Podcast Episode 3 – David Low


Ernie says: April 25, 2014 at 3:29 pm ‘…the SFA have no …

Comment on Podcast Episode 3 – David Low by John Clark.

ernie says:
April 25, 2014 at 3:29 pm
‘…the SFA have no obligation or duty to speculate on whether this version of Rangers will or will not live within their means..’
iceman63 says:
April 25, 2014 at 3:54 pm
‘….They very much do have such an obligation..’
They do indeed.
And they need to get the preliminary planning done for the necessary 4 ( or will it be 5?) -way meeting to set up a Dave King ( or other cheapskate purchaser/renter of the assets) new phoenix! đź‘ż

John Clark Also Commented

Podcast Episode 3 – David Low
essexbeancounter says:
May 4, 2014 at 11:28 pm
‘…so we had “season tickets ” to the Griffin ‘
Am I wholly mistaken, or was that fabled animal/bird not done at one time ( early/middle 1970s?) for having permitted to be consumed on the premises some non-alcoholic, but also non-licensed, baccy-related refreshment?
Or was that a hallucinatory figment of my imagination?
As if!

Podcast Episode 3 – David Low
easyJambo says:
May 4, 2014 at 9:46 pm
‘….I tried to find the text of the 1862 Act, but could only find the following reference..’
EJ, if I have done it right, the full text of the1862 Companie act is at this link.
You have to click on GO to turn the pages and on the two vertical lines to ‘Pause’-took me some minutes to find that out!

Podcast Episode 3 – David Low
ecobhoy says:
May 4, 2014 at 9:47 am
‘…. notification on AIM at the instigation of the Board of RIFC Plc or the company’s AIM NOMAD.’
Just in case AIM don’t read the papers, I let them know.
This is the email I got in reply on 1st May.

Dear Mr Clark,
Thank you for your e-mails dated 28 and 29 April 2014 addressed to London Stock Exchange plc’s (“the Exchange”) RNS Mailbox regarding Rangers International Football Club plc (“the Company”). Given that your concerns relate to an AIM Company, your e-mails have been referred to the Exchange’s AIM Regulation team.
As you may already know, AIM Regulation is the department within the Exchange that is responsible for the regulation of AIM. AIM Regulation investigates all complaints made as regards the conduct of AIM companies and nominated advisers in respect of their compliance with the AIM Rules for Companies (“AIM Rules”) and for Nominated Advisers (“Nomad Rules”). We can assure you that where concerns arise in relation to a company or a nominated adviser’s compliance with the AIM Rules or Nomad Rules, AIM Regulation investigates any potential breaches of those rules and takes action where appropriate. Please note that AIM Regulation’s remit does not extend beyond the AIM Rules and Nomad Rules.
We note your comments relating to reports that the Company’s CEO, Graham Wallace, is the subject of a Police investigation.
As indicated above, we can assure you that AIM Regulation investigates all complaints that relate to potential breaches of the AIM Rules or Nomad Rules. However, please note that, for reasons of confidentiality, we are unable to update you on how matters are subsequently dealt with, nor can we provide you with information on the outcome of any work that is undertaken pursuant to your concerns. You will appreciate that confidentiality is essential in maintaining the integrity of our work.
Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.
Kind regards,”

Recent Comments by John Clark

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
My brother and I, auld men now that we are, meet occasionally for a pint or three.
We tend to pay homage to our late dad by visiting one of the pubs he used as a young man afore the war ( he lived in digs near Partick Cross) , or one of the pubs he used when we were kids during his working life at what  used to be Glasgow Corporation Tramways Parkhead depot,  or the pub he used in Tollcross in his retirement days.
So I feel for the patrons of what had been Annie Miller’s pub in Ropework lane.
If and when the new owners of the premises tart it up gaily as a feeder bar for their adjoining sauna, I expect that it will no longer be a ‘Rangers’ pub,a place of shared enjoyment of football memories and celebration of former days of glory.

Like the historic Rangers Football Club, Annie Miller’s is dead. Ceased trading in 2016. No longer exists as a ‘Rangers’ pub, any more than the Rangers Football Club of 1872 exists as a professional football club entitled to a place in Scottish Football.
That’s the reality.
There isn’t even a ‘Scottish Football Pubs Association’ prepared to create and propagate a lie  that ‘Annie Miller’s’ lives on, there have been no white or green knights/knaves rushing in to found ‘continuity Annie Miller’s’, no running-dog SMSM types betraying their avocation by propagating untruths……and.no convicted criminals begging, borrowing and making false promises about good times to come if only other folk will produce the readies…
Annie Miller’s is dead and gone.
Only a lie sustains TRFC Ltd.
And those who drank in Annie Miller’s know that.
And the evil men of the SMSM and the SFA know it, too.
May 2018 see them confounded, and their untruths exposed.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FinlochDecember 30, 2017 at 20:42
‘…Craig took a Corinthian and undisciplined club going nowhere fast, rooted it into a previously ignored community and has achieved some incredible health and social goals deep into that community using football as glue.’
Beautifully expressed, Finloch.

