1,119 thoughts on “Of Assets and Liabilities”

1. 
   

   Off-topic or actually on-topic in terms of this blog post OP ……………..what we appear to urgently need and completely fail to have it up to date and unified financial information for our football clubs. I know they all provide financial returns at companies house in line with company law but from a football perspective I feel we need a simplified and unified set of accounting and financial information that all clubs should be made to provide for the beginning of each football season. This would require clubs to provide up to date information on current revenues, wage bills, operating costs, long & short terms debts & liabilities, any pending tax disputes & tax payment records etc. Also clubs would have to provide balance sheet information of their assets valued on a like for like basis so clubs cannot use creative or different accounting standards or practices to achieve different or higher asset values as Sir David Murray and Charles Green both claim vastly higher values for Rangers assets than either of them paid for them.

   Without being able to compare apples with apples and our clubs providing timeous financial information suitable for football’s purposes then the football authorities and fellow member clubs are perhaps being exposed to potential financial risks and/or collateral damage or contagian risks because our clubs all currently operate a hotpotch of accounting returns, valuation methods and differing accounting return periods.

   We need to standardised and timeous approach to providing up to date and accurate financial information so our clubs and football authorities can correctly indentify where risks are increasing and perhaps take early preventative measures to prevent risk or financial damage spreading?
2. 
   

   scapaflow14 says:
   Friday, November 2, 2012 at 11:43
   ”…Turnbull Hutton would be my choice, not related to an SPL club..”

   —I think article 55 of the SPL arts of ass rules him out-he is a member of the SFA.
3. 
   

   john clarke says:
   Friday, November 2, 2012 at 12:21

   True, Raith’s loss would be football’s gain though!
4. 
   

   Taken from KDS I personally couldn’t see Celtic FC doing something would kill off Sevco but if the fans can take legal action there may be some of the easiest fundraising known to man.

   Hoops For Me All The Way
   2 Nov 2012, 09:30 AM
   These 2 sports lawyers have been discussing Sevco. Interesting. (Ioannidis is Sammy’s lawyer and the other guy works down south.

   Gregory Ioannidis þ@LawTop20
   @gibbsbarrister Phil are we in agreement that the loss of income [from the titles won by RFC] may not be too remote & therefore recoverable?

   @LawTop20 but does that entity exist? #teamthatdied

   @gibbsbarrister Not to give too much away but old rfc transferred the license to new rfc so we could make a case out of it

   phil gibbs þ@gibbsbarrister
   @LawTop20 that may have been rather unwise of them (‘new RFC’) then – would that bankrupt them do you think?

   Gregory Ioannidis þ@LawTop20
   @gibbsbarrister We argued this previously and said the connection between old and new RFC may trigger potential liability. HMRC knew this!!!

   @LawTop20 completely agree – justice still available?

   Gregory Ioannidis þ@LawTop20
   @gibbsbarrister I am very positive. As you know I have thought long and hard and my conclusion is that it could be done

   Gregory Ioannidis þ@LawTop20
   @gibbsbarrister Phil I think there is no doubt that Celtic’s loss of income for losing titles to RFC cannot be too remote?

   @LawTop20 certainly some aspects such as prize money – do Celtic want to kill ‘New Rangers’ though?

   @gibbsbarrister Highly unlikely that the club would do something but as you know we are receiving inquiries from fans.

   @LawTop20 yes their perspective is v different and hard to ignore
5. 
   

   Jim Delahunt ‏@JimDelahunt
   Woolworths, Rangers, RBS, Savile and now Comet. Childhood finally wiped out. Hang in there Scooby Doo.
   ——————————————————————————————————————–

   Humour from JD. all things are possible…..
6. 
   

   I see that Ramsden Cup Final is to be played at Livingstone.Partick v QoS. Anyone else think once again that fans are being short changed here! Nothing against Livi but a venue half way between Glasow and Dumfries is surely available! Rugby Park or Somerset Park for instance.

   One day the football authorities will begin to think of the fans again! Just maybe not in my lifetime
7. 
   

   willmacufree says:
   Friday, November 2, 2012 at 11:20
   5 0 Rate This
   HirsutePursuit says: Friday, November 2, 2012 at 10:13
   As I said previously, I am sure that he is (or soon will be) mightily embarrassed by his mistake.
   =============

   H.P.
   Can LNS not do what the rest of us do all the time, admit our mistakes, and the sooner the better? There seems to be a culture of reluctance to admit to human failings among eminent legal people.

   I for one would have infinitely more faith and trust in a judge who admitted to error, apologised, put the record straight, and got on with it, than in somebody who tried to bluster and bluff through it.

   Besides, an admission by the learned gentleman would pre-empt any hay being made by Mr Green.
   =================================
   Whether he has the humility (or feel the need) to correct his earlier mistakes may be moot.

   The gymnastic logic, to me, had the hallmark of Mr Doncaster – and was I think, a crude attempt to bring the new Rangers into the process. That failed when Mr Green, quite correctly, said that it had nothing to do with his club and he will take no part.

   In some ways it should make no difference to what LNS has still to do on the commission, so my guess is that he will say no more about it.

   Unless he is completely bonkers, Mr Green makes another about-turn, or his commission do make specific provision in their judgement to punish the new Rangers, it is unlikely, IMO, that LNS will ever have to re-affirm his earlier statement. He will now, I’d imagine, play a straight bat & simply avoid the notion that The Rangers Football Club Ltd (founded 2012) could suffer consequences from his review of the actions of the former member of the SPL.

   He will punish the “Club” for its actions and let others squabble over who that is/was.
8. 
   

   John Clarke.

   ‘Collyer Bristow’s QC( even more attractive as the night wears on!), and her solicitor minder’
   _______________________________________________________

   You should be ashamed of yourself!. I knew you took your eye of the ball during the course of the hearing. I think, we the blog members, should send an olde,r less excitable representative to the next outing.

