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

Avatar

West Ham FanPosted on11:29 pm - Nov 22, 2015


quick poll. thumbs up if u like the New Scottish Kits. thumbs down if you don’t ? just curious what Scottish Fans think 

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on12:32 am - Nov 23, 2015


Re the new kit – does anyone know what the SFA’s Fans Forum or their fans consultative committee thought about the new kit?
What do you mean they didn’t ask anyone…
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath. 

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:34 am - Nov 23, 2015


On the subject of B teams of the big clubs playing in the lower divisions , what happened to the practice of farming out young players to Junior teams as part of their development, especially as there is a lot more football played nowadays between the fights ?

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:06 am - Nov 23, 2015


Yet again one of our supposedly better journalists has let himself down, this time Tom English. Declaring that only ‘pockets’ of fans other than Celtic are concerned is a very wide ranging statement to make given that it is doubtful he has canvassed a wide enough group (many thousands) of fans of other clubs, with only 10% or so saying they care. In fact it is a daft statement to make, and if it’s based on the ‘fans’ who inhabit the BBC studios then heaven help us. Incidentally, even if it WAS only Celtic fans who are bothered, why does that automatically mean nothing should be done? Over to Tom to explain that. If 100 people witness a significant crime and only two complain to the Police, does the other 98 saying nothing mean the Police should take no action?

Another significant issue the media seem to ignore is the statement from Celtic at the AGM last week regarding resolution 12. It is in the hands of the lawyers, the case has been presented to the SFA, and a response is awaited. As Auldheid has indicated on here, this has been the position for some time. If the SFA had no case to answer they would have publicly proven it by now. Well they would, wouldn’t they?

Oh for a media that would simply go after the real stories without fear or favour. 

View Comment

Avatar

DeldonPosted on9:15 am - Nov 23, 2015


As a Don it pleases me that AFC supporters representing a majority view in that the SFA/SPFL (formerly SPL) have been at least complicit in the LNS decision. Showing banners is one thing and when the time comes I.e. if/ when BDO appeal timescale passes and ‘real pressure’ is on our football governance to at least respond to the CoS decision, I know that AFC fans will put pressure on the AFC Board to use them as a conduit to the fans’ feelings on the rules being applied and a review of LNS. If this happens I expect something bigger than the ‘fan movement’ of summer 2012.
The AFC chat link will give you an indication of how some AFC fans feel.

http://www.afc-chat.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=31458&page=373#entry1237896

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:03 am - Nov 23, 2015


UTH,

I’ll distort your argument slightly UTH, but to the same end.

If 100 fans witness an “odd series of entirely co-incidental events”24 and only 2 complain, on what basis are the remaining 98 staying silent.

Are they scared of something?  That can’t be a good situation.

Are they taking the view to move on, what’s past is past?  I’ll split this group into three.

Are they giving up and moving on?  That can’t be healthy Shirley (although I expect is the prevalent viewpoint).

Are they saying what’s past is past, couldn’t be avoided, now lets move on.  I can understand that viewpoint too.  Is there any chance the media might ask the question, what has happened to avoid such a situation happening again.  From where I sit it seems to have been positively encouraged!

Finally, are they taking a view that whilst neither giving up, nor ignoring what’s happened, that for the good of the game they wish to move on?  In that case could I ask someone to show me the numbers?  I can only assume its based on a mid noughties arms battle recommencing.  Show me where the funding comes from to finance at least one side of that equation.  And secondly show me where 40 other clubs fit into the model, again with funding propsals to consider. 

Or are we just to take it all on trust?   

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:35 am - Nov 23, 2015


upthehoops 23rd November 2015 at 7:06 am #Yet again one of our supposedly better journalists has let himself down, this time Tom English. Declaring that only ‘pockets’ of fans other than Celtic are concerned is a very wide ranging statement to make given that it is doubtful he has canvassed a wide enough group (many thousands) of fans of other clubs, with only 10% or so saying they care. In fact it is a daft statement to make, and if it’s based on the ‘fans’ who inhabit the BBC studios then heaven help us. Incidentally, even if it WAS only Celtic fans who are bothered, why does that automatically mean nothing should be done? Over to Tom to explain that. If 100 people witness a significant crime and only two complain to the Police, does the other 98 saying nothing mean the Police should take no action?
Another significant issue the media seem to ignore is the statement from Celtic at the AGM last week regarding resolution 12. It is in the hands of the lawyers, the case has been presented to the SFA, and a response is awaited. As Auldheid has indicated on here, this has been the position for some time. If the SFA had no case to answer they would have publicly proven it by now. Well they would, wouldn’t they?
Oh for a media that would simply go after the real stories without fear or favour. 
____________________

I have to say that I’ve never considered Tom English to be any better than a more articulate talker and public opinion aware hack, happy to bend with the wind, but too cowardly to ‘go all the way’ with a story, than the rest of the SMSM . The only difference between him and Graham Speirs is that it is doubtful he grew up supporting Rangers.

There can be no doubt that he is following the ‘company line’, preferring to mock those who put forward damning words of protest over discredited football governors rather than to pursue a story that’s been crying out for proper journalistic investigation for some years.

Proper journalists do not mock members of the public for demanding a proper investigation into known wrongdoing, and certainly not without producing the evidence to prove they, the public, are wrong in their assertions.

