Celtic Shareholders who put forward a resolution to the Celtic AGM in 2013 are preparing for the 2019 AGM tomorrow and some of their conclusions are reproduced below. Celtic are planning to vote the current resolution of 2019 down after several years of kicking the can down the road after an agreement to adjourn the 2013 motion was agreed at that AGM.
Given the weight of evidence, and the prevarication that has gone on for this extended period of time, you don’t have to be a student of politics to infer that Celtic are failing their own shareholders over this.
There appears to have been, at best, a failure of SFA governance over this issue. At worst? Well that doesn’t really bear thinking about. That Celtic (and other clubs too) have been in possession of the evidence outlined below but have failed to act on it is a damning indictment of the quality of people running our clubs. Peter Lawwell’s words from 2008 about the integrity of competition seem hollow coming from the same lips as the man who has failed to pursue any kind of sporting integrity over upholding the rules of the game.
Of course we are talking about a fundamental difference in how people see the game. There are those of us who (some say naively) consider that upholding the aspects of fair play and competition are paramount, and those who see the commercial aspects of the game as the foremost consideration. A pragmatist might find a way to accommodate both, but there are apparently no pragmatists in boardrooms all over Scotland – just financial accountants.
It would be unfair to categorise the latter constituency as suffering from some kind of character defect of course. Doesn’t make you a bad person because short term financial gain is your thing.
But it puts you at odds with the paying punters – or at least some of them. As a Celtic fan myself, I’m not so sure that I can take any real joy from my own club’s success if I have come to the conclusion that they themselves are happy with a rigged competition. I am not so sure I can credibly throw stones at anyone who is caught cheating when I see that serious evidence of malpractice is being ignored and hidden under the rug by my own club.
I am sure there are those who feel the same as I do. Are there enough of us? Probably not, but the effect of it all from a personal perspective, is that it disconnects me from the process where common goals and objectives are shared between fans, players and clubs. That’s what clubs are for after all isn’t it?
In short, if the game is rigged, there is no common objective.
And consequently, many of us, deprived of that shared mission, that bond broken, will be forced to re-evaluate their relationship with their clubs.
We all have our own thoughts, but the urge to walk away forever is strong with me.
The Resolution 12 Story
In 2012, Celtic shareholders brought a resolution before the Celtic PLC AGM which asked the Celtic Board to refer certain matters to UEFA because they felt that the Scottish Football Association was compromised, no longer fit for purpose in relation to these matters, at least, and had failed Celtic and all the other football clubs in Scotland and in its duty as a Governing body, and it has separately failed UEFA as the Licensing Authority appointed by UEFA to grant licences to play in European Football in relation to Scottish teams.
The actual wording used was as follows;
“This AGM requests the Board exercise the provision contained in the Procedural Rules Governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body Article 10 with jurisdiction and investigation responsibilities identified in articles 3 & 11 (Note 1), by referring/bringing to the attention of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), the licensing administration practices of the Scottish Football Association (SFA), requesting the CFCB undertake a review and investigate the SFA’s implementation of UEFA & SFA license compliance requirements, with regard to qualification, administration and granting of licenses to compete in football competitions under both SFA and UEFA jurisdiction, since the implementation of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations of 2010.”
The response of the Celtic Board was to argue that this resolution was NOT NECESSARY because the board itself had already recognised that there had been failings within the SFA Licensing process, and they were already in correspondence with the SFA in relation to much the same issue.
The difference between the board and the Resolutioners was that the board wanted to continue corresponding with the SFA rather than refer the matter to UEFA or anyone else, whereas the Resolutioners argued that the SFA were hopelessly compromised, were unfit for purpose, could not of themselves remedy the situation they had created, and so wanted to refer the matter to UEFA as an independent and overseeing body whose rules had been flaunted, broken, ignored and to be frank, completely manipulated as a result of SFA inaction and inactivity.