   (BTW John, was she that good-looking)
9. 
   

   rantinrobin says:
   Friday, November 2, 2012 at 12:36

   Believe it or not, Clyde were forced to clarify Jim’s tweet after complaints from a certain fan group….
10. 
    

    Senior says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 12:42
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    With respect..I think that any link to or image available of this QC should be made available…
    Ahemmm..for the purposes of a TD TU vote regarding her attributes..?
11. 
    

    scapaflow14 says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 12:49
    4 0 Rate This
    rantinrobin says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 12:36

    Believe it or not, Clyde were forced to clarify Jim’s tweet after complaints from a certain fan group….
    ———————————————————————————————————————

    What chance for civilisation?
12. 
    

    What about a bampot campaign to have Turnbull elected as chair of the SPL.
    Remember the bampots were the one of the biggest factors in having the first black American elected President of the USA, an achievement many experts thought impossible..
13. 
    

    ‘With respect..I think that any link to or image available of this QC should be made available…
    Ahemmm..for the purposes of a TD TU vote regarding her attributes..?’
    _______________________________________________________

    You mean her legal attributes? – thought so!
14. 
    

    John

    I’m not sure if Ms Wolffe will be flattered or appalled…..
15. 
    

    rantinrobin says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 12:36

    Jim Delahunt ‏@JimDelahunt
    Woolworths, Rangers, RBS, Savile and now Comet. Childhood finally wiped out. Hang in there Scooby Doo.
    ——————————————————————————————————————–

    Humour from JD. all things are possible…..

    ==========

    Jim Delahunt’s Tweet brought back a memory from the early 1970’s. The makers of Scooby Doo were threatening to scrap the programme due to falling ratings in the USA. School kids all over UK petiitoned against this and eventually won. (I think Blue Peter organised the campaign)

    If only Sevconians had been as militant there might still have been a Rangers (1972) around today. 🙂
16. 
    

    Damn this TSFM. I’m in the middle of building bookshelves, and when herself catches me on the computer I have to tell her the first lie of our married life – that I was looking for a more modern bookshelf design. How much longer will my luck hold!!!
17. 
    

    Livingston not Livingstone, that was the Blantyre explorer! Ramsdens/Challenge Cup finals are usually held at current SFL grounds, although Fir Park was often used in the early days and would be more convenient in this case. Somerset Park, while a nice throwback to the past, is not a suitable venue.
18. 
    

    Senior says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 12:42
    ‘..With respect..I think that any link to or image available of this QC should be made available…’
    —–
    With deep regret, I have to say that they don’t come much older or less excitable than I! 🙂

    Pleasantly attractive, with a nice smile and a becoming modesty in speech and manner, and her court costume ( black skirt and jacket) didn’t de-feminise her or turn her into the kind of aggressively assertive type .

    Unfortunately, I didn’t catch her name, which was double-barrelled, (presumably, as is common these days) her maiden name and married surname, rather than a pukka hyphenated double-barrel.
19. 
    

    I had a discussion with a Sevconian this morning and he insists that what Mr Charles has done with the Sevco was exactly what Bill Miller said he was going to do with his “Incubator” plan. I’m not at all sure if this is correct. I can’t recall Miller saying anything about a final liquidation. I seem to recall him saying something about tidying the old club up and remerging the 2.

    Seems a long time ago but can anyone shed some light ?
20. 
    

    Senior on Friday, November 2, 2012 at 13:16
    1 0 Rate This
    Damn this TSFM. I’m in the middle of building bookshelves, and when herself catches me on the computer I have to tell her the first lie of our married life – that I was looking for a more modern bookshelf design. How much longer will my luck hold!!!
    ———

    You should be okay as long you don’t mention the current fascination with Ms Wolffe’s legal briefs.
21. 
    

    I think this link will confirm my general description of the QC for Collyer Bristow.

    http://www.advocates.org.uk/stables/advocates/00001890.html
22. 
    

    john clarke on Friday, November 2, 2012 at 12:21
    ——
    John I am surprised at you stating that there is a rule in the SFA.
    Surely you should know that there are no such things.
    There are what could be called made up as we go along stuff, is that what you meant?
    🙂
23. 
    

    TH would never get approval from the SFA, as he has no tie current or previous to dead RFC
24. 
    

    john clarke says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 13:55
    0 0 i
    Rate This

    I think this link will confirm my general description of the QC for Collyer Bristow.

    Ahem John – What was the date of the return court appearance before LH again?. I feel attendance may exceed some recent SFL home games and need to reserve me seat.
25. 
    

    I am sorry but I cannot agree with the posting of the link to the QC is appropriate and ask that itr be removed. Her mobile number is shown and we would not want any inappropriate attention.
    Sorry JC as I always look forward to reading your posts.
26. 
    

    Andrew Woods says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 13:42
    0 0 i
    Rate This

    I had a discussion with a Sevconian this morning and he insists that what Mr Charles has done with the Sevco was exactly what Bill Miller said he was going to do with his “Incubator” plan. I’m not at all sure if this is correct. I can’t recall Miller saying anything about a final liquidation. I seem to recall him saying something about tidying the old club up and remerging the 2.

    Seems a long time ago but can anyone shed some light ?

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

    I can explain, he was talking bunkum.

    There is no “incubator plan” and never was, it was just another way of trying to make liquidating the one club, selling it’s assets to another and moving on from there seem more palatable.

    Everyone who has looked at it has came to that conclusion. Rangers were too far gone to be saved. So start over with the same assets in a different business. However they knew that the customers would never accept that, so they have tried to spin it. Same club, buying history, still with records, it’s all just spin to try to sell it to the masses.