If one man out of a million demands justice, the apathy of the other 999,999 doesn’t make him wrong, and the silence of the majority doesn’t display a lack of sympathy with his demands. At the same time he seems happy to take as evidence for his assertions the views expressed on ‘Rangers’ overloaded phone ins, where even he has been talked down by 3 or more Rangers Men panelists to his one ‘neutral’ voice, time after time! Perhaps his ‘voice of reason’ style is just a charade! I, for one, am certain it is.

It is clear that, not only through their love of a club that cheated, the SMSM hacks want this story to go away because they fear the repercussions of justice prevaling, as it will show their incompetence and cowardice to everyone. Already (however belatedly) the bears are waking up to how the SMSM let them down over Whyte, Green etc, by their lazy churnalism, a few are even aware of how they failed to disclose the disaster that was David Murray. They now know how bad they’ll look should the same failures come to light in failing to expose, or at least question, the SFA and SP(F)L!

Here’s an example of how wide of the mark English is, I hope the example won’t appear inappropriate in light of seriousness of these recent events.

At this moment in time, I have never made a protest, posted on a blog, nor demanded action over the terrible recent events in Sharm el Sheikh (where I was at the time), Paris and currently in Belgium. Does that mean I am not interested and just want to move on, without seeing the perpetrators brought to justice, along with anyone who may have assisted them along the way?

Of course it doesn’t, silence and leaving it to others to take action is the norm amongst the majority when wrong has been done, and a lack of public awareness, due to poor/biased media coverage, helps create this apathy.

View Comment

incredibleadamspark

incredibleadamsparkPosted on10:45 am - Nov 23, 2015


It’s worth remembering that the Celtic hierarchy, like the much maligned SMSM, showed no interest in resolution 12. That they were forced to take action because of the focus and tenacity of some of their own fans, none more so than our own Auldheid, is particularly telling.

Clubs can be a bit like politicians and regularly fail to take into account the feelings, opinions and views of the very people they claim to represent and in whose name they take many of their decisions.

Over the past few years it’s been left to the ‘bampots’ and social media sites to offer the alternative view. Resolution 12 may have been presented to the SFA but the SFA is made up of representatives from many of our clubs. The facts of the matter seem pretty clear cut but I have lost any trust in our clubs or authorities to take the appropriate action.  

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on11:13 am - Nov 23, 2015


Ah, but thereins the rub Adam (or is it incredible?  or Mr Spark?03).

Appropriate actions according to whom, and on what basis of justification?

If its lets get back to “aye been” on the basis that its “aye been” completely and deliberately ignoring the reality that, at the outset, the one route Doncaster et al didn’t have to follow was “aye been” for hopefully self explanatory reasons then the games a bogey, pure and simple. 

Edit: actually, no. Not a bogey. Not immediately anyway. There will be those who would celebrate a return to the confines of that model. That would positively celebrate that the model was to be reimposed. That would revel in the broadcasts that would follow telling us all how it was, is and forever will be, apparently.

But confined and irreparably holed none the less.

View Comment

Avatar

LUGOSIPosted on11:17 am - Nov 23, 2015


Methinks Tom English’s throwaway tweet about “pockets of fans” may come back to haunt him.
Unwittingly he has focused on why this matters.
Fans’ pockets have been picked over a period of years and they are now being told to just forget it.
To further mix metaphors Mr English is going to find out soon enough that as adherents to Sir David and Mr King have found out some pockets are deeper than others.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:48 am - Nov 23, 2015


incredibleadamspark 23rd November 2015 at 10:45 am
‘……Resolution 12 may have been presented to the SFA but the SFA is made up of representatives from many of our clubs. The facts of the matter seem pretty clear cut but I have lost any trust in our clubs or authorities to take the appropriate action.  ‘
________
I am not any kind of business man, but I know that ‘brand loyalty ‘has to be seriously worked on by even the most sophisticated and successful retailers and entertainment and fast food chains.
For generations, in the football world we put up with the most primitive and dangerous of ‘places of entertainment’.
We did that because, despite what was viewed widely and suspiciously as a nice little mutual arrangement between two clubs which seemed to have an unusual number of lucrative re-plays of games in cup competitions in which they they played each other, we generally believed that the sport as a whole was clean-and, especially, that the administration of our sport was clean.
In spite of the greatly improved physical environments provided by our clubs, competition from other leisure activities etc etc has over time caused a decline in the customer bases of probably most clubs, if not all of them.
And our clubs have increasingly had to work hard to remain financially viable .
All their work in that regard WILL, not ‘might’ , be of no avail in the longer term once it becomes clear that they are going to persist in  denying that there has been dirty, shabby, underhand work  done, and lies told, and continue to refuse to force the Boards of the SFA and the SPFL to come clean, own up to the truth, and  deal with the most significant cheating episode in Scottish football Administration that there has ever been.
Poor customer service is one thing.
For our clubs to accept silently the flagrant cheating of SDM’s RFC(IL) and the ( much more pernicious) underhand arrangements with CG’s new creation, is for them to embark on a slow suicide.
Those of our club owners and directors who know this ( and they all do!) must in self-protection screw their courage to the sticking point, and force the issue.
They know what they must do.
And WE know what they must do.

View Comment

Prohibby

ProhibbyPosted on12:03 pm - Nov 23, 2015


Gary Ralston at the DR:
“If it wasn’t a sign of panic, it was certainly a hint they had lost the discipline of patience Warburton has long preached.
All of which throws pressure on King, who cannot countenance another season at this level and must release some of the serious funds previously promised to rebuild his club into a major force.”
Mr Ralston still believes King has a got a warchest!  121212

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on12:18 pm - Nov 23, 2015


A different EBT which interested me.

