LNS – A Summary

Avatar ByTrisidium

LNS – A Summary

 

cropped-sfmSquare.pngLNS 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 2The 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 3The 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 5.1Harper 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 .

 

 

 

 

 

About the author

Avatar

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

2,349 Comments so far

zerotolerance1903

zerotolerance1903Posted on1:25 pm - Dec 10, 2015


John Clark 10th December 2015 at 1:10 pm #Application dismissed? Looks like Ashley’s mob have made a right farce ofthe matter. Can they really be such incompetent lawyers/QCs that they went to court with bugger all?Incredible.

Maybe, maybe not.  It’s hard to read to much into it when this action is obviously part of a broader campaign.

The small print is that whilst this case was dismissed  there are two more petitions tomorrow AND the Judge wants a full trial on King for another matter before the end of January.

This case may still have served its purpose i.e. from the live tweets it appears that they did demonstrate that the order was knowingly breached (they just didn’t provide any evidence that the breach caused any damage)and that someone’s affidavit may have been a touch on the glib side.  

To use a retail analogy was it a loss leader?

View Comment

yourhavingalaugh

yourhavingalaughPosted on1:31 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Zero
it looking like this was the sprat,the line will be cast until something is caught,part of the long game Ashley plays.

View Comment

Avatar

jimmciPosted on1:37 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Compare and contrast…..The rangers board did not gain sufficient support to issue new shares per res 10 at their AGM. Took the Daily Record the best part of a day to barely mention it.The twitter timeline shows James Doleman tweeting at 13:00 that contempt case was dismissed against King. The DR’s web banner headline and story published at 12:59.It’s truly amazing how quickly they can get good news news out. They really are shameless.
PS; a huge well done to James and STVGrant for their live tweets.
The costs not being awarded – as far as we know – must be a real sore one for RIFC.

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on1:46 pm - Dec 10, 2015


The Judge ordering  full trial by the end of January, on another matter, is a side-winder ! Could it be related to happenings in his court today ?

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on1:50 pm - Dec 10, 2015


If Ashley wants to take people to court, then he needs a case for them to answer.  On this occasion there wasn’t one, as far as I can see (nor did the judge).
 
I’m quite happy to see Ashley shafted this time round, and if the injunction is lifted this afternoon, then the details of the RRL agreement may well be revealed.  I’d call that transparency. That’s never a bad thing.

View Comment

zerotolerance1903

zerotolerance1903Posted on1:52 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Following the Twitter timeline was fascinating.  The Judge was clearly willing to jail for contempt, for example saying he would have done so had King revealed the 7-year notice period.  However, he gave SD counsel an extended hard time for failing to demonstrate damage for revealing the existence of a meeting.  

View Comment

tayred

tayredPosted on1:57 pm - Dec 10, 2015


easyJambo  10th December 2015 at 1:50 pm #If Ashley wants to take people to court, then he needs a case for them to answer.  On this occasion there wasn’t one, as far as I can see (nor did the judge).

That the judge could reach that point without any attempt at an argument from the SD council smells fishy to me.

Did SD mean to lose this? Was this simply about getting something aired in public for use at a future date? I’m not bright enough to work out what that might be, but it just seems too weak a case for SD to have brought to court just for giggles. 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on2:19 pm - Dec 10, 2015


‘Judge “I really wonder what the point of all this was, £400, 000 gone.”’…

…’Judge however wants a full trial of King on a further matter. He wants it held in January.’

Does anyone have an inkling of what this might be about? Sounds more serious than today’s proceedings, that a judge should announce it at the end of a separate? case. Could there be a hint in the judges remark re cost of case?

There appeared to be no announcement on who foots the bill for each side’s costs, will that be set at a later date, or could it be because the costs are continuing in light of the January trial?

View Comment

Avatar

BrendasbackPosted on2:31 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Just dipping in on lunch break 02 has £5million been paid back?? 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on2:35 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Just a wee thought on this January trial, if it’s actually not one that king was already known to be involved in.

Someone on JJ’s site has mentioned the claim by SD’s lawyer that ‘the email’ proved DK had lied in his affidavit. Could it be that the judge considered this a distinct possibility and has already taken action in calling this trial? I realise things don’t normally move so quickly in the legal system, but, having had earlier sight of the affidavit, could SD’s lawyers have already raised the matter and been happy to put up such an apparently insipid case today?

I’m probably way off the mark and somebody is going to tell us that it’s a case already accounted for in the TRFC trial count 06

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on2:37 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Economical with the truth as ever affidavit says one thing email says another. Ok I got the email but did not read it fully or open the attachment. Need a West of Scotland double positive here Aye RightT.
The “I didny read it defence” is second only to the Harry Redknapp functional illiteracy gambit in my opinion.
No wonder it is a continuing lurch from precipice to precipice if nobody ever reads anything. 
The trial in January is the kicker I think and it will be interesting to see what it is about – no doubt some shamelessness is involved and even the functional illiteracy might be rolled out.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on2:38 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Ah, from the BBC site:

‘Mr Justice Peter Smith said after a morning hearing that he intends to reject the jailing application for reasons he will give this afternoon.’