    Rangers are dead, a new club is playing at Ibrox, take away all the spin and that is what you have left.

    As Craig Whyte said, There will be A Rangers playing at Ibrox. He did not say Rangers will be playing at IIbrox which would have been much simpler.

    It was never going any other way. Without a CVA (which could not happen) liquidation was inevitable.
27. 
    

    john clarke says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 13:55

    I think this link will confirm my general description of the QC for Collyer Bristow.

    http://www.advocates.org.uk/stables/advocates/00001890.html
    —————————————————————————————————

    Her husband’s name isn’t Trigger by any chance??

    I’ll get my coat.
28. 
    

    Andrew Woods says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 13:42

    I had a discussion with a Sevconian this morning and he insists that what Mr Charles has done with the Sevco was exactly what Bill Miller said he was going to do with his “Incubator” plan. I’m not at all sure if this is correct. I can’t recall Miller saying anything about a final liquidation. I seem to recall him saying something about tidying the old club up and remerging the 2.

    Seems a long time ago but can anyone shed some light ?
    ——————————–
    You’re correct, Incubators don’t tend to be much use when the entity in question is in the liquidiser. If he/she was as insistent as you say I would advise you inform them that D&P accepted a bid of 5m from Chuck as opposed to the 30m from BM as that was to the benefit of the creditors who are HMRC who are the financiers of, amongst other things, our armed forces. Usually the insistence dwindles at this point.
29. 
    

    Andrew Woods says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 13:14

    The makers of Scooby Doo were threatening to scrap the programme due to falling ratings in the USA. School kids all over UK petiitoned against this and eventually won.
    ——

    OT

    Unfortunately, the most recent versions of SD are very poor. They do it by computer animation now, and Scooby has something approaching a normal voice – plue he speaks just about as much as everyone else. Not good.

    Even worse – Wile E Coyote and Road Runner are also now computer animated. All charm has been bypassed.

    And Thomas the Tank Engine is too. Gone are all the little models, and interchangeable single-expression faces on the engines. And the traditional Scouse accent is only faintly discernible in the narrator, with all the engines having different, mostly SE England voices of their own now.

    Very poor all round.
30. 
    

    HirsutePursuit says: at 11:34
    Appreciate this HP `undertaking and company` debate – but but but
    – You`re building a big big case there on that one interpretation?

    “undertaking” could be interpreted as a `Company` yes true – it could also be the general `entity` that `undertook` [made possible / facilitated] be that a rich private individual, a hedge fund, a Ticket Agency no less, even a Media outlet, a Trust [hereditary or fans], a charity [remember several clubs founded as charities], some towns run their club through the Mayor`s Office. Yes there will always be a company of some sort to do the books, pay the taxes, store the ledgers and pay association dues in these occasions but it is not necessarily the Club in toto. In fact more than one entity or `company` can own a joint `undertaking`. So the SPL definition of undertaking I venture is more complete, flexible but exact.

    Say, [I`m] a big TV Media Multi National Company and a major sponsor who decides to take over a failing club – with a significant fan base – but appear to have no semblance of an idea of running or operating things properly. I] am concerned about [My] future business – I] don`t want to lose customers

    [I] `buy` / takeover the `Club` – I] set up an operating company to manage and do the books. I] employ people to run the thing properly. They employ players under contract. I] own the `brand` and can market that to make more money. Because I] am of good standing I] fulfil the Leagues criteria and have the financial prowess to meet all requirements and guarantees from all football authorities. On that basis I] and my players under (our) contracts can participate in our affiliations to SPL SFA and UEFA Tournaments. We can make money and win titles, trophies that we `share` with our team[s] supporters.

    • I] do not necessarily require to a supporter and can act as a neutral commercial business
    • I] do not `own` or `operate` the supporters.
    • I] `share` titles and trophies and titles with the supporters
    • I] do not own the loyalty of the supporters, and the supporters are not employed or paid.
    • [I] have a statutory duty of care when the supporters are within the operating companies premises but do not pay their individual fines or legal costs if they misbehave.
    • I] am not responsible for their turning up, or their individual behaviour outside affiliated sports grounds claiming to represent the supporters and their `team` that they support – their Club
    • I] am responsible for collective behaviour within affiliated sports ground and can be fined or penalised
    • I] am not responsible for non-football activities by the supporters

    Therefore there are distinctions between the `supporters` and their `team` – they define as the Club,
    And, I] the `undertaker` who has `undertook` `to facilitate` the `undertaking` but with limited responsibility

    Basically, LN is correct. There is [or can be] a distinction between the owner, the operator – and the supporters who define their club as intellectually theirs and collectively their own – otherwise they wouldn`t support it. The analysis is deeper than that but still intellectually sound – and modern

    But it [could?] allow LN to remove SPL titles from the `Owner and Operator` responsible i.e. the oldco and propose penalties or even fines / compensation claims on the oldco – if guilty. I don`t understand how the newco could be involved at all – but the supporters may have to `share`. The supporters will simply have to accept an alteration to their old history – who have supported in good times and bad.

    However – It does not align with the `Parent Associations` SFA / UEFA / FIFA definitions of a `Club` !

    Therein TRFC could appeal and if they did they would win. Therefore the SFA would need to strip the SFA affiliated SPL titles, and the SFA Cups of the oldco and that would have to be accepted by newco or would lose association to their New SFA membership. SFA couldn`t duck that. They “penalised” CW Era

    For the SPL titles:

    SFL is off the hook if the hook if they appeal and the SFA is off the hook if they don`t. Simple really eh?
31. 
    

    john clarke says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 13:55

    I think this link will confirm my general description of the QC for Collyer Bristow.

    http://www.advocates.org.uk/stables/advocates/00001890.html
    ——

    Looks like Queen Elizabeth out of Blackadder to me … 🙂
32. 
    