In some countries registere church members are levied a church tax which goes to the church identified? This can be quite substantial in Switzerland it is 7% for Catholics and 4 % for Swiss reformed church members.
The arrangement in Germanyis similar. When Luca Toni went to Bayern Munich his accountant registered him as an Atheist so no tax was due. However he then changed the registration to Catholic resulting in a multi million pound tax bill and being taken to court by the Church.

The wages of pauchling is tax as I just made up.

View Comment

incredibleadamspark

incredibleadamsparkPosted on12:37 pm - Nov 23, 2015


Smugas 23rd November 2015 at 11:13 am

I think you highlight the problem. I get the impression the SMSM, clubs and authorities all believe the issues have been dealt with, to their own satisfaction if no one else’s, and we fans should just concentrate on the fitba.

A decade ago that might have happened but access to information and our ability to interpret and then share that information mean we no longer have to take what we’re given. Social media is used as a pejorative term that’s spat out by an outdated and behind the times section of the media. To anyone not in authority it has gone some way towards levelling the playing field resulting in a better informed public.

So ‘appropriate action according to whom and on what basis of justification’ is an interesting question. I’d like to think the answer would be ‘everyone’ and ‘the rules’ but naivete has probably got the better of me there. I don’t think anyone will be satisfied with the outcome.          

View Comment

ThomTheThim

ThomTheThimPosted on1:31 pm - Nov 23, 2015


I wonder what many parents of MSM hacks feel when they see the fruits of their sacrifices masquerading as journalists?
How proud must they feel to see them being exposed as liars?

In a perfect world, after the dust settles on the level of criminal activity  that has been endorsed by the media, wouldn’t it be fitting if those guilty were charged with being accessories after the fact?07

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on1:37 pm - Nov 23, 2015


PMGB’s latest hinting that were DCK to be found guilty of Contempt of Court in the UK, it may also trigger 3 months of Porridge in South Africa as the order 4.3 at the bottom of http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2013/68.html states

The respondent is committed to prison for a period of 3 months imprisonment suspended for 3 years on condition that the respondent is not found in contempt of court during the period of suspension.

which doesn’t explictily restrict the contempt to being within South African jurisdiction.  The 3 year suspension runs to next February and King appears in a UK court in a couple of weeks on a contempt charge over revealing confidential RRL information during Jim White’s tour of his wine cellar recently broadcast by Sky.  DCK was under a restraining order at the time of the interview preventing disclosure of those details.

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on1:37 pm - Nov 23, 2015


ThomTheThim
i wonder how many SMSM have an EBT,and that’s the reason for the “move on” nonsense

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on1:54 pm - Nov 23, 2015


Guess what BBC Sportsound wishes to discuss on tonight’s programme.

Kenny Macintyre ‏@bbckennymac 38m38 minutes ago #BBCSportsound 6.30pm – @celticfc fans we want your thoughts on the row between the Board and three of the club’s fan groups #celttic

No mention of the Aberdeen fans protest outside Hampden yesterday?  It is certainly more relevant to football than the political persuasion of a board member and the tweets of a couple of racist idiots.

I don’t seem to recall Sportsound being too bothered about opposition to the political views of Lord Foulkes and Ian Murray when they were directors at Hearts, or Brian Wilson and John Reid at Celtic for that matter. 

View Comment

yourhavingalaugh

yourhavingalaughPosted on1:57 pm - Nov 23, 2015


Tony@13.37pm
If not EBTs then maybe taped & video’s of succulent lamb and ruby red wine parties where tongues where loosened to an extent that might now be very embarrassing to the party goers.

View Comment

ThomTheThim

ThomTheThimPosted on2:01 pm - Nov 23, 2015


tony 23rd November 2015 at 1:37 pm #ThomTheThimi wonder how many SMSM have an EBT,and that’s the reason for the “move on” nonsense

RTC is back on Twitter. I’m not sure if he mentioned this morning that no journos were involved, though he dad say that there were no refs in receipt of an EBT.

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on2:07 pm - Nov 23, 2015


ThomTheThim
as yourhavingalaugh says maybe some tapes made by CW after a few vinos,theres a movie in this fiasco

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on2:09 pm - Nov 23, 2015


Reading the tweets from the Celtic AGM it seems Bankier was a bit emotional in his defence of Lord Livingston.  On the one hand it’s admirable to run to the aid of a friend & colleague and we have all said things in the heat of the moment that we regret later.  That is where the problem is he should have apologised unreservedly afterwards.  There are millions of Celtic fans throughout the world, the stupid ramblings of a handful should not even have been brought up in a public forum.  Report them to the police and let them deal with it.

I disagree with Lord Livingston’s vote in the House of Lords but he nor anyone deserves that level of abuse.  Argue with the mans policy, keep religion out of it.

View Comment

Avatar

SteveplustaxPosted on2:39 pm - Nov 23, 2015


Very good points, incredible adam and Allyjambo.
When I hear Cowan, Cosgrove and the rest weighing in with their “Let’s just move on” schtick, I wonder what would happen if a grown-up journalist were to make the same kind of plea just as a cluster of related court cases were getting underway.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on3:03 pm - Nov 23, 2015


easyJambo 23rd November 2015 at 1:54 pm

Let them have their little bit of fun re that one. It is a mere playground scrape to what is potentially coming around the corner at Edmiston Drive and up the marble staircase into the Blue Room.

Big Mike has a clear hard-on for DCK and it looks like he is steadily using all the tools in the box to see the man from SA off. 

Lets see what happens after tomorrows CoS.