I would imagine costs will be attributed at the same time.

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on2:51 pm - Dec 10, 2015


According to the “tweets”, the judge commented a few times about the fact that Mr King had not been called to give evidence.
He added at one point that the affidavit could be difficult to accept.
An affidavit is a sworn statement, on oath .
Mr King`s affidavit was presented in court today.

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on2:53 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Allyjambo 10th December 2015 at 2:38 pm #Ah, from the BBC site:
‘Mr Justice Peter Smith said after a morning hearing that he intends to reject the jailing application for reasons he will give this afternoon.’
I would imagine costs will be attributed at the same time
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Yep
The BBC online can ignore mentioning todays court case is taking place until AFTER  the Judge makes his ruling
Typical

View Comment

tangoed

tangoedPosted on3:10 pm - Dec 10, 2015


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 18 mins18 minutes agoCourt called back into session to deal with press reports. Judge says he unhappy with Daily Record article, counsel agrees is “inaccurate”

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 20 mins20 minutes agoJudge says he gives Daily Record “nil points” for accuracy of report

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 18 mins18 minutes agoJudge says that just because he has dismissed commital does not mean he has ‘acquitted’ King

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 19 mins19 minutes agoJudge says he would advise Mr King to say nothing to the press until he hands down his full judgment

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 9 mins9 minutes agoJudge ended session by saying that it was a bit premature to report “Mr King has been vindicated”

View Comment

yourhavingalaugh

yourhavingalaughPosted on3:13 pm - Dec 10, 2015


In the words of the song
It looks like trouble ahead

View Comment

zerotolerance1903

zerotolerance1903Posted on3:17 pm - Dec 10, 2015


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 19 mins19 minutes agoJudge says he would advise Mr King to say nothing to the press until he hands down his full judgment

Oops, too late!

View Comment

zerotolerance1903

zerotolerance1903Posted on3:20 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Thought for the day: Sometimes when you win, you really lose, and sometimes when you lose, you really win.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on3:21 pm - Dec 10, 2015


King may regret the comments he made in an STV interview, given he was advised not to speak to the press.

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 1h1 hour ago
Dave King has told STV that he is not surprised by today’s “withering” judgement by an “experienced judge”.
King: “Unsurprising. Glad we had a strong judge who saw this matter for what it really is. It was a humiliating defeat for Mike Ashley.”
King: “I’ve never witnessed a strong judge really virtually tearing someone apart the way he did today.”
King: “It was an absolutely humiliating defeat for Mike Ashley. I’m delighted with the outcome.”
Sports Direct v Rangers International Football Club Plc back in this court at 10am tomorrow to receive full judgement and decision.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on3:32 pm - Dec 10, 2015


tangoed 10th December 2015 at 3:10 pm # James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 18 mins18 minutes agoCourt called back into session to deal with press reports. Judge says he unhappy with Daily Record article, counsel agrees is “inaccurate”
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 20 mins20 minutes ago Judge says he gives Daily Record “nil points” for accuracy of report
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 18 mins18 minutes agoJudge says that just because he has dismissed commital does not mean he has ‘acquitted’ King
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 19 mins19 minutes agoJudge says he would advise Mr King to say nothing to the press until he hands down his full judgment
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 9 mins9 minutes agoJudge ended session by saying that it was a bit premature to report “Mr King has been vindicated”
__________________________________-

I wonder if the DR’s reporting will be accurate enough tomorrow to publish every word the judge said, or will they be selective and only print the ‘Mr Innocence’ things about King and the bad about Ashley/SD?

Bit of a quandary, do they do a full blown victory piece that will highlight any blaring omissions, or something similar to those occasions when things have gone wrong for their favourite football club by printing a minimal report?

Still, they will be happy to join King as having had damning indictments from top judges! How proud they must be to stand in such elevated company!

View Comment

yourhavingalaugh

yourhavingalaughPosted on3:34 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Just watched Sky Sports interviewing King,I hope for his sake the Judge does not see this before tomorrow ,anyone watching over Govan way must be embarrassed by their leader.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on3:39 pm - Dec 10, 2015


King may regret the comments he made in an STV interview, given he was advised not to speak to the press.
Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 1h1 hour ago Dave King has told STV that he is not surprised by today’s “withering” judgement by an “experienced judge”. King: “Unsurprising. Glad we had a strong judge who saw this matter for what it really is. It was a humiliating defeat for Mike Ashley.” King: “I’ve never witnessed a strong judge really virtually tearing someone apart the way he did today.” King: “It was an absolutely humiliating defeat for Mike Ashley. I’m delighted with the outcome.” Sports Direct v Rangers International Football Club Plc back in this court at 10am tomorrow to receive full judgement and decision.
==============
King’s comments remind me of those made by a certain EBT recipient after his Blackburn Rovers team had played the first leg of a UEFA Cup tie at Celtic Park. In both cases, it was wiser to wait until after the tie was over before allowing such claims to enter the public domain.