    Last line should read – apols [help TSFM] – Blimey

    SPL is off the hook if they appeal and the SFA is off the hook if they don`t. Simple really eh?
33. 
    

    Rangers statement

    ”
    The Board of The Rangers Football Club has issued the following statement today:

    It reads: “The Board wishes to express its dismay over articles in The Times newspaper today which implies the Club is “in fresh trouble” with HM Revenue and Customs in relation to an investor in the Club.

    “This is categorically not the case and the Chairman of the Club has written to The Times on this matter.

    “The Rangers Football Club has no outstanding issues with HMRC and indeed the current management have an open and transparent dialogue with HMRC and, in particular, through our auditors and reporting accountants, Deloitte.

    “The historic tax issues affecting Rangers (RFC 2012 Ltd which is now in liquidation) are well documented.

    “These issues, notably surrounding the EBT scheme, will continue to receive much media coverage, but have no bearing upon the ongoing operation of the football club and its intention to list as a public company.

    “We wish to reiterate that Mr Richard Hughes has no involvement in the management of the club, nor is he a director.

    “Richard Hughes or his company Zeus Capital, both FSA regulated, are a minority investor.

    “The Club does not have an existing relationship with Zeus Partners, which is also named in The Times as being part of an HMRC inquiry.

    “It would be inappropriate for The Rangers Football Club to comment further on either the private and professional affairs of Mr Hughes, or the commercial activities of Zeus Partners or Zeus Capital.”
    “
34. 
    

    scapaflow14 says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 14:55

    “Richard Hughes or his company Zeus Capital, both FSA regulated, are a minority investor”

    Does the ‘or’ in this statement imply that the directors don’t actually know which is the investor?
35. 
    

    john clarke says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 13:55
    4 1 Rate This
    I think this link will confirm my general description of the QC for Collyer Bristow.
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
    Um, this line of discussion was mildly amusing until now but this link is going too far. The woman turned up to do a job for heaven’s sake she doesn’t deserve to be subjected to this.
36. 
    

    Not all the Rangers opinion formers are convinced the rangers statement

    “Frankie‏@GersnetOnline

    Not a surprise to see RFC challenge today’s article in The Times. Zeus are inter-linked with new regime though – minority or not. #clarity
    “
37. 
    

    twopanda: “I don`t understand how the newco could be involved at all”

    The way I understand it, LNS allows for “the Club” to exist on a different plane to the “owner and operator”. If a new operator comes along, then the “Club” does not cease to exist, rather floating on happily above the dirty business side of things.

    It is the “Club”, this ghostly apparition of a thing, this vaguely defined “undertaking” (in that sense), which is the subject of the investigation. The owner, whoever that may be at the time, is to be held responsible for the behaviour of their “Club”.

    Therefore, newco is just as culpable as oldco.

    It does seem to come down to the definition of “undertaking”. And if it’s referred to greater legal minds than ours, then Hirsute’s opinion appears to be correct. There are lengthy documents at European level defining “undertaking”.

    LNS will press on. If he finds against Rangers FC, there will be an appeal – and that appeal will necessarily involve Mr Charles insisting that TRFC did not exist prior to this year.

    Mr Charles. Catch 22. Best get that “share” cash in quickly, eh?
38. 
    

    expectinrain says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 15:00

    Obfuscation and deflection. Then there is the dog that didn’t bark, no mention of Mr Greens travails…..
39. 
    

    Charles Green making a clear distinction between “Rangers (RFC 2012 Ltd???? now in liquidation)” and “The Rangers Football Club” ………….so there we have it The Rangers Football Club are NOT Rangers.
40. 
    

    From arabianbusiness.com …

    Dubai-linked football club eyes London listing
    By Andy Sambidge
    Saturday, 13 October 2012 11:44 AM

    Scottish football club Rangers, in which Dubai businessman Arif Naqvi is the biggest shareholder, has announced its intention to list on the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange.

    Rangers said it intends to raise up to £20m through an institutional investor placing and limited public offering.

    Arif Naqvi, chief executive and founder of private equity firm Abraaj Capital owns just under 18 percent in the club which went into liquidation during the summer.

    Naqvi is said to have invested £2m in the club in June.
    ——

    £2m equated to 18% of the club in June, which would have valued it at around £11m. What’s the latest value being thrown around? £80m?

    Have I missed something here?
41. 
    

    Long Time Lurker at 11.24:
    RTC tweeted last night that the decision notice is with the counsel for MIH and HMRC for comment on the level of redaction of personal data.
    RTC speculated that counsel for MIH are delaying the process by stretching out the redaction consultation process and that we could be looking at 2 weeks before release into the public domain.
    __________________________

    That ties in with what I heard from a good source.
    Basically they said the verdict had been delivered but the publication was being held up “on the football side”.
    I wasn’t sure what that meant – but this explains it.
    It also explains why there have been no leaks: it could be construed as contempt if details were published that were later redacted from the final version.
    Sounds like Murray wants to delay publication past the beginning of the SPL Tribunal into Title-Stripping, to deny the inquiry some juicy evidence.
    Desperate stuff.
42. 
    

    Rate This

    inagain..

    ‘Ahem John – What was the date of the return court appearance before LH again?. I feel attendance may exceed some recent SFL home games and need to reserve me seat’.
    _______________________________________________________________
    Brilliant inagain.

    The blog that keeps on giving!
43. 
    

    wjohnston1 says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 14:04

    I am sorry but I cannot agree with the posting of the link to the QC is appropriate and ask that itr be removed. Her mobile number is shown and we would not want any inappropriate attention.
    Sorry JC as I always look forward to reading your posts
    _______________________________________________________________________

    Absolute nonsense. That is a public website where her details are there for the world to see. It’s there for anyone interested to view and read.