Football as a glue of ‘community’

Of community trust,

of basic honesty,

of the  Corinthian spirit,

of sporting integrity….

and of all the virtues that the SFA has so spectacularly abandoned, in its determination to insist that Charles Green’s Sevcoscotland is entitled to call itself the Rangers of 1872

That such an incredibly monstrous perversion of truth of any kind, never mind sporting truth, is being, and has been for 5 years, propagated by our Football Governance body and supported by the SMSM is stark evidence of a deep, deep corruption at the heart of our sport, and, worse, at the very essence of our ‘free’ Press.

in this little country of ours.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
And since I’m talking to myself while all you guys and gals are snoring your heads off, can I just mention that in the local newspaper this morning there was a piece about school sports.

It seemed to be about the ‘pick’ of the best players.

I didn’t have time today to read the whole thing ( and it’s too late to disturb the household to go looking for the paper!) but it seemed to be related to the use by ‘soccer’ teams of the American  Football  concept of who gets to pick the best player in the ‘draft’.

I have only the haziest understanding of that concept.

But in so far as it might relate to attempts to create genuine ‘sporting’ , on-field, equality of talent, it must have something to recommend it.

Even the Americans realise that in order to make money out of sport,there has to be some concept of genuine ‘sporting competition’

Auldheid reminded us, quite movingly, of the joyous nature of our game as we all experienced it.
We all knew instinctively what was fair, and what wasn’t.
Remember how our street game teams were picked?

The two ‘captains’ tossed for first choice.Whichever won the toss would pick the ‘best’ player. The other guy would pick ‘the second best’ and so on.

And, if it appeared that there was an imbalance ,or if there was an odd number of players, then it would be agreed that a ‘John Clark’ would play the first half for one side to give them the extra man, and the second half for the other side, to try to be fair in the use of that useless lump!

( who, I may say, was actually quite good at lifting the wee ba’ from the street up onto the pavement, one hand on the lamp-post outside the Thomson’s house on Cuthelton Street, and bringing it to the goal at the lorry entrance to the Domestos depot ( formerly Donald Clarke’s steel kind of place, which in 1947 sirened One o’Clock,with the siren they used ‘during the war!’)

And it is these kinds of memories that fuel my contempt
contempt for the cheating bast.rd of a knight of the realm who killed the RFC of my day

contempt for the SFA who, like some referees,not only did not ‘see’ that cheating but went further and assisted in that cheating

And who continue to propagate the lie that the football club that cheated its way to death by Liquidation is somehow the same club as a five year old creation that they themselves have lied into existence.

And as for the the whole lot of the successive boards of either Sevco 5088, Sevcoscotland, The rangers football Club Ltd, RIFC plc  how can they be described otherwise than as  scavengers of carrion? Feeding as they do on the dead flesh of a once proud football club?

It gars me greet…
Quietly and solemnly, into my glass of “Goose IPA, 5.9%, made from hops from Idaho” ( And actually quite surprisingly pleasant, reminiscent of McEwan’s pale ale.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
It’s 11.43 pm in Scranton,PA,  and we have just come back from being wined and dined  in tremendously good company in a friends-of-the-son’s home.

I am therefore in a cheerful frame of mind. (Mind you, sitting in the back seat of the car I had one of those A9 moments of absolute fear, when the driver overtook another car on a blind bend, before I realised we were still on a dual carriageway!)….

For one reason or another, it suddenly strikes  me that I don’t actually know ( or remember) when it was that the concept of ‘transfer windows’ was introduced, or why it was introduced.

On the face of it, it’s as much of a restriction of ‘trade’ on ’employers’, as the pre-Bosman situation was on freedom of employment was on ‘workers'(players).

Is there a decently worked out rationale for the concept?

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
easyJamboDecember 27, 2017 at 17:49
‘..I think that the document will only be a restatement of the resolutions that were approved at the AGM (Resolutions 10 & 11).’
You’re perfectly right, of course, eJ: it was only the official recording  of the AGM resolutions.

I think I for one (in my general ignorance) tend to think that any plc of which a director has been taken to the Courts( in an unprecedented action by the Takeover Panel) would have every form or document that it submitted to Companies House rigorously examined, cross-checked, double-checked, treble checked ,even, in a way that ,for example, the SFA does not do with documents submitted to it by its trustworthy gentlemen members.

The Takeover Panel has a lot riding on how the Law stands in its approach to the Panel’s need for support in their regulation of rogues in the market-place.

So I tend to look at anything touching on RIFC plc that seems even a wee bit different as something worth exploring.

Largely tongue-in-cheek, of course: -we’re not likely ever to be told anything confidential by CH! But if they say something will appear, and then it doesn’t appear when promised, then it allows one to ask why. Keeps them on their toes!

And we know that when even the gentlemen of our free Press are not above behaving with less than complete honesty when it comes to TRFC Ltd/RIFC plc  there may (God forbid!) exist a ‘protective of companies’ mindset in CH, rather than a ‘get the baddies’ approach.

Who knows?

About the author