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on3:44 pm - Dec 10, 2015


When a High court judge “advises ” you not to speak to the press, you should keep your mouth shut.
“Advise” is euphemistic for ” warn”

View Comment

Avatar

Jm15Posted on3:52 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Just for clarity, was he (warned) before or after he spoke to the press?

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on4:09 pm - Dec 10, 2015


A few more of Judge Smith’s comments from the Record’s article:

‘I’m going to dismiss the application to commit for reasons I will give later’, he said.
The judge also pointed out the legal dispute between the parties had so far cost more than £400,000, and said: ‘I do wonder what is the point of all this.
‘£400,000 would get you a full back in the Scottish Second Division.’
Mr Justice Peter Smith said he is minded to continue the injunction banning King from speaking to the press about dealings with Sports Direct, but added: ‘I think it needs tidying up. He can discuss things that are already established and in the public domain.’

View Comment

Avatar

OdiochainPosted on4:11 pm - Dec 10, 2015


In the course of the last 30 minutes, the hubristic statements made by DCK upon leaving the Royal Courts of Justice have been removed from the Daily Record’s online coverage of today’s proceedings.
The following text has been added at the end of the article (to which I will not link for obvious reasons):
“He said: “Mr King should not assume he has been completely vindicated. It’s going to be a close run thing. ”
He pointed out that while he has dismissed the application to commit King to prison, there had been no final ruling on the issue of breaching the injunction.
He adjourned the case until tomorrow morning when the parties will return to possibly debate the terms of the interim injunction which is likely to be extended.”
I have not seen the words “It’s going to be a close run thing,” attributed to Judge Smith anywhere else.
James Doleman’s ex tempore Twitter feed suggests that there was no reporter from the Daily Record in court for this afternoon’s reconvened sitting at which the words were supposedly said.
It would be interesting to hear from him – or from any intrepid SFM “reporter” who might have been present – whether or not they heard these words.
Of course, they must have been spoken.  The Daily Record couldn’t be so glib and shameless as to put words into the mouth of a senior member of the judiciary who had just suggested that they scored “nil points” for the accuracy of their report on the morning session.  Could it?

View Comment

Avatar

stevoPosted on4:29 pm - Dec 10, 2015


King: “I’ve never witnessed a strong judge really virtually tearing someone apart the way he did today.”

That’s funny, I can think of at least one occasion.

View Comment

Avatar

nawlitePosted on4:30 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Hang on, never mind the Record getting nil points for accuracy, did King really come out of court giving valedictory statements that he had been vindicated and that it was a humiliating defeat for MA, when in fact the judge hasn’t even delivered a guilty or not guilty verdict? As far as I can see from what I’m reading, the only decision the judge has made is that he won’t give King a jail sentence, but might yet find him guilty of contempt – am I reading that right?
If so, and King has misunderstood what just happened, isn’t that lack of ability to listen to others one of the signs of psychopathy?

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on4:47 pm - Dec 10, 2015


A lengthy statement from Ann Budge in response to the SPFL criticising her and Les Hutchison. It seems that she doesn’t particularly like the SPFL’s communications process.

http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/4806

View Comment

Avatar

jimmciPosted on5:03 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Is it only me who is amazed, yet not totally surprised, that the paper who like to think of themselves as closest to Rangers did not see fit to send one of their own staff to the Court in London today and therefore are presumably using PA or Twitter feed information from which they will no doubt produce at least 4 pages of copy in tomorrow’s paper.Loved the fact that Radar even admitted they were rewriting or as he said correcting their web page as the day went on.
The DR’s Editor must be one hell of a clown whose judgement is once again shown to be appalling, their expense budget must be in tatters if they can’t afford an Easyjet flight, or, perhaps, they feared the judge may want a word and stayed away.
So many options……so hard to tell which, if any, was, the overriding decision-maker.