    Why would the QC receive any inappropriate attention, because she was representing C&B???

    I’m assuming you’re relating this to Alex Thomson’s blog about threats and intimidation???

    If anyone wanted to follow that line with the QC all they need to do is google her name and find this website or do you suggest we contact the company and the QC and ask them to take the website down or remove her phone number???

    I am sorry, but I cannot agree with your summary and you suggesting that with the posting of the link to the website here is going to cause unwanted inappropriate attention..

    I think you should apologise again to Mr Clarke for such a suggestion.

    http://www.advocates.org.uk/stables/advocates/00001890.html 🙂
44. 
    

    HirsutePursuit says: Friday, November 2, 2012 at 12:40
    ========
    You say, “In some ways it should make no difference to what LNS has still to do….” That reads to me “in other ways it might make a difference”.

    Your finishing words, ” He will punish the “Club” for its actions and let others squabble over who that is/was.” must be cause for concern to anybody wishing to see justice done.

    Since RFC (1899-2012) is in no condition to be punished, and C. Green, rightly as you say, will not accept punishment of TRFC (2012-?) the conclusion is that operating dual contracts will go unpunished since litigation fatigue will set in, I think.

    Thanks for that information. It sure has cleared a few things for me.
45. 
    

    smartbhoy says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 15:32
    ==============================================================
    Smartbhoy, it seems to me that the concern expressed relates to JC’s reversion to adolescence and his crush on the QC rather than fear of intimidation from sad Sevco extremists.
46. 
    

    Smartbhoy.
    Way over the top reaction.
    I have absolutely nothing to apologise for.
    I remain of the opinion that it was not the best idea to provide a link to the QC with her mobile number. Who on here after all knew her name and would have been able to track this down.
    JC is a long time poster who provides valuable comment, and is greatly admired for his work on this blog. I am sure he will let me know if I have offended him.
47. 
    

    blu says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 15:38
    2 1 Rate This
    smartbhoy says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 15:32
    ==============================================================
    Smartbhoy, it seems to me that the concern expressed relates to JC’s reversion to adolescence and his crush on the QC rather than fear of intimidation from sad Sevco extremists.
    _______________________________________________________________________

    No it wasn’t or are you suggesting that wjohnson thinks that JC is going to give the QC inappropriate attention?

    If so, that’s JC’s choice, maybe she’s single and he thinks he might have a chance of getting a date with her? Then why remove the link as he already has her details or are you suggesting other readers of this blog will click onto the link, suddenly grow an infatuation with her and give her inappropriate attention?

    We’re not living in a dictatorship, this is a democratic country and there is nothing inappropriate going on to suggest any of the above. I rest my case! 🙂
48. 
    

    smartbhoy says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 15:32

    _______________________________________________________________________

    Absolute nonsense. That is a public website where her details are there for the world to see. It’s there for anyone interested to view and read.

    If anyone wanted to follow that line with the QC all they need to do is google her name and find this website or do you suggest we contact the company and the QC and ask them to take the website down or remove her phone number???

    I am sorry, but I cannot agree with your summary and you suggesting that with the posting of the link to the website here is going to cause unwanted inappropriate attention..

    I think you should apologise again to Mr Clarke for such a suggestion.
    —————————-

    I think you’ll find that it was JC who first mentioned her name, bit of hypocracy here when you think of Ally.
    Anyway, an apology from yourself to WJ wouldn’t go amiss.
49. 
    

    Re: the QC’s details.

    The worst she’d have to fear would be JC calling and asking her out for a drink, I think.

    I would be very, very surprised if she encountered any negative personal reaction on account of performing her duty in Court.
50. 
    

    In connection with my posting of the link to the QC’s entry in the publicly available, google-able list of QCs, let me say

    far be it from me to wish to offend anyone deliberately by any observation I make, or to take offence at what are no doubt the well-intentioned observations made by other posters .

    I was annoyed with myself that I did not catch the names of the QCs , and simply looked up the publicly available list of QCs realising that there would be such a list!

    If, by posting a link to the information, I may have made it easy for some deranged knuckledragger to send abusive emails or texts to the QC without having to go to the bother of looking up the information for him/herself, I very much regret that.

    I shall carefully avoid doing anything similar in the future, silently cursing the fact we are dealing with such really low lives that we have to think in terms of the physical safety of anyone they take umbrage against.
51. 
    

    JC ..good call…yip !! she’s gorgeous btw.

    dedeideoprofundis says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 16:00
    I think you’ll find that it was JC who first mentioned her name, bit of hypocracy here when you think of Ally.Anyway, an apology from yourself to WJ wouldn’t go amiss.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Please do not assume that any fully evolved normal civilised honourable & intelligent human would stoop to the slimey reptilian,vile & cowardly behaviours as that of ally…?

    Av heard it all now………………………………!!
52. 
    

    john clarke says:

    Rate This

    In connection with my posting of the link to the QC’s entry in the publicly available, google-able list of QCs, let me say

    far be it from me to wish to offend anyone deliberately by any observation I make, or to take offence at what are no doubt the well-intentioned observations made by other posters .

    I was annoyed with myself that I did not catch the names of the QCs , and simply looked up the publicly available list of QCs realising that there would be such a list!

    If, by posting a link to the information, I may have made it easy for some deranged knuckledragger to send abusive emails or texts to the QC without having to go to the bother of looking up the information for him/herself, I very much regret that.

    I shall carefully avoid doing anything similar in the future, silently cursing the fact we are dealing with such really low lives that we have to think in terms of the physical safety of anyone they take umbrage against.

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

    JC….your recent (more than) erudite posts, covering many topics, merely illustrate the rigours of the wonderful education you received at that glorious citadel in Rigby Street….even Consul Brogan would have approved of your well “rounded” comments.
53. 
    

    johnboy5088 says:

    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 15:26

    (S)DM, what a sneaky person of questionable parentage.