Even if he loses he still has T’Rangers hamstrung by the retail deal, the associated securities and the £5m owed.

I can see a position where the AGM goes ahead and allows the new share allocation and MA goes straight to court to get back his £5m.

Therefore the supporters groups cash (possibly around £3m) ends up going into MA’s pocket without touching the sides. The RRM make up the shortfall of the £5m and there is still the publicly recognized £2.5m needed to see out the season. Nae money for the wearer of the Magic Hat come January and salaries being paid out to McParland & Co for no immediate results.

While we are speaking of January remember a few players will be out of contract and unlike Kenny Miller there has been no mention of others being kept on.

The long awaited Eustace deal has gone south.
Loaner Zelalum is reported as being kept on after January but while having potential the fans appear to view him as a bit of a lightweight and a ‘Barry Back Pass’ type player.

Oduwa has the physical make up, speed and tricks but hasn’t shown too much in terms of gaining a starting spot and scoring goals.

Ball seems to be doing a half decent job as cover for first choice Wilson.

Templeton out for a good while yet through injury.

Bench, including those soon to be out of contract, looks lightweight.

Still calls from the Bears for an additional striker, a defensive midfielder.

Tavernier getting linked with Leeds!!

Hard to see how it is all going to go well.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on3:56 pm - Nov 23, 2015


http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/notice-to-shareholders/#.VlMuStITuNY.twitter

We are helpfully told

A dual interest arises where, except with the prior written consent of the SFA’s Board, a member of a football club in membership of a national association which is in membership of FIFA (a “Club”) is involved in the management or administration or has any power to influence the management or administration of a Club and is at the same time directly or indirectly a member of another Club and is involved in or has the power to influence its management or administration.

SFA’s written permission for MA to hold up 10% of shares was given ages ago. A breach of the rule was established and a fine given, but apparently not paid yet)

Can we not just accept the ruling of the footballing authorities and just  “Move on” or do T’Rangers want a review of that earlier decision and possibly have a bee in their bonnet about football fines not being paid?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on3:57 pm - Nov 23, 2015


Herald reporting that Ashley has won his injunction re clause 11 which I assume is the one referring to any shareholders who have any influence at another club can still send their money but otherwise keep their big gubs shut?

View Comment

zerotolerance1903

zerotolerance1903Posted on4:11 pm - Nov 23, 2015


A dual interest arises where, except with the prior written consent of the SFA’s Board, a member of a football club in membership of a national association which is in membership of FIFA (a “Club”) is involved in the management or administration or has any power to influence the management or administration of a Club and is at the same time directly or indirectly a member of another Club and is involved in or has the power to influence its management or administration.

A Club?  Don’t they mean a holding company that operates a Club? 😛

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:15 pm - Nov 23, 2015


It took me three attempts to get to the end of that RIFC/TRFC statement.

I got stuck twice at “The Company is under an obligation to demonstrate the utmost good faith to the Scottish Football Association…

Well, bloomin’ start doing it in general, then, not just Disciplinary Rule 19, because it suits you at this juncture
 07110711

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on4:46 pm - Nov 23, 2015


zerotolerance1903 23rd November 2015 at 4:11 pm

I’ll top that by the following :-

Shareholders will be aware that related parties of MASH Holdings Limited have other contractual relationships with members of the Group of Companies of which the Company is the holding company.

Can the club be a member of a group of companies without being a company or is the club a company within a group of companies?

Confused – you soon will be!!

View Comment

Avatar

nawlitePosted on4:48 pm - Nov 23, 2015


I’m guessing Res 11 was the important one here because winning that that effectively means MA can now vote and defeat 9 and 10 at the AGM? That is assuming those need 75% approval and he (and his supporters) have more than 25%. Can someone more learned confirm that or correct it, please?

View Comment

zerotolerance1903

zerotolerance1903Posted on4:56 pm - Nov 23, 2015


I am starting to wonder if, in the absence of Level 5, TRFCs statements are now being randomly assigned to posters from rangersmedia.  They are inconsistent and getting rantier (if that’s even a word) by the day.

View Comment

Avatar

smallchangePosted on4:57 pm - Nov 23, 2015


tony 23rd November 2015 at 2:07 pm #
Whilst being a wee bit pedantic I contend that there is already enough material for a number of movies with the probability of sequels continuing well beyond my lifetime.
I trust somebody somewhere is already working on the screenplay(s).

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:08 pm - Nov 23, 2015


wottpi 23rd November 2015 at 3:03 pm #
Lets see what happens after tomorrows CoS.
==========================
There are no cases listed in the CoS Roll for tomorrow involving any of the parties.

The assumption has to be that, on Friday, MASH lost the petition against the new share issues, but that Ashley obtained an interim interdict re his voting rights.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:13 pm - Nov 23, 2015


nawlite 23rd November 2015 at 4:48 pm #
I’m guessing Res 11 was the important one here because winning that that effectively means MA can now vote and defeat 9 and 10 at the AGM? That is assuming those need 75% approval and he (and his supporters) have more than 25%. Can someone more learned confirm that or correct it, please?
=============================
I agree with your first guess, but I’m not sure that the opponents of the Board will have enough votes to block Resolution 10 (dis-apply pre emption rights)

There has been no action taken, that I am aware of, to restore the rights of the four parties who allegedly failed to provide ownership details of the shareholdings when requested. (includes BPH and Margarita), so the Sandy Easdale proxy will be severely restricted.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on5:19 pm - Nov 23, 2015


nawlite 23rd November 2015 at 4:48 pm

I think you are on the right track, it is resolution 10 and 11 that are deemed special and therefore (given my understanding) require the 75% but I would hope Easyjambo can come in an remind us re the state of play re the shareholders and how the percentages stack up.
He is usually on the ball with that kind of stuff 02