View Comment

Avatar

y4rmyPosted on5:04 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Would be quite funny if Dave King was charged with contempt of court for prematurely celebrating the dismissal of his contempt of court case. 03

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on5:13 pm - Dec 10, 2015


nawlite 10th December 2015 at 4:30 pm
‘… and King has misunderstood what just happened, isn’t that lack of ability to listen to others one of the signs of psychopathy?’
_______Don’t give the man a chance to plead insanity!03

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on5:14 pm - Dec 10, 2015


easyJambo 10th December 2015 at 4:47 pm # A lengthy statement from Ann Budge in response to the SPFL criticising her and Les Hutchison. It seems that she doesn’t particularly like the SPFL’s communications process.
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/4806
_____________________

Possibly the strongest criticism I’ve ever read, by a member club/chairperson, of the Scottish football governors – other than those from Vlad, of course. It must certainly be the best composed statement of muted anger ever directed at our footballing beaks!

While very respectful, it leaves little wriggle room for the SPFL to avoid making a public response. If it was less respectful, she might have mentioned Mr Barry Hearn 21

The following, the last of Ann Budge’s points, is quite an indictment of the SPFL governors, especially as the current problem appears, at best, to be one of communication:

‘One of those working groups was the Competition Working Group involved here; another was to address Communications.  Hearts is represented on the Communications Working Group.  As of today, more than a year later, there have been no meetings of the Communication Working Group.’

I wonder how well Doncaster will communicate his response!

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on5:18 pm - Dec 10, 2015


easyJambo 10th December 2015 at 4:47 pm #A lengthy statement from Ann Budge in response to the SPFL criticising her and Les Hutchison. It seems that she doesn’t particularly like the SPFL’s communications process.
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/4806
============
Ouch!
Right in the SPFL’s tender bits.
Ann Budge isn’t one for taking prisoners and I hope that she never changes and goes native, as her approach has been needed for ages.

View Comment

Avatar

FinlochPosted on5:23 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Scottish Football needs more Ann Budges.

View Comment

Methilhill Stroller

Methilhill StrollerPosted on5:24 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Stevo
Obviously a technicality – a bit like opening and reading an email and not opening or reading the attachment when you realized it might contain something you didn’t want to read so you can deny it later!

Similarly never witnessed a [UK] judge doing it to someone else but of course he probably believes that is not the same as oneself being told you are mendacious, nothing you say should be believed unless backed up in writing, and being called a glib and shameless liar.

Tomorrow should be interesting given the judge’s warning and that DCK media comments appeared to be trashing MA (who seems far too clever to have given DCK an easy ride – the loss leader mentioned earlier by ZT1903 was a very good analogy). We might yet see the judge take action against DCK tomorrow – more so if he sees TV and newspaper articles on DCK interviews in the meantime – and then wait for the instant SMSM articles (not).

The junior silk (strange?) not providing all the evidence SD probably have (not even putting DCK on the stand) makes you wonder what MA had planned from the outset and what he has in store tomorrow and in days/months to come.

Good release by Anne Budge as well – wouldn’t it be wonderful if those in the bunker could start speaking straight but, like JC, am not holding my breath for that one.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on5:50 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Did the court calendar play a part in today’s proceedings? …..It strikes me that it would have been easier to secure a contempt charge AFTER being found guilty of breaching the injunction. Not the other way around, as happened today.  
   Obviously a verdict of contempt would aid the breach of injunction charge, but as the court pointed out today (I think), that would be a damages claim, but not necessarily at her maj’s pleasure.  

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on6:20 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Sorry but I’m a bit behind the game here.

Why is this being reported

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/1335482-dave-king-did-not-breach-mike-ashley-gagging-order-judge-rules/

Dave King cleared of contempt of court over Ashley gagging order

On throwing out the application, the judge questioned what the point of the around 400,000 case was.

King said after the hearing that the outcome was “unsurprising” and added “it was a humiliating defeat for Mike Ashley.”

He added: “I’ve never witnessed a strong judge really, virtually tearing someone apart the way he did today.”

==================================

If the Judge will not actually give his ruling until tomorrow.

Have I picked this up wrong somehow. Have King and his legal team been told the result and he is already in the press talking about it before the Judge has actually made it public.

Or was King being a bit premature when he took not being imprisoned to mean he won.

Is that like being found guilty and being fined £250,000 is now a “victory” because it could have been much worse.

Is this the new way of thinking. If you do not have the maximum sentence imposed on you then you are in fact innocent.

Strange stuff.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on6:52 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Reading Ann Budge’s statement my eye fell particularly on this observation “…I would stand by my conviction that clubs must speak out if they are unhappy with how decisions are being made and communicated…”
______
It seems pretty clear to me that  the CEO/Board culture in both the SFA and SPFL has long been and continues to be one of belief that the tail should wag the dog.
Our clubs have allowed themselves for years to be side-lined by cliques who appear to run things entirely without regard to their nominal masters.
if they can fail to adequately to communicate properly with clubs on routine football matters , like competition format, what might they do when they are proposing to destroy the very idea of Integrity in Sport?
Well, no need to speculate because it is not a matter of speculation, but proven historical fact. What they will do, what they have done, is lie mightily, and bully and bluster our clubs into an enforced submission.
 How many clubs were given the slightest inkling that the 5-Way agreement was on the stocks, before it was secretly signed, sealed and delivered as a ‘fait accompli’.
I suspect that if Ann Budge had been in charge at Hearts at the time, such a clamour would have been raised  as would have had Ogilvie’s, Regan’s, Doncaster’s and Longmuir’s heads  stuck up on the flag poles at Hampden.