    That makes total sense: [try to] delay public publication of the FTTT decision until after the SPL enquiry into dual contracts has concluded.

    If the FTTT published decision has [additional] smoking gun information that the SPL enquiry could consider which would support the stripping of titles, then (S)DM’s arse is likely to be on the line with many of the supports who will not forgive title stripping.

    For any journalists looking in there is an exemption in the Data Protection Act 1998 at section 32 of the said Act that would allow for personal data to be placed into the public domain where this is in the public interest.

    I would argue that such a public interest exists where the information proves relevant to supporting a process of justice i.e. did RFC play players who were incorrectly registered?
54. 
    

    essexbeancounter says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 16:40
    ‘–the wonderful education you received at that glorious citadel in Rigby Street….’
    —–
    Ah, happy days, or ( to let Paddy know that I did pay some attention) ‘ ou ( grave accent, of course) sont les neiges d’antan?’ 🙂
55. 
    

    twopanda: “I don`t understand how the newco could be involved at all”

    The way I understand it, LNS allows for “the Club” to exist on a different plane to the “owner and operator”. If a new operator comes along, then the “Club” does not cease to exist, rather floating on happily above the dirty business side of things.
    It is the “Club”, this ghostly apparition of a thing, this vaguely defined “undertaking” (in that sense), which is the subject of the investigation. The owner, whoever that may be at the time, is to be held responsible for the behaviour of their “Club”.
    Therefore, newco is just as culpable as oldco.
    It does seem to come down to the definition of “undertaking”. And if it’s referred to greater legal minds than ours, then Hirsute’s opinion appears to be correct. There are lengthy documents at European level defining “undertaking”.
    LNS will press on. If he finds against Rangers FC, there will be an appeal – and that appeal will necessarily involve Mr Charles insisting that TRFC did not exist prior to this year.
    Mr Charles. Catch 22. Best get that “share” cash in quickly, eh?
    _________

    OK Angus – Thanks for that – ideal RE: “I don`t understand how the newco could be involved at all” – well;

    Stick to the SPL here – very important! LN does suggest the `non-legal entity` as in memories [in the SPL] does go on – and as you day floats happily above the dirty side of thing. However those responsible and accountable for that `undertaking`s` are being dealt with in Court. However no fans have been subject to the administration and entered the investigative liquidation phase and none [well some Directors / Owners have] are to be investigated by BDO as a result of the insolvency.

    The SPL titles are `owned` by the `undertaking` as you wish – and shared with the fans. Here`s where I differ from many. All the titles or trophies for that matter cannot be sold – or ownership legitimately transferred. They are owned by the SPL oldco from their time – and shared `collectively` with the fans. CG might have bought some collectibles, but the oldco owns the authentic titles and the SPL as parent of titles owns the collective authority of all the SPL Team members to award or remove oldco titles.

    You can buy a Victoria Cross as a collectible or on behalf of a museum but the VC belongs to the soldier who earned it – forever. In the same vein, you can`t `buy` The Ashes, an Olympic Medal, The America Cup, or any Sporting Trophy – but you can lose it if you cheated.

    So the oldco `undertaking` could have SPL titles removed. That would need to be shared with the fans
    There is no need for the CG SFL newco to be involved at all never mind appeal – because the newco has no right of ownership of those SPL titles – they belong to a separate SPL `undertaking` in the process of being wound up and dissolved that is no longer operationally active and effectively as liquidation is a one-way street has ceased to be.

    The newco should not be part of the SPL Inquiry process and should not be involved nor could be considered culpable for the actions of SDM/others a decade past. CG boycotts it then fine – doesn’t matter

    The newco could represent the supporters to voice support or lobby on behalf of the supporters to keep a part [The SPL Inquiry part] of their shared memories to be preserved. But that`s it.

    Kinda not so hard to say this but the `ownership` of all the oldco`s titles must remain with the oldco to retain authentic validity. The ownership of the oldco has been transferred to the creditors in the hands of the liquidators. That`s the reality until the final act of dissolution.

    The SFA has much the same problem – the oldco is no more. But they would have to apply their definition of a `Club` – in which case the newco and their fans are jointly culpable. But that would depend if the SRA membership was legitimately transferred to the newco – but that’s another story.
56. 
    

    Twopandas 17.10
    Lovely piece of logic, you can buy the medal or the flag but you cannot buy the honour. (You can of course also steal the items … but still not the honours). Sadly the flaw is again involving honesty, logic and honour in your thinking. I have long since given up thinking in those terms when specualting on this matter.
    JB5088 15.26
    I suppose the Tribunal could simply ask the Govan representative what the Tax Man reported. I presume the Tribunal could then decide what importance to place on the refusal to answer if no answer was forthcoming as happens nowadays in the Law Courts when a defendant decides to use the permitted right to stay silent. But the Tribunal would have to want to know the answer and if all we cynics are right, then they don’t want to know because you cannot undo knowledge in that situation.
57. 
    

    As you know we have discussed the subject of advertising on the blog recently and we got a good airing of views on the subject. It appears that a consensus has emerged, but we don’t want to assume anything.

