of the Court of Session first thing in the morning. IIRC the case was dropped.
‘NOT feel betrayed’, of course!
valentinesclown 24th November 2015 at 9:01 pm #On the AGM this Friday if the shareholders could have one question answered honestly what would/should it be?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Why is there a queue at the Board room toilet ?
ekt1m 24th November 2015 at 9:50 pm
‘With regard to the unpreparedness of the SFA case today, .’
___________
In the interests of absolute fairness, ekt1m, I don’t think it is a case of Mr Dunlop being unprepared. I think his strategy was to get to an early hearing, and ,in an hour and half, argue very simply that the petition should be thrown out, saving everybody a lot of time and bother.! No need to get to any substantive points of law if the matter shouldn’t even get to first base.He said he had already provided enough argument on his pleas ( not today, in court, but in advance) and could not understand why his learned friend had need for any more.
Happily, the judge did not accept that kick and run approach!
Yourhaving a laugh—just one question? OK.
Where’s the deeds?
Happy to accept that reply JC.
Well I’m not sure the RIFC AGM can match the drama of this evening’s Norwich AGM where one shareholder asked the board why he was unable to purchase a sausage roll at the catering areas under the Jarrold Stand. (I am not making this up)
https://lefthooked.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/mike-ashley-v-the-scottish-football-association/
” I hardly need to remind you of difficulties Rangers, and Scottish football have faced” adding that “this uncertainty must end.”
—————-
Leaving aside your priorities, which uncertainty would that be Stewart?
The uncertainty of financial Armageddon if “Rangers” are not restored to their rightful place asap?
Or the uncertainty currently being experienced by the SFA as questions are finally being asked about serial rule bending and breaking to facilitate the restoration?
Resign , take Doncaster with you and let your successor clean up the mess.
The game’s up.
Just to say thank you JC and JD
Two perspectives very important.
Thanks to both from all of us. Genuinely.
The desire to see the SFA get a well deserved kicking is perfectly understandable. However, we should not lose sight of the potential consequences of petition two. An assault on the dual ownership rule could have consequences every bit as devastating as Bosman. I suspect that other FA’s will be in touch to ask the SFA what the feck they are playing at.
there is a bigger picture we should not lose sight of
Remember the SFA still have their own ‘nuclear button’ to press.
As hot as things currently are, they are going to get hotter, they may decide enough is enough.
They currently have a club, that’s a company, that they have allowed into the league illegally, that has threatened virtually every other club in the land, has had rogue after rogue associated with it, is incapable of running on a sustainable basis, has hamstrung itself financially by no longer controlling its own revenue streams, and may no longer own its own badges.
The SFA might just revoke it’s membership.
This would be the scorched earth policy; for the SFA it would be like killing their first born, it would mean Ashley would have no ultimate prize. The media well they would just simply combust.
Is there any mechanism for revoking a membership?
re-develop cathkin , moonlight, and become Third Rangers, a fine name and a fact, or flit to hampden and become Queens Park Rangers ( scotland) QPRS for short at results broadcast time…… not convinced bryson will find three fawns this time for his look when a register a trfc chairman fit and proper, its like a dug….. for life………..
scapaflow 24th November 2015 at 10:40 pm #
——————–
Agreed, the Newcastle loanees last season look very much like the thin end of a very dangerous wedge.
However, the Football League offers hope.
“Football League clubs have unanimously voted in favour of rules preventing a mass influx of foreign loan players to a single team after Watford benefited from the system last season with 14 loan signings from abroad.
Watford, beaten in the Championship play-off final by Crystal Palace, took advantage of a loophole in regulations by signing 10 players on loan from the Italian club Udinese who, like Watford, are owned by the Pozzo family.
All 72 clubs, including Watford, voted to bring international loan regulations in line with domestic rules at the League’s annual meeting in Portugal on Friday”.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/jun/07/watford-foreign-loans-loophole
Irrespective of this, in my view the positions of Regan and Doncaster are going to become untenable. Even if they manage to survive the courts, the reputational damage done by the public exposure of their testimony and reasoning will be more than the smsm can cover up.
scapaflow 24th November 2015 at 10:40 pm #…
An assault on the dual ownership rule could have consequences every bit as devastating as Bosman. I suspect that other FA’s will be in touch to ask the SFA what the feck they are playing at.there is a bigger picture we should not lose sight of
==============
Hear what you’re saying sf.
I always thought that this ‘dual ownership’ limitation could be argued as a restriction of trade.
Absolutely, there could be a conflict of sporting interest – but as we have seen, business trumps sporting integrity with the SFA – and presumably all the way up to the rotten top of UEFA & FIFA.
You would have to be a bit crazy to ‘invest’ serious money in a football club today, so why would anyone want to sink/lose money in more than one club ?
…but Ashley is a different character.
As we discussed at length a good while ago, Ashley could possibly be developing a business model which could be applied to several football clubs – to serve his SD purposes of course.
Come to think of it, maybe Ashley is dead set on following through with the court case about the fine – to clarify his position, and the SFA’s authority ?
[The ‘Fit & Proper’ case might be just for Ashley’s own entertainment purposes ?