John James’ slant on things are here.
https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/the-great-shares-robbery/

Of course given it is only an interim interdict (well timed by Ashley’s men) it may be that Ashley’s position will be looked at later by the courts and if lost then yet another EGM could be held to resolve and resolutions that the current board lose on Friday.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on5:21 pm - Nov 23, 2015


See I knew that the  EJ boy would be in there like Flynn 03

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on5:30 pm - Nov 23, 2015


easyJambo 23rd November 2015 at 5:08 pm
OK, so as discussed earlier in the thread  we are gong with the assumption that the cases that were down for tomorrow were the one’s heard on Friday.

View Comment

Avatar

SteveplustaxPosted on5:30 pm - Nov 23, 2015


I reckon Craigy Whyte might have won a(another) watch by holding on to the movie rights to this epic tale. At this point the whole thing is far too complex for a movie, however. I reckon we could be looking at the next “Game of Thrones” here–another multi-series, high-budget production by HBO, with the obligatory DVD boxed-sets to follow. Trebles* all round!
* Not awarded due to financial irregularities.

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on5:38 pm - Nov 23, 2015


wottpi 23rd November 2015 at 3:56 pm #
http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/notice-to-shareholders/#.VlMuStITuNY.twitter
 
 
Notice to Shareholders in connection with the Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) of Rangers International Football Club PLC (the “Company”)
 …The Company is under an obligation to demonstrate the utmost good faith to the Scottish Football Association (“SFA”) in relation to any possible breaches of disciplinary rule 19.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
But apparently not under any obligation to pay the fine of  £250k levied by the SFA and accepted as owed by The Company 3 yrs. ago
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Hypocrites

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on5:39 pm - Nov 23, 2015


I notice that there has been one consistent TD for every post today. That is until late afternnon.

Anyone know if Level 5 knock off at 4.ooPM?

Scottish Football is in the pink.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on5:45 pm - Nov 23, 2015


Just a wee side issue going back to the debate about ‘moving on’.

Can we all remember a few months back that the rest of Scottish Football was sick of the Scott Allen saga when it was clear Hibs were not going to sell him to T’Rangers but the SMSM kept at it day after day with all the enthusiasm of a dug wi a bone.

They can be dogged and relentless in covering a story when it suits them!

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on6:12 pm - Nov 23, 2015


Interesting article in the Guardian about the relationships between history truth and previous pronouncements displayed in the oeuvre of Donald Trump – one of those where another name could have been substituted and the point of the article remain unaltered. Truth is important facts are important so moving on is contingent on those being settled

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on6:12 pm - Nov 23, 2015


A few end of day random thoughts.

As the results of the AGM are not published until after the event then Ashley will have his full % vote on all resolutions on Friday, so he is looking further down the line as, even if resolution 11 had been on the agenda it wouldn’t have taken effect until the next AGM or and intervening EGMs. 

As discussed if there is further deliberations by the court that favour the board then EGMs will be required to deal with Ashley, thus more hassle and time to resolve matters.

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

By plumping for making public statements with regard to SFA rule 19 are the T’Rangers Board not shooting themselves in the foot re having to pay back Ashley his £5m.

Ashley will surely be able to argue in court, if he has grounds for the loan conditions being breached, that having loaned £5m (and still having a facility for another £5m) before the RRM even thought about putting their hands in their pockets why is every effort (despite the time frame for the 3 Bears repayment) being made to pay them back, albeit with an equity swap.

The SFA agreement along with rule 19 means Ashley is hamstrung in that he can only effectively get paid back in cash. Therefore if the company has money to spare from a share issue, player sales, additional revenues then it should be dealing with his loan first, not those of the RRM.

Given the dire state of the last accounts is a bit of ring fencing not in order M’Lord?

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on6:50 pm - Nov 23, 2015


smallchange
with a catchy slogan like “we’ll be back”02

View Comment

ekt1m

ekt1mPosted on6:55 pm - Nov 23, 2015


The word on Twitter is that Res 11 has been withdrawn from the AGM.

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on7:06 pm - Nov 23, 2015


ekt1m 23rd November 2015 at 6:55 pm #The word on Twitter is that Res 11 has been withdrawn from the AGM.

Also the word in the Rangers statement

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/notice-to-shareholders/

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:38 pm - Nov 23, 2015


Fans I’ve spoken to , including those of TRFC , are relishing the prospect of MA rag-dolling  the SFA . Might just be the way forward – a man who can unite the fans against the perceived forces of evil (half kidding,hale earnest smiley).

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on7:58 pm - Nov 23, 2015


With the withdrawal of Resolution 11, the interest in Friday’s AGM switches to Resolution 10 (disapplication of pre-emption rights).

25% is required to block the resolution. We can reasonably assume that MASH will vote their 8.92% against.  If the Easdales come down on the side of Ashley, then the personal holdings of Sandy and James will add 7.15%.  The big question is what remains of Sandy Easdale’s proxy.  The action taken at June’s EGM effectively removed 10.4% (8.5M shares) from the proxy. Beaufort Securities also sold out some of their interests to one of the Fans groups earlier this summer.  I would guess that there is probably no more than 3% left.

That leaves a total of approx. 19% potentially voting against.  In order for those votes to be sufficient to block the resolution, in isolation, then the “turnout figure” would have to be as low as 76%. 