    We’ve added a “Poll” page on the main menu and we would appreciate your comments and opinion on the subject of advertising.

    http://scottishfootballmonitor.wordpress.com/poll/
58. 
    

    johnboy5088 says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 15:26
    Sounds like Murray wants to delay publication past the beginning of the SPL Tribunal into Title-Stripping, to deny the inquiry some juicy evidence.
    Desperate stuff.
    …………..
    If so it will be a waste of time
    The date was set at 21 Nov to ensure that the FTT decision was available as an input
    We know the Panel is solely concerned with what RFC(deid) submitted to the SFA as registration documents. We also know it is irrelevant whether HMRC were cheated
    However
    The RFC Manager now works for Sevco He has a track record in calling up the lunatic fringe.They in turn have threatened and abused the people he identified. His Chairman is behaving in a similar mode .The SFA and SPL are clearly too frightened to respond.CO may even have briefed them on how best to deflect these morons.
    In any other country this nonsense would have been stamped on from a great height.
    In Scotland the universal policy seems to be the path of least resistance irrespective of the views of the majority of citizens
    So if there is no FTT decision before the Panel meets on 21 Nov we can expect an SFA Statement putting it off for at least another month
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,

    That may be the final nail in the coffin for Sevco It could hamstring their plan to milk the gullible in Nov It might even cause a cancellation
    Dec is out because of Xmas and Jan is a not a month where there is much spare cash around
    Green may be looking at the Alloa match as a must win game to keep some prospect of new money flowing in.
    It would be really ironic if Ally`s cup reverses to Maribor, Malmo, Falkirk and Celtic last season were to be replicated by QOS, ICT and Alloa
59. 
    

    More fine detective work by the bampots. Thanks to @BigStuart1888 on twitter and amadan on KDS for the link.

    Seems to tie Chukles and Richard Hughes back to 1999 and the tentacles of the Octopus wrapped around Zeus and the TicketBus Ⓒ D Johnstone.

    http://thedemiseofrangersinpictures.blogspot.fr/2012/11/octopus-on-zeus-accounts.html?spref=tw

    http://www.miningorganizations.org/index.php/msia-minutes
60. 
    

    john clarke says:

    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 13:55(Edit)

    I think this link will confirm my general description of the QC for Collyer Bristow.

    http://www.advocates.org.uk/stables/advocates/00001890.html
    __________________________________________________________________

    John

    Never trust someone whose name is a complete sentence 🙂

    … except Rangers tax case!
61. 
    

    Parson St. Bhoy says:

    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 18:06

    Seems to tie Chukles and Richard Hughes back to 1999 and the tentacles of the Octopus wrapped around Zeus and the TicketBus Ⓒ D Johnstone.

    http://thedemiseofrangersinpictures.blogspot.fr/2012/11/octopus-on-zeus-accounts.html?spref=tw

    http://www.miningorganizations.org/index.php/msia-minutes
    __________________________________________________________

    The second link? I can’t see any confirmation that this is our own Mr Green. Anyone help? I mean the Mine Safey Institute of America?
62. 
    

    http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/34845850248/the-shieldhall-putsch

    New Blog in which, after over 7 months and 100 blog posts since Rangers went into administration, I finally have to resort to the usage of Godwin’s Law.
63. 
    

    Richard Wilson (@timomouse) says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 19:58

    I understand what you are trying to say and, while I may disagree with it, I defend your right to express your opinion. If I could take issue with just one area of your blog though. In your first two paragraphs you appear to be trying to draw some moral equivalence between death threats being directed to an individuals (specifically a journalist, in this case) and being called a bad name by someone who disagrees with your views. I am sorry but, in my humble opinion, the orders of magnitude in each case should prevent you from drawing this comparison.
    PS I am not a TDer.
64. 
    

    Humble Pie says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 20:27

    Fair enough – Abuse is abuse whatever form it takes and while I would certainly never be arrogant enough to compare name calling with razorblades in the post (and I do note that in my blog), it shouldn’t be reduced to that level of “discussion” at all.

    The entire point of the post is to raise the discussion about what cost we are willing to bear to reconstruct Scottish football. To reconstruct for the betterment of everyone, consideration has to be given to them. I appreciate that it’s not a popular notion, but what is better for Scottish football – Rangers in the SPL after promotion through the current league system that doesn’t work or Rangers in the SPL a season earlier in a new system that does? And that’s a question that no-one appears to be prepared to confront.
65. 
    

    Richard,

    Reconstruction = Appeasement, and we know where that got us.
66. 
    

    Richard Wilson (@timomouse) says:
    —————–
    what you see as reform and reconstruction in order as far as I can make out to stop
    a bad lot from being even badder I see as appeasement !
    you can wave your post to all and sundry claiming peace in our time
    ( a noble and honourable thing to do) but it will have the same response as the time
    in history you are quoting from .
    It will be seen as weakness and played upon by those who dont understand fair play
    This is a beast that needs put in its place
67. 
    

    see -tomtom thinks so as well 🙂
68. 
    

    tomtomaswell says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 20:44

    To go back to the allusions to Weimar from the blog, we aren’t at the stage where we are appeasing. The debate is how can we ensure prosperity for everyone, as it was post WW1, but the argument or the shadow of the potential of a strong Germany was enough to ensure that the plans for peace (League of Nations, etc) weren’t effective. Germany was used as an argument against reconstruction much as Rangers are now – that the dangers of possibly helping a strong Germany were too great.

    The effect was that when Germany did achieve parity, it was driven by vengeance and stronger than ever because it felt it had legitimate grievances and it is that exact rhetoric that we see from Charles Green now – that they don’t need the SPL, that they will show them what for, etc.

    Appeasement, historically, came as an avoidance of war far later on in the scheme of things. Reconstruction now would be confronting the problem before it ever arose. People will see it as rewarding Rangers, or like you say, appeasing the lunatic fringe, but it isn’t if it benefits everyone.

    Do you want the Marshall Plan or the Treaty of Versailles? One worked because it included everyone and allowed everyone to rebuild and plan on the same terms leading to a 25 year long economic boom, one led to World War Two.

    I’m not saying which I feel was better in the long run, but it’s not the latter!
69. 
    

    redetin says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 19:38

    The second link? I can’t see any confirmation that this is our own Mr Green. Anyone help? I mean the Mine Safey Institute of America?
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    June 20th 1999 Meeting.