After much discussion between the board and the Resolutioners, it was reluctantly agreed that the resolution should be adjourned and to allow the SFA to be given the opportunity to demonstrate that they could operate as a proper Governing body should and to answer all and any questions put to them via the Celtic PLC board and , where appropriate, the Resolutioners and ,if necessary, their solicitors.
In the interim period, it has become clear to the Resolutioners that the SFA are not fit for purpose, just as they originally argued, and that they are not, and never could have been, the appropriate body to consider and determine the failings in the licensing system that the Resolutioners had complained of.
This is not merely opinion on the part of the Resolutioners but is the determination and judgement of a formally constituted judicial panel appointed by the SFA itself.
The Resolutioners complain that the SFA have failed, and continue to fail in the following areas;
- They failed to oversee a fair and robust European Licence application process before and after March 2011 in respect of the appropriate season.
They had failed to mount any sort of investigation despite being contacted by HMRC from 2006 onwards in relation to the unlawful activities of a member club – they should have had a watching brief and requested regular updates from HMRC directly but didn’t. - They failed to properly apply the necessary tests demanded by UEFA in considering licence applications, and subsequently, through their then CEO, sought to justify their licensing process and the grant of certain licences on a number of different contradictory grounds – none of which stood scrutiny.
- They failed to monitor, update their records or make specific enquiries between 30th March 2011 and Mid May 2011 when the list of application grants was formally intimated to UEFA – and by which time there was widespread public rumour and speculation about the state of the tax affairs of a member club together with specific legal documents which outlined that there was indeed a tax bills due which would have disqualified that club from being granted a UEFA licence – had the rules been applied properly.
- They failed to grasp the situation between March 2011 and August 2011 when the Sheriff Officers were seen arriving at the same club and had still made no enquiry.
- They failed to carry out any monitoring duties at all post the grant of the licence, with then CEO Reagan telling Celtic that once a European licence was granted – which it was in April 2011 – all further compliance monitoring and any necessary action was the province of UEFA. This was later contradicted by UEFA themselves.
- They failed to monitor through the June 30th and September 30th, two key datelines specified with the UEFA regulations, and there exists a damning e-mail from one SFA officer to the offending club which effectively says that he hopes UEFA will be too busy to notice the deficiencies in the latest submissions sent by the SFA to UEFA in respect of the club concerned.
Throughout, the SFA denied that there were any failures in their procedures, that licences had been correctly granted, there had been no breaches of the rules and maintained that their procedures had been audited and approved by UEFA during the period.
According to the official UEFA website, no such Audit actually took place with the same website confirming which Football Associations were in fact audited at the relevant time. There is no mention of any SFA Audit.
The SFA claimed that not only was there nothing wrong with the grant of the licence, but that there was nothing for them to report during the post grant period as it was not their responsibility – and then added that even if something had been wrong, or was later found to be wrong with the grant, they could not report the matter to UEFA and could take no action because they were time barred from doing so.
Post the Craig Whyte Trial, where long held evidence was publicly noted and commented upon, Celtic and the SPFL publicly called for there to be a full independent Legal inquiry into all that had transpired during “the EBT years” and all aspects of how what had occurred, impacted on football Governance in Scotland.
The SFA rejected those calls and instead insisted on their own internal inquiry into the UEFA licence process for 2011/2012 – despite previously insisting that there had never been anything to investigate or report to UEFA who had entrusted them with the administration of their Licensing process.
The SFA wrote to every club in Scotland to say they were undertaking that investigation and later publicly announced that as a result of that investigation they had uncovered sufficient evidence to justify bringing formal charges alleging breaches of both SFA and UEFA rules.
This despite denying for a number of years that there had been any need for an investigation and despite reassuring Celtic that their licensing process was robust, had been conducted properly, and had not resulted in any incorrect grant of a licence.
The SFA appointed a judicial panel to hear those charges, determine whether they had been proven or not and then to hand out an appropriate punishment.