There is of course no guarantee that the Easdales will vote against the Board as they abstained at the EGM in March that elected King and co.  The total percentage of votes actually cast in March was just 66.7% as a result.

If the Easdales vote with MASH on Friday then it could be a close run thing, if not, the Board will almost certainly prevail.

View Comment

Avatar

RPMcMurphyPosted on8:05 pm - Nov 23, 2015


What’s all the fuss now about the res’ 9, 10 & 11 ?
They’ve been telling us for 3 years now that the shares are in the holding company only, not in the “Club”

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on8:12 pm - Nov 23, 2015


In the slight lull in all things TRFC/SFA/SPFL etc…

With the continuing, vocal criticism of the LNS stitch up, and the crude displays of deflection and misinformation in the SMSM…
and in the absence of a BDO appeal…
 
If the story refuses to go away, is it in Regan’s interest to put some distance between himself/the SFA, and Doncaster/the SPFL ?

I’m thinking that Regan could – legitimately and publicly – ‘slopey-shoulder’ any decision to revisit LNS onto Doncaster.
Well, the SFA could re-iterate it’s official stance as being the ‘appellate body’ wrt LNS, [Bryson’s inputs aside of course].

Or, is it in Doncaster’s interest to try and preempt this potential scenario, and try to publicly push any decision-making onto the SFA ?
[I’m guessing in the absence of relevant precedent [?] either scenario is possible.]

IMO, it could be if/when we detect some hairline cracks developing between the SFA and SPFL, that the dam will surely collapse shortly thereafter ? 

 

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on8:28 pm - Nov 23, 2015


Included in Phil’s latest is the claim that Ashley is prepared to spend GBP 100K to contest the SFA’s [reduced] fine of GBP 1K.

On the face of it, that does look like revenge and/or emotional/irrational decision-making ?

And when the value of GBP 100K to him is like maybe ten quid to us mere Bampots…you would think that Regan would be doing everything possible to make Ashley back-off…you would think ?

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on8:43 pm - Nov 23, 2015


https://t.co/vWf0HJ5Tyr

The latest from John James regarding the AGM resolutions.

View Comment

Avatar

Gym TrainerPosted on9:04 pm - Nov 23, 2015


I am of the opinion that Mike Ashley is speculating with £100k (against the £1k fine) because he senses that victory in that action will net him many times that in other areas. He may not be everyone’s cup of tea in the ways that he operates, but he is rarely caught on the wrong side of the law. Questionably moral but rarely unlawful.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on9:16 pm - Nov 23, 2015


neepheid 23rd November 2015 at 8:43 pm #
https://t.co/vWf0HJ5Tyr
The latest from John James regarding the AGM resolutions.
==========================
His numbers are all over the place. See my post at 7:58.

View Comment

Avatar

coineanachantaighePosted on9:25 pm - Nov 23, 2015


redlichtie 23rd November 2015 at 5:39 pm #I notice that there has been one consistent TD for every post today. That is until late afternnon.
Anyone know if Level 5 knock off at 4.ooPM?
Scottish Football is in the pink.

I see you’re on 5 TDs … does that mean they knock off at 5?

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on9:35 pm - Nov 23, 2015


Ally jambo 10.35am

Upthehoops.

I couldn’t believe English’s tweet when  I saw it. He was quickly challenged and went silent.

Last September a number of journalists were sent hard copy of the documents SFM sent to Harper MacLeod pointing out that an ebt with a side letter for De Boer of earlier than 23 Nov 2000 seemed to be excluded.

One package was addressed to Tom English at the BBC and the only thing that can be said in his defense is that he never received the package.

Given he was one of three or four journos whom hard copy was sent to I find it hard to believe not one of them received a delivery.

Their stance since if they did receive the material and especially recently after HMRC won the tax  appeal goes beyond shameful.

The media are as much on trial here as football governance.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:46 pm - Nov 23, 2015


easyJambo 23rd November 2015 at 5:08 pm #
‘…There are no cases listed in the CoS Roll for tomorrow involving any of the parties.’
________
 I’ve only just seen this post, eJ, and it might very well supersede the information I got in a phone call to the Petitions Clerk’s office earlier in the afternoon.
I  had phoned to ask whether the Thursday Court Roll which showed that Lady Wolffe was down to hear on 24th November the Ashley and the Mash petitions for judicial review was a mistake,because it seemed action had already been taken some days ago.
I gave him the petition numbers, explained my interest ( as a member of the public) and that I intended to be present tomorrow.
He said there was no mistake, he knew that procedural action had already taken place, and supposed that tomorrow there would be some kind of fuller hearing.
Although the Monday up-date of the Court Roll does not show either of these petitions, it might be that it only updates in the sense of adding new stuff, and that items already notified aren’t notified again. I don’t know. But I looked at one or two other cases shown for 24th in Thursday’s roll -they don’t appear in today’s roll either.
Perhaps they were withdrawn or dealt with earlier.
On balance though, since they do publish amendments /corrections, it might be indeed that Lady Wolffe will be looking at the ‘our’ cases again.
I’ll go in tomorrow in any event-even if it is just metaphorically to box the ears of the clerk who might have misinformed me!