    “Both of these companies are named in Zeus Capitals Report and Accounts for 2011!

    Now we know Charles Green resigned from Nova Resources before he took control at Ibrox. Nova were a mining company and so are Medusa, Medusa Mining. Would Charles have met Richard through that? Yes.

    Charles Green and Richard Hughes has been sitting in meeting with each other since 1999.”

    http://www.miningorganizations.org/index.php/msia-minutes
70. 
    

    But it doesnt benefit everyone does it Richard
    a relaunch into the SPL will only have advantaged clubs in Div 3 those clubs in Divs1+2
    would miss out on any financial benefits that were due to them
    But the biggest disadvantage comes on fair play -we are taking 30 pieces of silver
    rather than playing by the rules
    Luderi Causa Ludendi
71. 
    

    Richard Wilson (@timomouse) says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 19:58

    Richard, wrong analogy. Khrushchev speech to the 20th Congress of the CPSU in which he denounced Stalin as a monster would have been better, but closest of all is Gorbachev’s call for Glasnost and Peristroika.

    The most accurate translation of Perestroika, is not actually reconstruction but revolution. We very badly need a revolution in Scottish football, but any revolution will be doomed to failure without first having a process of Glasnost. Without openness and a genuine recognition by everyone involved, and amends made for the often disgraceful deeds for the past, then any revolution will be doomed to failure.

    Any attempt at revolution, before Rangers are forced to face up to what they have done, will simply further feed the monstrous group ego, while at the same time further disillusion the fans of the other clubs, and will in fact hasten the decline of Scottish Football.

    First comes Truth, then comes Justice, then, and only then, can we move on.
72. 
    

    timtim says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 21:03

    To go back to an old post of mine: http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/33152452626/the-death-of-scottish-football-part-seven-the-finale (the last bit of the 32k word long one!) – the league structure I proposed was a top league of 16 then 2 regional leagues of 16 each. That would be 12 current SPL sides + top 4 of SFL 1. The two regional leagues would then consist of the other 26 teams in the league system and the rest made up of Highland League etc.

    The financial working out I did for it made out that, when combined with aggressive media expansion, the increase in competitiveness in the SPL by artificially closing the gap to Celtic and schedule reorganisation, after 5 years it would result in £13.3m more a year coming into Scottish football. That’s money that would come in whatever division Rangers are in. That’s your 30 pieces of silver – Do you believe that a benefit of that size that would happen irrespective of how Rangers are faring is a bad thing? Is the possibility of Rangers getting to the top tier 1 season earlier than in the current system really worth passing up an opportunity like that that would benefit every club in the country?
73. 
    

    Arif Navqi and his 18% stake at £2m at time of input ,now the value is putting his stake at approx £15m ,according to Charlie’s figures,if I was Arif I would be sorely tempted to cut and run,but in reality we all know Charlie is nothing but a mobile hand dryer with very high heat output.
74. 
    

    Richard,

    The Treaty of Versailles was, by and large, set up with the right intentions. OK it was flawed but hindsight is wonderful. The Marshall Plan however was a carefully constructed set of events that was set up to benefit one country. Sure, it helped to rebuild Europe but at what cost? Where was the equipment made that rebuilt Europe. The US. Was the equipment provided free of charge. No. OK the loans to buy the equipment could be considered as “soft loans” but they certainly weren’t at any time like an EBT, in that they would never need to be repaid.

    Back on the topic of Rangers and their return to the top flight of Scottish football and the ramifications for the rest of us. The lunatic fringe is a misnomer, more like a lunatic coverall. Rangers, by and large, are supported by a section of society that see themselves as above and beyond the rest of us. They exist in concert with the Or@nge Order and vice versa. Their reason for existing is to support each other. The songbook reflects this. Are there any songs that don’t have hatred writ through them? Posters on here have frequently asked “where are all the decent Rangers supporters?” Well the reason for their silence is that, with very few exceptions, they don’t exist. A Scotland without Rangers in it’s present guise would be a far better place, but is there a Rangers without the hatred and supremacist belief? I don’t believe so. Pandering to their fan base in the hope of getting a few shekels is the worst thing we could do. Far better to get rid of the problem child.

    I fully expect a lot of TD’s for this. However, if anyone feels I’m out of order with this don’t just TD me, try and convince me I’m wrong. I’m a reasonable person who is prepared to listen and understand alternative and opposing viewpoints to mine.

    I’ll be here all night.
75. 
    

    Richard Wilson (@timomouse) says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 20:37
    ‘.. what is better for Scottish football – Rangers in the SPL after promotion through the current league system that doesn’t work or Rangers in the SPL a season earlier in a new system that does?..”
    —-
    Your piece was interesting and a good read.

    But essentially, it is a plea for the Football Authorities to abandon any notion of Sport as being fair competition within agreed rules, and to accept that serious rule- breaking leading to illicit competitive advantage can be condoned and pardoned ,if the rule-breaker can bully and/or bribe his way out of suffering the consequences.

    Even our dimmest Football executives could see that for themselves , assisted by the storm of revulsion against the SFA Board’s really underhand scheme to save the bullying, blustering offender.

    In seeking illicit ways to accommodate an offender, the very Authorities were guilty of a worse crime than the offending club, just as bribe-accepting police officers and judges are guilty of more serious crimes than the people from whom bribes are accepted.

    In my view, while re-construction of Scottish Football is desirable ( we’ve all been saying that for years!) moves to effect this cannot, must not, be taken while the present Board of the SFA is in office, and must not be aimed at expediting the passage of a 3rd division club into a league where they would be in the top tier.

    Football can do without cheating clubs. It would do better with honest men running it for the genuine good of all, which demands that the very essence and spirit of sporting competition be put first, last, and all the time.