That Judicial panel have ruled that legally they (the SFA appointed panel) and the SFA itself cannot bring, hear, determine and act on those charges, nor consider the activities of the football club concerned in any judicial forum, because apparently the SFA had previously decided and formally entered into a contract which says that the SFA will not, and cannot, administer their normal Governmental and Judicial function (which would normally apply to any other club in Scotland and at any other time in the history of the SFA or UEFA) in relation to the acts concerned and the specific football club in question.
Instead, the Panel ruled that the charges concerned should be considered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport as a matter of contract and law – and could not be considered by an SFA appointed panel.
In other words, it has been judicially determined that the SFA cannot as a matter of law enforce its own rules or those of UEFA in relation to one club, and have signed away their entire right to oversee proper football Governance and the implementation of SFA and UEFA rules in this instance.
Further, that contract must have been known to all the appropriate SFA officers who decided and took part in the inquiry that led to the SFA bringing the disciplinary charges – Stuart Reagan, Andrew MacKinlay and Tony McGlennan – and when the SFA rejected Celtic’s call for a fully independent inquiry.
In effect, those same officers mounted their own internal inquiry and brought proceedings which they knew, or ought reasonably to have known, which would end in a legal dead end.
Such a course of action amounts to professional incompetence on a monumental scale – at best!
Further, subsequent SFA officials, assured the officers of Celtic Football Club that following the decision of the Independent Judicial Panel there was no reason why the SFA would not take the matter to CAS and in turn used the officials of Celtic Football Club to relay that message to the Resolutioners in the knowledge, and with the intention, that Celtic PLC shareholders would rely on those assurances and would act accordingly. Those actions and those assurances should now be the subject of a wholly separate inquiry.
Since those assurances were made to Celtic officials, Solicitors acting on behalf of shareholders have written to the SFA on no less than three occasions requesting clarification on what the SFA is doing, whether or not the decision from the independent tribunal advising that the matter should go to CAS will be implemented, and requesting a proposed timetable when this will happen. All such letters have been ignored or avoided by the SFA.
Subsequently, the current CEO of the SFA has stated that whether or not the matter should go to CAS will only be determined prior to Christmas 2019 – some 18 months after the ruling by the independent judicial panel.
This position is a complete volte face from what the SFA told Celtic officials immediately after the 2018 panel hearing.
The conclusion to all of this can only be that the SFA is not fit for purpose and that the governance of Scottish football is so bad, so broken and so far removed from normal judicial and corporate business practice that it must be looked at by an independent body if the matter is not referred to CAS.
Further, all of this must be made public, must be out in the open and must be properly disclosed otherwise any future investment in any club whether by private individuals, stock market listed entities, banks, loan houses, credit houses or whatever is predicated on the wholly fraudulent notion that the SFA will consistently apply its own rules or those of UEFA.
Celtic, as a respected member of UEFA, should not and cannot, stand back and allow this shambolic governance to continue unchecked and without external examination as to do so would be doing a total disservice to UEFA, and such a course of action would potentially make Celtic a party to the entire shambolic administration we have seen thus far.
The resolutioners have stated consistently since 2012 that SFA governance is not fit for purpose and have requested that this entire matter should be referred to UEFA as the overall governing body for European football and as a footballing authority who has entrusted the SFA to oversee the fair application of its rules in Scotland.
Despite what is now accepted as continued and regular SFA failure, that request has met with obfuscation and resistance.
However persistence beats resistance and no matter what the outcome of the 2019 Celtic AGM this is an issue which will not go away and is worthy of consideration and determination in a more formal legal forum.
Poor Traynor: he must be fizzing!
His planned PR p!sh this week is now out of his control!
First you have Gerrard seemingly wandering off-message, to shoot down the Kamara nonsense.
It would appear that Gerrard has decided that it’s simply the best not to participate in the Level42 game playing.
…and now you have Agent Whyte – of all people! – muscling in on Traynor's 'franchise' to publicise his forthcoming book in the run up to the LC Final.
Traynor can't control Whyte's publishing company, and who knows… mibbees a couple of wee nuggets of embarrassing detail about RFC/TRFC could be released later this week to drum up even more interest in the book?