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on9:47 pm - Nov 23, 2015


wottpi 23rd November 2015 at 6:12 pm 
The SFA agreement along with rule 19 means Ashley is hamstrung in that he can only effectively get paid back in cash. 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
IMO
Ashley may be a lot of things but strung with ham isn’t one of them
He has only to ask for his money and he will get it one way or another. He hasn`t asked for it yet because he believes they are about go bust and is ensuring the blame falls on the Board not him.    
Nobody on the current RIFC Board wants to be there as there isn`t enough money to fund the business to the end of the season and they know it.
DCK will be gone before Xmas without ever opening his war chest once he is safely out of reach of the loonies. Administration/Liquidation will be announced and DCK will get the blame
BDO will not appeal the Supreme Court decision
…………………………………
The Administration/Liquidation
The Ashley surrogate Sarver(Ashley) will reappear as the only saviour in town
Sarver (Ashley) will trade with the SFA
Getting
 15 pt. deduction instead of 25 pts
 FPP status
SFA blind eye to TRFC using and paying NUFC loan players where it suits the books of Sports Direct   
Non-payment of £250k fine
 In exchange for
Declaring TRFC are a new club
Who will ban sectarian chanting at Ibrox
Who have no role in defending RFC (IL) misdemeanours or opposing RFC (IL) punishments including title stripping
………………………………
It will be a fairly swift Administration/Liquidation with the cessation of football at Ibrox being mooted in the MSM
The Bears will get a take it or leave it offer from a Sarver (Ashley) CVA offer
They will be required to commit a proportion of next seasons ST monies in advance as evidence of good faith
Around half the Bears will sign up to the new deal
Hibs will win the Championship

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on10:01 pm - Nov 23, 2015


Ally jambo 10.35

Another significant issue the media seem to ignore is the statement from Celtic at the AGM last week regarding resolution 12. It is in the hands of the lawyers, the case has been presented to the SFA, and a response is awaited. As Auldheid has indicated on here, this has been the position for some time. If the SFA had no case to answer they would have publicly proven it by now. Well they would, wouldn’t they?

=============
The statement made to the Celtic AGM made it clear that Res12 was about football misgovernance.

The correspondence between shareholders and SFA,  which SFA are having difficulty responding to because I suspect that they know that we know the right answers to the questions posed, actually hides further misgovernance in that as part of enquiries made the SFA became aware in August 2014 that something was amiss, but appear to have done nothing since then to investigate a potential rule breaking that had been brought to attention
The longer they take to engage, the more serious the charge of misgovernance they face.
All evidence points to an incorrect statement having been made to UEFA in 2011 from which RFC gained a financial return (€300k which is what a club gets for playing in 1st qualifying round) that may have gone to another club had the rules been strictly applied. ) In fact if UEFA had seen in 2011 what has become available since there is no “may” about it.
Now perhaps some of the lawyer chaps reading could say if this comes under the definition of fraud and if it does the SFA had best stop messing about for by their inaction they are covering it up.

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on10:11 pm - Nov 23, 2015


GoosyGoosy
you forgot to add,chris graham will back MA 01

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on10:44 pm - Nov 23, 2015


JC
I know you know but boxing the ears of court offeshuls will not help next time your after a seat down the front.
Why not take them a gift of a stylish SFM mug such as I received today. Not a bribe is it, unless their from Arbroath!

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:34 pm - Nov 23, 2015


ianagain 23rd November 2015 at 10:44 pm
‘…Why not take them a gift of a stylish SFM mug ..’
______
My two haven’t arrived yet!20

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on11:42 pm - Nov 23, 2015


I blame the postie.
Check his bag for two wee square things.
Not to gon about it or anything but quite classy.

See me see product placement.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on11:49 pm - Nov 23, 2015


Sounds like the SFA are boxed into a corner.  Now if you were a journalist, what a story!

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on1:03 am - Nov 24, 2015


I have confession to make.  I don’t usually get dressed till the early afternoon just mooch about in my jammies and house coat until I’m ready to go out.  Now I’m expecting my TSFM calendar I imagine it will be too big for the postie to put it through the letter box.  I have had to go for a shower etc. at 10 am!!!07  Anyways it will be worth it when I turn to May and see Billy McNeil holding the big cup aloft.  02

View Comment

Avatar

Night TerrorPosted on9:13 am - Nov 24, 2015


@GoosyGoosy
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.

View Comment

zerotolerance1903

zerotolerance1903Posted on9:27 am - Nov 24, 2015


GoosyGoosy 23rd November 2015 at 9:47 pm #wottpi 23rd November 2015 at 6:12 pm The SFA agreement along with rule 19 means Ashley is hamstrung in that he can only effectively get paid back in cash. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,IMOAshley may be a lot of things but strung with ham isn’t one of themHe has only to ask for his money and he will get it one way or another. He hasn`t asked for it yet because he believes they are about go bust and is ensuring the blame falls on the Board not him.    Nobody on the current RIFC Board wants to be there as there isn`t enough money to fund the business to the end of the season and they know it.DCK will be gone before Xmas without ever opening his war chest once he is safely out of reach of the loonies. Administration/Liquidation will be announced and DCK will get the blameBDO will not appeal the Supreme Court decision

That all seems pretty plausible, if not likely.

…………………………………The Administration/LiquidationThe Ashley surrogate Sarver(Ashley) will reappear as the only saviour in townSarver (Ashley) will trade with the SFAGetting 15 pt. deduction instead of 25 pts FPP statusSFA blind eye to TRFC using and paying NUFC loan players where it suits the books of Sports Direct   Non-payment of £250k fine In exchange forDeclaring TRFC are a new clubWho will ban sectarian chanting at IbroxWho have no role in defending RFC (IL) misdemeanours or opposing RFC (IL) punishments including title stripping

Agree on the 15 point deduction, in doing so they will have to accept that it’s a new Club.