View Comment

yourhavingalaugh

yourhavingalaughPosted on7:18 pm - Dec 10, 2015


I think Friday is going to be more interesting than we where expecting,you can always rely on Dave to come up with something mendacious ,never fails,eh Judge Smith,over to you ,the balls in your court,so to speak.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on7:29 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Corrupt official 10th December 2015 at 5:50 pm # Did the court calendar play a part in today’s proceedings? …..It strikes me that it would have been easier to secure a contempt charge AFTER being found guilty of breaching the injunction. Not the other way around, as happened today.      Obviously a verdict of contempt would aid the breach of injunction charge, but as the court pointed out today (I think), that would be a damages claim, but not necessarily at her maj’s pleasure.  
_____________________-

We have presumed all along that MA wanted DK sent down. What if he didn’t? What if he is playing some long game and letting King dig an ever deeper hole? If he is, didn’t King play right into his hands with his affidavit and after court speech?

Ashley is either playing the long game. or isn’t as clever as we all think he is, because, from what we have read of today’s court preceedings, he is either playing some game we haven’t yet recognised, or he is actually daft!

View Comment

Avatar

Gym TrainerPosted on7:30 pm - Dec 10, 2015


‘One of those working groups was the Competition Working Group involved here; another was to address Communications. Hearts is represented on the Communications Working Group. As of today, more than a year later, there have been no meetings of the Communication Working Group

I’m no expert on meetings (other than trying my damnedest to avoid them) but it is not beyond the realms of credulity for a member of a working group to convene a meeting, or request/suggest/demand one be held?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on7:34 pm - Dec 10, 2015


When there is only a Judge and lawyers involved there is often less of the theatre of court and more just people speaking to each other. With the Judge often cutting through the bunkum and just getting to the nub of the matter. Rest assured there is never any doubt who is in charge.

For example, and this is not a direct quote but you will hopefully get the point. A Judge saying to a QC “Mr Leech, if you have a point to make then please get on and make it. There is no jury here to impress and you certainly aren’t impressing me.”

In a situation like that you can pretty much guarantee Mr Leech will get on with making his point. He will almost certainly apologise whilst doing it.

In an instance like this a Judge will often be looking for the “common sense” answer to a dispute. For example by asking questions like (and I paraphrase again) “Yes, that’s fine but what actual harm was caused … how was your client injured by these actions”

Judges, and those who sit in the Court of Session are no exception in this, see themselves as people who can see through the ranygazoo and get to the crux of the matter. Whether it be frivolous accusations of contempt, or the reality behind a tax avoidance scheme.

Tomorrow will be interesting, for a variety of reasons. I would not be surprised if Dave King, Mike Ashley and the media all get it in the neck. I would have no problem with that at all.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on7:40 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Gym Trainer 10th December 2015 at 7:30 pm # ‘One of those working groups was the Competition Working Group involved here; another was to address Communications. Hearts is represented on the Communications Working Group. As of today, more than a year later, there have been no meetings of the Communication Working GroupI’m no expert on meetings (other than trying my damnedest to avoid them) but it is not beyond the realms of credulity for a member of a working group to convene a meeting, or request/suggest/demand one be held?
______________________________

It is the SPFL you’re talking about, there’s bound to be an ‘at the boards discretion’ clause in any constitution of anything they set up. And I’m not joking!

I doubt, anyway, that working groups are democratic bodies, nor that representatives are treated the same as members of an association.

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on8:07 pm - Dec 10, 2015


alzipratu 9th December 2015 at 8:30 pm #Stewart Regan ‘interview’

In which SR states

There were other smaller dramas to contend with, as well as driving through the recommendations of the McLeish report, which led to full-scale reform of the organisation following an annual general meeting vote in June 2011.

Now maybe I am wrong (for which I apologise) but wasn’t most of the McLeish report ignored, shelved etc?

View Comment

Avatar

nawlitePosted on8:16 pm - Dec 10, 2015


I see the BBC website is reporting that Real’s expulsion from the Spanish cup has been confirmed and their appeal failed.
What’s this, an authority that treats big clubs the same as small ones (Osasuna last year)? It’ll never catch on!!