…and Traynor can only look on…
Brilliant!
All this talk of Lawwell and Desmond, no one ever mentions Nick Train?
He's had a significant holding since the start, bought in in 2011 if I remember, increased earlier this year, and now is close to 20% holding through his Lindsell Train Equity Fund.
Absolutely no sentiment to Scottish football and Celtic whatsoever, solely driven by share price.
Would he see it as disadvantageous to his investment if another scandal became public and it came out Celtic were complicit? Best not to rock the boat.
Just a thought.
Anent my post of 23.24, can we amuse ourselves speculating about the likely purchasers of wee Sh.te's book?
Your ordinary everyday RFC of 1872 fan will not want to give any dosh to the man who was the owner who deliberately ran their club into Liquidation ( even though the 'remote' actual cause of Liquidation was the arch-cheat whom no one dare criticise).
The rest of us ordinary football people assume that the wee sh.te will NOT name names , will not tell any kind of truthful story that powerful people in the establishment might object to, will not give any more information about his living conditions etc than he has done. So we assume that we will learn nothing.
However, there may possibly be some chaps out there in the jurisdiction who might just want to buy a copy in case the wee sh.te might have mentioned their names and, possibly, have landed them in it!
There might, for instance, be some observations on how helpful the SFA were in the matter of the UEFA licence/tax indebtedness position.
That is just my idle speculation, of course.
But who else would buy the book? Seriously.
I will tell everyone I know not to waste their money on a book that supports an untruth.
gogs 3rd December 2019 at 00:11
'.no one ever mentions Nick Train?….'
+++++++++++++
Two things, gogs, the personal first: I had a classmate whose nickname was, not gogs, but gog. And your post took me instantly back to the 1950s!
Secondly, and of much more interest: Lindsell Train Equity Fund.
Please tell us more. I've looked often enough at who owns shares in Celtic plc, but have never got past the 'nominees ' and I don't think I've seen the name Lindell at all?
Auldheid 2nd December 2019 at 22:35
Thanks for the extended reply.
I had my tinfoil hat on when I typed the last one, and it's on again now for the reason you allude to.
Regardless of the financial situation at Ibrox by the 2011/12 season, if Celtic had evidence by then that it was they, and not RFC, who should have been playing Malmo, then I can envisage a situation where all parties, Celtic, the SFA and UEFA were keen to find a way out of a mess with ripple effects across European football where all felt vulnerable and ideally one that did not involve a formal paper trail. If that evidence emerged after Valentine's Day 2012 the same would hold, albeit on a different time frame. I take your point about the letter of Dec. 2011.
Pure uninformed speculation on my part, but it's time to get the tinfoil hat off, it's making me paranoid.
John Clark 3rd December 2019 at 00:30
Haha, nostalgia can appear at the strangest times.
As for the Nick Train holding, I know as much, or probably a lot less, than anyone else here.
Like I say, he's been around since 2011 with a not insignificant share. What influence would a London Investment Firm have on board room policy outwith the ones voted on at the AGM? Do they just sit in the background and do nothing or are they usually proactive?
It's just a niggle as I never see them mentioned, but if anonymity without influence in that kind of set up is normal policy then I'll just put that niggle to rest!
Celtic are not the only football club plc attracting investment from Lindsell Train, Juventus and Manchester United are also held in their Global Equity Fund;
https://www.trustnet.com/news/791314/michael-lindsell-why-we-invested-in-juventus-celtic-and-manchester-united
The Celtic share price, (Ticker CCP) was trundling along between 30-40p for months on end, prior to Charlie Green's ruse. I think there were around 33.4m shares in TRFC Ltd, when the bold Charlie floated RIFC for around £22.2m. With a 1 for 1 share swap this effectively valued RIFC shares at around 66p at the time.