]
Scapa
What other FA s have the same dual ownership rules and level’s as we do?
I genuinely don’t know.
I don’t see the dual ownership rule as potentially another Bosman.
A cross border dual ownership rule is unique to Scotland, so far as I know. Of course UEFA won’t let clubs with common ownership play in the same competition, and that is clearly sensible.
However I don’t see anything wrong in principle with someone owning a Scottish club as well as a foreign club, so long as strict limits are placed on loans and inter club transfers. I believe that in England the loan rules were changed when Watford had a whole team on loan from Udinese at one point.
I guess that Ashley’s counsel will be asking the SFA why Scotland has a different rule in this respect from the rest of Europe.
And can someone explain how Vlad Romanov’s interest in FKB Kaunas was dealt with by the SFA? Were the rules different then? Or was he given a dispensation?
agreed. The King/Ashley drama is deeply personal, and is in many respects a sideshow. The drama wil however serve to divert attention from Ashley’s real target, the dual ownership rule
http://study.com/academy/lesson/out-damned-spot-meaning-lesson-quiz.html
was surfing and found this. Forgive me if this develops the argument somewhere else, but it struck with me.
out I say!
Surely some serious mistake has been made here,Platini had appealed to the games ethics committee after his ban,they in return have said ,if he is found guilty of the charge against him,he should be banned for life,unless they already know the background to the charge it’s a premature statement for an ethics committee to make,none of the none sense we get here that there’s nothing to see,move along,do we have one of these strange committee’s.
Guys,
Not sure it has been considered before now, other than neepheed’s mention yesterday, but it got me thinking, would it work ?
If the SFM were to make it public that they intend to crowd fund additional Judicial Reviews against the Scottish Football authorities, LNS could be 1st on the list, what is it likely to cost and is it remotely possible ?
For the sake of argument, we get the money together to take the 1st (strongest) case to court and win – would we then get our costs refunded and use these to tackle the next case on our hitlist?
Could it be that having the fans line up against the authorities in such a legal manner may even help bring wider MSM attention ?
Would be most unwelcome from SFA perspective I’m sure but might just give a real edge to our sword…….
I’m very probably in dreamland as it all sounds too simple. ?
I wonder if anyone will be brave enough to ask this questions on Friday?
In June the shareholders gave the board a mandate to try and renegotiate the retail deal with SD. While it appreciated it may not be possible to give too much detail, can the board indicate if any progress has been made? If the answer is that no progress is being made, then given the on going legal challenges and the relatively close 54/46 split in the vote to payback the £5m SD loan and release the securities, will the board be revisiting this matter of loan repayments anytime soon?
Read a comment on the Scotsman website in relation to Ashley’s multi-fronted action that made me LOL this morning.
Also this one from someone with my username (but not me).
Just a thought. Let’s say that MA wins his case on the judicial review of the decision to declare DCK fit and proper.
Let’s say that the case reveals information that DCK did not share with the SFA as part of their investigation.
Let’s say that MA’s costs have to be covered as part of the settlement.
Would the SFA have a case to pursue RIFC for all of the costs?
Still Tom English and his BBC cronies will have an easy life next year now they have discovered the formula:
Athletics: Time to move on. Lord Coe must have certainty
Fifa: Time to move on: Blatter must have certainty
Cycling: Time to move on…
You name it. They will cover it up in the name of consistency.
Been listening to Radio Shortbread while driving up and back from the north as its the only station that seems to work between Pitlochry and Aviemore.
On returning and visiting this site amongst others on line I’ve noticed the mostly deafening silence in the MSM and BBC about stuff that happened in the last few days and in particular yesterday and all the questions and stories that are begging to be asked and developed.
Yes it is complex and yes some of it is contradictory and yes some people don’t want the real story to get into the public domain but I’d suggest that is no different to any other real sequence of newsworthy events that get analysed and reported.
Back to the Beeb – I have now however heard a bucketload about our new pink strip with “entertaining” yet meaningless quotes from the usual “Central Casting rent-a-gobs”, and also the remote possibility of Dundee and Celtic playing a game in USA, as if it is in the slightest way important and worthy of any kind of headline or discussion.
(Who cares if it MIGHT be Philadelphia or Boston – when it comes to convenient convolution creation and chasing of a sciurus vulgaris or carolinensus this one is up with the best).
This series of (convenient?) “breaking” news stories has allowed our intrepid Senior Reporter Chris McLaughlin to strutt his stuff and demonstrate the reasons he has been elevated to the seniority ranks among stenographers at the Beeb.
I’m becoming battle weary and realise this is not a new approach to keeping us informed by keeping us entertained and uninformed.
But the BBC is paid for by us all.
And on a good day it can be great and can be a power for good not just here but all over the world.
BBC Sports in Scotland however comes as a complex contradictory and severely contradicted organisation.
An outfit which has Mark Daly on one hand working in the sewers of Scottish Football and in FIFA and on the other letting Chris and his cronies let the Scottish fans down by running with the squirrels.
Scottish Football needs the Scottish Football Monitor to help the BBC help the Scottish Fans by reporting on stuff that matters.