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on8:20 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Allyjambo 10th December 2015 at 7:29 pm

    “from what we have read of today’s court preceedings, he is either playing some game we haven’t yet recognised, or he is actually daft!”
   —————————————————————————————-
    I think Ashley was just trying to push the envelope. I can never see losing in court part of a strategy. The judge seemed keen to talk about damages, and Ashley’s lawyers kicked the can. I’m with the thinking Ashley was chasing time in the pokey for DCK today, but think Smith seen it for what that was. Two weans fighting over a train-set, goading and nipping each other, when they thought nobody was watching. 
   I can see the train-set getting smashed by one or both, as is the way in these matters. …..Its knackered anyway and there is hardly any track left. Don’t be surprised if they both end up with nothing, and sent to bed with a flea in their ear. Ones as bad as the other.

View Comment

Methilhill Stroller

Methilhill StrollerPosted on8:35 pm - Dec 10, 2015


CO 
As I said earlier I still believe MA has a plan to let DCK hang himself because he never remembers what he says and plays to the bears without a thought of consequences.

Even if MA did have an off moment he has the odd 300k change to spare without putting even a dent in the SD empire BUT DCK and Sevco apparently don’t have a couple of pound coins to rub together – less so if they have paid the 5m back – so all these cases are using up money they can ill afford to lose unless there is another valentine’s day massacre about to unfold.

Let us see what tomorrow brings in the way of festive season gifts – if anything.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on8:56 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Corrupt official 10th December 2015 at 8:20 pm # Allyjambo 10th December 2015 at 7:29 pm
    “from what we have read of today’s court preceedings, he is either playing some game we haven’t yet recognised, or he is actually daft!”   —————————————————————————————-    I think Ashley was just trying to push the envelope. I can never see losing in court part of a strategy. The judge seemed keen to talk about damages, and Ashley’s lawyers kicked the can. I’m with the thinking Ashley was chasing time in the pokey for DCK today, but think Smith seen it for what that was. Two weans fighting over a train-set, goading and nipping each other, when they thought nobody was watching.     I can see the train-set getting smashed by one or both, as is the way in these matters. …..Its knackered anyway and there is hardly any track left. Don’t be surprised if they both end up with nothing, and sent to bed with a flea in their ear. Ones as bad as the other.
______________________________________________

Seems to me that Ashley’s men went to court with an unwinnable case, or at least one that had no chance of resulting in a custodial sentence for King presented in the way it was. The judge seemed to think so too. That’s not pushing the envelope, at least not pushing it with enough gusto to make it move. They (MA’s men) seemed to go very easy on King, and missed the opportunity to have him repeat his performance from a South African court. Seems to me they either made a complete b*lls up of it, or are playing some game in which today’s result didn’t matter. Perhaps tomorrow will throw more light on things, but possibly/probably not.

Today’s case creates a picture in my head of a cartoon, where the pirates aim a cannon at a rowing boat and fire it with a huge bang and clouds of smoke, only for the cannon ball to roll slowly out of the muzzle and drop into the sea. The crew of the rowing boat laugh and start to row away, but is that a whale about to swallow them…or does it just cause a wave that swamps the boat and the crew have to keep on bailing, as successive crews of the rowing boat have been doing for the whole of it’s journey?

View Comment

Avatar

nawlitePosted on8:57 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Apart from the King of the untruth saying it in court, there has been absolutely no comment anywhere about the £5m being repaid, not even on the official TRFC* website. Surely, if it had been repaid, they’d be making a big song and dance about it, given how much the fans want rid of Ashley (even though that doesn’t fully get rid).
Equally, if it hasn’t been repaid, then you’d think Ashely would be quick to shoot King down.
Anyone understand what’s going on here?

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:01 pm - Dec 10, 2015


I thought all along that this contempt of court case was a damp squib.  Anyone who watched the Jim White interview would know even from a layman’s point of view that King did not breach the gagging order.  He merely acknowledged the existence of the retail contract and that he was not happy with it, whether he was wearing his ‘Rangers hat’ or not it was harmless.  jj site had tried to convince everyone that King would be in jail over Christmas, I had ma doots. I’m no fan of King but if the Sky interview was SDs strongest hand then they were on to a hiding from the onset.  The only thing I kept wondering about was does MAs legal team have something up their sleeves that we don’t know about?  In the end, they had nothing.

Just goes to show that no matter how much money you have and a highly paid legal team to present your case, you need a case to begin with.

This case today was nothing but a silly hissy fit from MA.  The real stuff is yet to come.  The case against the SFA – regardless of the outcome – will expose some interesting goings on.  And don’t even get me started on the case Vs the takeovers of Rangers/Sevco.  You won’t be disappointed.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on10:30 pm - Dec 10, 2015


nawlite 10th December 2015 at 8:57 pm #

    “Equally, if it hasn’t been repaid, then you’d think Ashely would be quick to shoot King down.Anyone understand what’s going on here?” 
    ————————————————————————————–
    I was wondering about that too Nawlite, and in particular, What did it have to do with anything?  As far as I could see, it was not related to any of today’s events.  It appeared to pop up just after the confidentiality contracts were signed by the press, and came out of the blue……..I’m not sure if it should have been reported. 
    But that does not answer my question….. What did it have to do with anything? What context did it have? ….I know, that’s two questions.   bogof. 