The Celtic share price soon tracked up to 49p by end Dec 2012, before surging to mid 70s in 2014. The share price is now 164.7p today. Lindsell topped-up their holding on the departure of Judas Rogers;
https://citywire.co.uk/investment-trust-insider/news/nick-train-tops-up-celtic-stake-after-brendan-rodgers-exit/a1207231
Lindsell Train stuff is interesting. Turns out I have Celtic in my pension fund then
scottc 3rd December 2019 at 17:05
————————————————————
How many bears will be like you then?
scottc 3rd December 2019 at 17:05
'…Lindsell Train stuff is interesting. Turns out I have Celtic in my pension fund then.'
++++++++++++++++
I don't doubt gogs' observations about Lindsells Train Investment Co's approximately 20% shareholding in Celtic plc. But there must be some bar on that kind of shareholder having the kind of control that even 3% appears to give, for neither in the Celtic plc accounts nor on the Companies House website is Lindsells Train listed as a 'person with significant control'.
Anyone know?
Of more immediate relevance to you, scottc, might be this link to an interview with Nick Train.
https://citywire.co.uk/investment-trust-insider/news/nick-train-investors-are-always-worried-the-trick-is-to-buy-anyway/a1256409?ref=investment-trust-insider-video-list
[Lindsells is, I discovered, the name of a wee town or village in south east Engerland, and yer man Nick speaks with the relevant accent. Oddly enough, I could in my minds ear, as it were, hear a Yorkshire accent, and had special wee look at his hands.
]
Re-Lindsell Train
Im also an investor in their fund (having wisely ditched Neil Woodford a few years ago!) so was interested when their Celtic buy-in was noted in the papers earlier this year given I hold shares there also.
Now I am interested in which way they voted on the recent resolutions and who advised them in taking those decisions…
Not to interfere with the flow of the chat, can I just refer to my post of 22.23 : I somehow added an 's' to the name of the village of Lindsell. I discovered this when ,somehow piqued by curiosity, I looked it up: there is a link
http://www.recordinguttlesfordhistory.org.uk/lindsell/Lindsell.html
OttoKaiser 3rd December 2019 at 22:37
'..Re-Lindsell Train…….I'm also an investor… so was interested when their Celtic buy-in was noted in the papers earlier this year '
++++++++++++
You may have posted before you saw my post of 22.23 , OttoKaiser, so might not have seen my query?
If Lindsell Train as Lindsell Train (LT)has a 20% shareholding, why is it not shown ( as far as I can see) as being 'a person of significant control'?
That would suggest to me that LT might not be, in voting power, a significant player.
But frankly I just don't understand a lot of this kind of stuff.
On the one hand , if a shareholder has even only 3%, he/she is deemed to be a person with significant control. On the other hand, as it appears, an Investment Trust with a 20% shareholding seems not to be recorded as a 'person of significant control'.
I'm sure,of course, that there is a simple explanation .
An explanation that I'm too thick to perceive
I don't know for sure if any SMSM Journalists read this site, although I suspect some will have a look at it from time to time. Below is a wee reminder to them of something they seem unable to grasp.
Since Rangers were liquidated in 2012 after illegally cheating the state out of tens of millions, a total of nine clubs have had their names engraved on the three major Scottish football trophies. Step forward Aberdeen, Celtic, Inverness Caledonian Thistle, Heart of Midlothian, Hibernian, Kilmarnock, St Johnstone, St Mirren, Ross County.
Why am I saying this? Because when several Journalists say they would like to see a different name on the trophy come Sunday it's not really for that reason at all is it, given the spread of names since 2012. Why don't they just be honest and say all they want is for Rangers to win, and Rangers to be the most successful club. They don't really care about anyone else winning. They won't all be like that of course but the majority clearly are.
JC, with ref to significant control.
Perhaps entities like the Lindsell Train funds are treated differently as "collective investments". There are probably millions of people directly or indirectly invested in these funds, hence the 20% holding would be minuscule if divided by the "investors".