Some real wishful thinking otherwise though.

………………………………It will be a fairly swift Administration/Liquidation with the cessation of football at Ibrox being mooted in the MSMThe Bears will get a take it or leave it offer from a Sarver (Ashley) CVA offerThey will be required to commit a proportion of next seasons ST monies in advance as evidence of good faithAround half the Bears will sign up to the new dealHibs will win the Championship

The next insolvency event won’t be swift at all.  The various court cases all but ensure that any further redistribution/sale of assets required to found a third Rangers will be virtually impossible.  They will be hamstrung.
Hibs will win the Championship regardless of whether Sevco suffer an insolvency event or not.  

View Comment

zerotolerance1903

zerotolerance1903Posted on9:33 am - Nov 24, 2015


Regarding the various board resolutions, as well as the prior voting restrictions on Blue Pitch, etc.
As JJ pointed out in his blog there was an RSS 2 years ago explicitly recognising that there were no grounds to restrict the voting rights of those proxies; yet King’s board went ahead and did it anyway this year.
The attempt to restrict Ashley’s voting rights combined with the above, can easily be construed as an attempt to ensure the votes to carry through the current Board’s AGM/EGM resolutions.
When some of those resolutions serve to dilute the majority of existing shareholders and (potentially) enrich a small group of shareholders (by issuing them shares at a discount) then the overall pattern looks ……. questionable.
One wonders if that pattern of behaviour, taken together, becomes potentially actionable by the impacted shareholders.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on10:20 am - Nov 24, 2015


zerotolerance1903 24th November 2015 at 9:33 am

You would have thought more of the affected shareholders may have stepped up to either do the necessary with regard to disclosure or make a challenge to the move to have their voting rights removed. However it seems they just want an easy life.

I am sure MA’s guys would have been making calls to see if they were willing to put up a joint challenge but then again does that result in those shareholders acting as a concert party. Probably better if individual shareholders pursued the issue.

However the pattern of the DCK/3Bears concert party trying to oust certain shareholders will no doubt be mentioned in court by MA’s laywers if ever required.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on10:21 am - Nov 24, 2015


https://t.co/P70QxvYxQ0
The latest from the Chris Jack Rangers Fanzine section of the Evening Times.
Apparently the supporters’ groups have loads of money in the bank, and according to Ricki Neill of Rangers First, they are prepared to play the part of the “Fourth Bear”, and finance the “club” with soft loans using the fans’ money.
Desperate stuff indeed, but of course spun positively by eternal optimist Chris Jack, whose glass isn’t just half full, it’s positively overflowing.
The spin seems to be that the fan groups just want to find a home for all their spare lolly, since they can’t find any shares to buy right now.
In reality, it is obvious that this is just a warming up operation by Level5PR in anticipation of the Board asking the fans to provide emergency funding some time very soon.
As an eternal pessimist, whose glass is always completely empty, let me throw a spanner or two into Jack’s well oiled propaganda machine.
Firstly, can what is proposed even be legal? Are you allowed to collect money from thousands of people for the express purpose of buying shares, and then just loan it, interest free and unsecured, to the basket case company of your choice? I really thought there were laws against that sort of scam.
Secondly, weren’t the accounts signed off on the basis that major shareholders had already committed to provide whatever loans it might  take to see out the season? Wouldn’t going cap in hand to the mass of “co-investors” for money to keep the lights on kind of cast doubt on the recent financial statements?
Thirdly, and most obviously- how about your kids’ inheritance, Mr King, and your many promises of warchests of varying sizes? It must surely be clear now, even to Chris Jack, that King is currently as potless as Paul Murray. And that is very potless indeed.
This is all starting to look very like the John James scenario, where the Board issue themselves preference shares to clear their loans, putting in hee haw in terms of cash, and increasing their voting percentage at the same time, while the wee guys actually put in the money to keep the lights on. One thing King certainly doesn’t lack is brass neck.
Will Ashley let this happen? Can he stop it? I still think that he’ll take the company down rather than be made to look like a foolish loser by King.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on10:27 am - Nov 24, 2015


I hope J.C. has taken the time to box the court usher’s ears. Something is happening.

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/669088508083093504

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/669100710047432704

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on10:41 am - Nov 24, 2015


Corrupt official 24th November 2015 at 10:27 am #
===============================
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 57m57 minutes ago
At the Court of Session for next round in legal battle between Mike Ashley and Dave King/RFC. Proceedings set to begin at 10 am.
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 9m9 minutes ago
Parties called into court.

I honestly didn’t think these petitions were going ahead, but it appears they are.  I don’t know what they are about either.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on10:54 am - Nov 24, 2015


easyJambo 24th November 2015 at 10:41 am
 We will find out soon enough Easy. Live tweets permitted. 

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/669105539494883328

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on11:00 am - Nov 24, 2015


Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 1m1 minute ago
Lady Wolffe allows proposals for adjustments. Full answers and notes of arguments must be lodged by one week prior to Feb 4 hearing.
 
One down and one to go
 
Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 26s27 seconds ago
Now to petition 2. Mash Holdings Ltd v @scottishfa. Currently set for December 11.

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman · 13s13 seconds ago
Judge, Lady Wolffe minded to grant judicial review requested by Mike Ashley. Dates now being discussed

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman · 29s29 seconds ago
Counsel for SFA says they have “no duty to provide explanations” to Mike Ashley.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on11:10 am - Nov 24, 2015


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 14s14 seconds ago
Counsel 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.

View Comment

Comments are closed.