View Comment

Avatar

CarlylePosted on10:31 pm - Dec 10, 2015


Is the MA v DCK case continuing tomorrow at the High Court in London or is it the SFA case in CoS tomorrow in Edinburgh ?

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on10:47 pm - Dec 10, 2015


It looks like Charles Green is appealing the previous decision of Lord Doherty re his legal fee claim.  A “reclaiming motion” is a request for a review of a decision by the Inner House of the Court of Session
 
Wednesday 16th December
Single Bill
at 10.00am
2  CA196/15 Reclaiming Motion: Charles Green v Rangers International Football Club Plc – DAC Beachcroft Scotland LLP – Anderson Strathern LLP

View Comment

Avatar

armchairsupporterPosted on11:12 pm - Dec 10, 2015


King must surely know that there’s nothing so deflating as a premature congratulation!

So, don’t speak too soon while the wheel’s still in spin
For the time’s they are a changing.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:43 pm - Dec 10, 2015


It’s a quiet night.
So I explore, or try to explore, out of general interest and not related to any particular legal case or lawsuit, the whole business of ‘costs’.
All of us who have read Dickens know that it costs an arm and a leg or two to ‘go to law’.
But in my innocence of heart, I had always just assumed that was to do with the Sue, Grabbet and Runn lawyers’ fees ‘myth(?): that your ‘costs’ were the costs of your lawyer’s fees.
I never gave a thought to the costs of using the Court’s ‘services’, although, of course, like everyone else , I know that you get bugger all for nothing when it comes to State bureaucracy-from stamp duty to getting a copy of a birth certificate or a marriage licence.
Well, I did tonight. And I googled this and that, and found all kinds of interesting wee things. This is an example:
“16. Court hearing (in normal hours) before a single judge – payable by each party for every 30 minutes or part thereof.  £94.00.
Note: This fee does not apply to the first 30 minutes of the hearing of a motion.”
[this is  a general link to the list of current fees]  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2015/261/made
So, I reckon that, for example, a day ( say 10.00 a.m to 4.00 pm ) before Lord Doherty in the Appeal against the UTTT decision, is  11 half-hours by £188=£2068.
And then there are fees for getting things done, warrants, summonses, etc etc.It’s all laid down.
It therefore must matter a bit to all but multinational corporations, to win the case, so that the loser picks up the fees tab.
The things one learns!

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on12:33 am - Dec 11, 2015


armchairsupporter 10th December 2015 at 11:12 pm #

King must surely know that there’s nothing so deflating as a premature congratulation!

Ooh you are awful. 10
 
 
John Clark 10th December 2015 at 11:43 pm
——————————————————-
Many moons ago I used to call on a firm of solictors called Welsh and Robb
Then Mr Cheetham became a partner. Honest injun!  03

View Comment

melbournedee

melbournedeePosted on3:06 am - Dec 11, 2015


Just came across this shocking news about former Rangers player, Arnold Peralta:

http://www.scotzine.com/2015/12/former-rangers-midfielder-arnold-peralta-murdered/

My heartfelt thoughts go to his family and friends including those in Scottish football that knew him.

View Comment

melbournedee

melbournedeePosted on9:45 am - Dec 11, 2015


James Doleman ready for Day 2 of SD v RIFC.

Scheduled kickoff in 15 minutes.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on9:48 am - Dec 11, 2015


Test

View Comment

Avatar

Jungle JimPosted on9:57 am - Dec 11, 2015


You have to wonder if Ashley’s legal team explained to him exactly how weak his case was or are they just happy to take the cash?  Ashley is clearly a shrewd business man but in making this personal it seems to have clouded his judgement.  I’m not buying the whole ‘part of a bigger plan’ pitch, he made a mess of it plain and simple.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:02 am - Dec 11, 2015


I predict

The Judge will say it is preposterous to think that a “gagging order” covers things which are already clearly in the public domain.

That Sports Direct have wasted his time and they better not do it again.

That King should think a bit more about what he says in public (he may be more harsh if he knows about the stuff in the papers yesterday, SD may tell him).

That a QC has told him there are serious doubts about the King affidavit and he will be looking further into this.

That the Daily Record are a waste of space comic, and Jim Whyte is just a waste of space.

They will all be sent away with a flea in their ears, and he will go for a nice lunch and an early pop because it’s poets day.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:05 am - Dec 11, 2015


Jungle Jim 11th December 2015 at 9:57 am                 
===========================

You are working on the basis that his team genuinely thought King might get the jail over Christmas, I don’t think that was ever on the cards.