While this does not solve the potential problem of the clout of the lead manager of the fund, the fact Nick Train or Michael Lindsell do not own 20% personally, might excuse them from being persons of significant control. Seems a bit counter-intuitive but all I can think of…
normanbatesmumfc 4th December 2019 at 10:28
'..fact Nick Train or Michael Lindsell do not own 20% personally, might excuse them from being persons of significant control. Seems a bit counter-intuitive but all I can think of…'
++++++++++++
It must be something like that, nbmfc, but the chunk of money invested is clearly under the personal control of the directors of the Investment Trust, who could sell the shares or buy more without immediate reference to the folk whose money they are investing?
You know, at the age I am now I find myself really ignorant of that whole scene, while the fly boys of the world are schooled in every wrinkle , both legal and illegal.
Not that I'm suggesting that any particular Investment Trust is owned/managed by the equivalent of the 'sawdust in the gearbox' second-hand car dealer of my younger days. I am sure many of them will be happily self-satisfied of their personal integrity. .
upthehoops 4th December 2019 at 07:03
Six TD's already UTH.
I can only assume that at least 6 SMS employees object to you daring to suggest that they read the material on this site.
smallchange 4th December 2019 at 12:11
'…Six TD's already UTH.
I can only assume that at least 6 SMS employees object..'
+++++++++++++++
I see on the BBC site this item
"Evening Times newspaper rebrands as Glasgow Times"
I don't know whether any of the rebranded rag was one of the TD-ers.
But it's odds on that the 'Glasgow Times' will continue to be a propaganda sheet for the Big festering Lie., and I do not wish it well.May it sink without trace.
Yes JC, and IMO this ET rebranding could signal exactly how their footy reporting is going to annoy Internet Bampots even more!
I remember years ago when The Glasgow Herald rebranded as The Herald, possibly to remove any parochial slant – as it was a 'proper' national paper at that time.
Now its sister title has dropped 'Evening' as it no longer – I believe – produces evening and 'late' editions.
But, it has chosen instead to go for Glasgow Times – perhaps to be regarded as a more local paper: more parochial?
By default, it will be even more focused on its Glasgow customer base – and the quality of its footy coverage will decline even further, (I know!).
And it's curious that the ET is rebranding so late in the day, when it's print output has already fallen off a cliff.
But, it's just deck chairs and rearranging for the owners Newsquest…
Cc:Complaints Scheme
4 Dec at 12:29
Dear …..
If you require any additional information in the meantime please contact us.
Yours sincerely
FCA Complaints Team
Risk & Compliance Oversight Division
12 Endeavour Square
London
E20 1JN
Tel: +44 (0)20 7066 9870
http://www.fca.org.uk
Re Lindsell Train & the 20% shareholding in CFC, as discussed above:
My (admittedly cursory) reading indicates that, to qualify as a PSC, you have to have a greater than 25% shareholding & be an individual (ie. not a company). There are other conditions (the 'company' in this case would be CFC):
'Essentially, the company is looking to see if there’s anyone who meets one or more of the following conditions:
Taken from: https://www.informdirect.co.uk/company-records/psc-register-what-must-a-company-do/
There's also a legal construct called a Relevant Legal Entity, whereby a business/company can act as a PSC under certain circumstances. You're welcome to visit that ultra-complicated rabbit-warren on your own
John Clark 4th December 2019 at 13:56
———————–
Be prepared to duck if that exocet is launched. There's going to be a hell of a bang.
I realise this is a football site.
But I think we should take a moment to raise a glass to the memory of another sporting legend who has passed.
As a cricket fan, I remember being off school in July 1981 when Ian Botham set about the Aussies with the bat. And then the next day watching the wonderful Bob Willis finish them off with the ball.
Sadly big Bob has died (70). But who can forget the mammoth arched run up, the arm hidden behind his back, hair billowing in the wind and the look of being "in the zone" during that Headingley test match. And a half decent commentator/pundit too.
RIP. RGD Willis
Jingso.Jimsie 4th December 2019 at 15:53
'…My (admittedly cursory) reading indicates …'
++++++++++
Cursory or not, Jingo.Jimsie, your research effort has shown me where I was going wrong:
I had been reading the information underneath a heading (on the filing pages in the Celtic plc entry on the CH website) as if the heading referred to them. Instead ,the heading has to be clicked on as link to find the information to which it refers.
In this case, only Dermot Desmond is a 'person with significant control' ,with more than 25% but not more than 50%.
Thank you for helping unconfuse me!
AvatarHiggy's Shoes 4th December 2019 at 16:44
That is indeed sad news, HS. Your description of Bob Willis is exactly how I remember him and his cricket commenting and opinions put all our football pundits to shame.
I've always loved cricket, especially test cricket, and I am now feeling particularly sad at the passing of one of my most favourite players. RIP Bob Willis.
Higgy's Shoes 4th December 2019 at 16:44
I think that most on here are reasonable fellows and appreciate good honest sportsmen & women who give their best regardless of the sport.
macfurgly 4th December 2019 at 16:14
'..Be prepared to duck if that exocet is launched. There's going to be a hell of a bang'
+++++++++++++++++++
Ha,ha! I wish!
Having witnessed the less than spectacular experience of the handling by the TOP of the King contempt episode, I imagine that the last thing the FCA would do would be anything drastic.
My 'complaint' is not directly against RIFC plc , but against the FCA itself, for nodding through what I assert is a misleading IPO Prospectus which the law says they ought not to do.
They are not likely to agree. And even if they did agree with me, what the heck could they do? Announce publicly that they had authorised a misleading Prospectus seven years ago? Instruct RIFC plc to offer to buy all the shares that had been bought when the IPO was made?
I suspect they will simply buy into the Big Lie. If some of our 'legals' can do it in Court, so can they.
And even if they did admit that the Prospectus was misleading, there is, I think, a six-year time bar against them taking action against an allegedly delinquent plc , probably reinforced by the fact that the plc in question had their authorisation!
Additionally, of course, the plc in question is to be done away with by its own Board.
This might make any kind of response from the FCA merely a token response.
But at least, in the records of the FCA there will be a note of my query and allegation of their failure to carry out their statutory duty, and their attempt to justify themselves.
Higgy's Shoes 4th December 2019 at 16:44
Allyjambo 4th December 2019 at 17:14
Headingley 1981 has always been remembered as the Botham Test. I think that completely understates Willis' part in the victory.
Botham may have provided a glimmer of hope to the home side, but it was Willis who won it.
After Willis hung around with Botham in a last wicket partnership of 37, Australia was still hot favorites needing just 140 in their second innings. Willis' eight wickets put paid to that as the Aussies were all out for 111. It was only the second time that a team "following on" had won a test match.
It certainly is a funny old game! Outplayed in first half then could have won it. Dons v Sevco I mean. Meanwhile Broony rescued the other lot in injury time at home against Accies! Who would have thunk it!
Meanwhile SMSM is on over overdrive anent the Betfred cup final on Sunday. BT Sport apparently starting hours before KO. What the f**k are they going to talk about? Past "old firm" derbies I have no doubt.
bordersdon 4th December 2019 at 22:09
'..What the f**k are they going to talk about? Past "old firm" derbies I have no doubt.'
+++++++++++++++
What else, bordersdon?
The spiritual heirs of that most evil, scarcely human, bad bas.ard Herr Goebbels have drunk deep of his philosophy of propaganda: Lies have to be constantly repeated, hammered home, constantly drummed into the minds of the masses.
All the propaganda in the world cannot alter the fact that RFC of 1872 died in 2012 and its life as a football club participating in Scottish Football ended.
That is such an incontrovertible truth that those who deny it are either intellectually severely challenged or just plain lying sods. ( And the fact that the Board of Celtic plc ,composed of really intelligent folk, seem to be happy to deny it [ trade mark?]puts them into which category?)
And meanwhile we have the SFA grandiosely fantasising about jointly hosting a World Cup!
Good God Almighty.
Higgy's Shoes 4th December 2019 at 16:44
On Bob Willis.