I think we should wait to hear what the Judge says before considering what this has or hasn’t achieved. Costs for example are a huge issue.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:16 am - Dec 11, 2015


After his rag has been humiliated in court, Keith Jackson is now having digs at John James for confidently predicting King would be jailed yesterday. Even if we ignore Jackson’s ever lengthening list of nonsensical proclamations supporting crooks and shysters, isn’t it a bit odd that a ‘professional’ reporter, who notably avoided doing his job by attending the trial of a man he extensively supports and covers in said rag, should find cause to compare himself against an amateur blogger in a very schoolboy kind of way?

Saying that, he seems to be hinting that JJ is none other than Jack Irvine, calling him ‘Jack’ James in one tweet. While that would surely lower the standing of John James as a human being, it might well lend some gravitas to his claims as he must have some contacts at Ibrox, or at least has a good grounding in what has gone before!

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on10:38 am - Dec 11, 2015


Jungle Jim 11th December 2015 at 9:57 am #  
     I think Ashley just took a punt on yesterday’s, what amounted to a private prosecution. He is claiming £200K damages for breaching the injunction, and coincidently, his legals for yesterday were £200K. It’s not beyond deducing he just thought, “What the hell !….It’s only money, and probably won’t even be my money”.  Two birds one stone. 

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on10:40 am - Dec 11, 2015


What Ashley wants out of this court action is an order for costs. I think that Ashley’s plan is to litigate King out of Ibrox. Once the legal fees build up, and with no end in sight, King will be thrown under a Park’s bus as a total liability.
If King is found to be in breach of the injunction, however slightly, then I guess that Ashley might be awarded costs, although the judge appears to consider the case to be part of a personal feud, which is not going to help Ashley’s cause. The most likely outcome would be that each side bears its own costs. That’s £200k that RIFC can’t afford, but which is nothing to Ashley. So some sort of victory.
On the other hand, if King is totally cleared of any breach of the injunction, then Ashley will probably have to pay the RIFC costs as well as his own. That will make Ashley look like a complete fool. He will not be happy about that. I don’t think for a moment that Ashley will go away at that point. He will just become even more determined to nail King, whatever the cost.
He might be well advised to find another way of undermining King, though. The courts will not put up with many more cases like the current one, which just looks to me to be vindictive and petty, whatever the outcome.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on11:05 am - Dec 11, 2015


“James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 1m1 minute ago Judge “Is Mr Ashley going to blame this for the 11% slide in his shares yesterday?””

___________________________________

At least the SD team can feel relieved that his lordship didn’t say ‘my shares yesterday’ 21

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:05 am - Dec 11, 2015


‘James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 2m2 minutes ago
Judge “Is Mr Ashley going to blame this for the 11% slide in his shares yesterday?”‘
_____
And what has that question got to do with anything, I wonder?

View Comment

Avatar

Jake CantonaPosted on11:09 am - Dec 11, 2015


While following James Doleman’s twitter feed yesterday, I was trying to remember where I’d come across Mr Justice Peter Smith before…
http://www.legalcheek.com/2015/07/full-transcript-of-judges-luggage-rant-at-british-airways-lawyers-emerges/
(reposted to hopefully avoid moderation)

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:20 am - Dec 11, 2015


Disappointing that the Judge appears to be limiting is request for background information re breaking the injunction to the printed press. Surely the internet and the online campaign by SoS need to be taken into consideration given that their boycott is predicated on their own understanding of the contracts (wherever that information came from) and what is also in the MSM.

That seems to be a clear area where SD has suffered harm, given the boycott and the demonstrations. 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on11:31 am - Dec 11, 2015


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 2m2 minutes ago Judge to RFC counsel “ perhaps your client should have kept it zipped yesterday” notes there are over 100 news articles on the Internet
_______________

Perhaps King’s policeman father should have told him to keep it zipped years ago!

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on11:33 am - Dec 11, 2015


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 3m3 minutes ago Breaking: Counsel for Sports Direct says £5m loan has not been repaid

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on11:34 am - Dec 11, 2015


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman Breaking: Counsel for Sports Direct says £5m loan has not been repaid

Well that explains something- I found it hard to believe that anyone would put in £5m at this stage.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on11:34 am - Dec 11, 2015


Breaking: Counsel for Sports Direct says £5m loan has not been repaid
Counsel for Sports Direct says Rangers have told him “funds are still being collected” to repay loan
Judge responds to Internet chatter and tells court ” I have never been a mason”
Counsel for Sports Direct says RFC are still £500k short of funds to repay loan.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on11:34 am - Dec 11, 2015


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 3m3 minutes ago Counsel for Sports Direct says Rangers have told him “funds are still being collected” to repay loan
________________

Amazing, simply amazing!

View Comment

Comments are closed.