Sad to hear of Bob Willis' passing. He was a true hardman athlete. Some people look upon cricket as a game for 'softees' but believe you me a 6 ounce ball of cork, hardened glue and stitched leather hurtling towards you and bouncing off an uncertain surface at just less than 100mph is a salutary experience.Willis was fast but intelligent too, some of his peers were unplayable just because of pace but he and Sir Richard Hadlee were absolute masters of reading the pitch,weather and of course who they were bowling to.To bowl upwards of 200 deliveries or more in a test match and attempt to maintain speed,line and length is tremendously taxing both physically and mentally.His days as a pro' didn't provide the rich rewards available to his successors but i suppose that is true of all sports. God rest your soul Bob Willis..sportsman,athlete..gentleman.
No, there is definitely nothing to suggest TRFC have a special relationship with referees here, nothing at all...
'Steven Gerrard: Rangers boss says John Beaton apologised for 'penalty' call'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50667225
I have no idea whether or not it should have been a penalty, but referees 'apologising' to Gerrard/TRFC? Do they apologise to every manager when they realise they've made a mistake? If they do, why are we not reading about it on a regular basis? It's almost as if Gerrard/TRFC have some kind of special relationship with referees and the media! Oops, and there was me saying there is nothing to suggest such a thing
As a CFC fan: if the ref Collum on Sunday makes a few glaring howlers which significantly assist TRFC…
then I won't complain – at all.
In fact, I'll stop moaning about the quality of the top flight Scottish refs permanently.
At the AGM, questions were raised about referees.
As far as I'm aware, there was no mention from the Board about the introduction of VAR.
As far as I'm aware, nobody at CFC has publicly commented on the vacant (?) Head of Referee Operations.
And, I'm not aware of any follow up from the 'Refs Summit' held in February to address the complaints about refereeing standards.
So, if my own club is passive about improving refereeing standards, then I'm simply not going to bother getting excited about any future, 'dubious' refereeing decisions.
'Allyjambo 5th December 2019 at 09:03
I have no idea whether or not it should have been a penalty, but referees 'apologising' to Gerrard/TRFC? Do they apologise to every manager when they realise they've made a mistake? If they do, why are we not reading about it on a regular basis?'
#####################
I suspect that most managers have a conversation (of some sort) with the referee post-match. It appears that the content of the majority of these discussions remains confidential, so why did Gerrard come out with his version of what Beaton supposedly said?
I reckon it was genuine disappointment & an attempt at deflection on Gerrard's part: a poor second-half team performance & two dropped points weren't what he or the fans expected.
<irony>Still, the Compliance Officer will be all over the comments.</irony>
Some court dates in the ongoing D&P actions
Friday 6th December
LORD MALCOLM
UNSTARRED MOTION
A295/16 David Whitehouse v Philip Gormley – QPM &c – A & WM Urquhart
——————————————-
Tuesday 10th December
LORD DOHERTY – C Munn, Clerk
Hearing on Minute and Answers
CA86/19 David Grier v Philip Gormley QPM – Kennedys Scotland – Ledingham Chalmers LLP
These actions are the ones against Police Scotland rather than the Lord Advocate. No point in going along tomorrow as it is "unstarred", but Tuesday's may be more interesting as we have been waiting on a judgement by Lord Bannatyne on DG's claim for summary decree.
Re. JC's quest for FCA to consider Charlie's dodgy IPO and what action they might take if unhappy with contents???
Perhaps Cenkos (I believe they were the Nomad) might receive a slap on the wrist;
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/aim/for-companies/choosing/advisor.htm#:~:targetText=The%20role%20of%20Nominated%20Advisers&targetText=A%20Nomad%20is%20responsible%20for,company%20is%20suitable%20for%20AIM
Among their roles as Nomad, I particularly like;
Clearly failed miserably on both in my humble opinion…..
normanbatesmumfc 5th December 2019 at 16:02 '
'……Perhaps Cenkos (I believe they were the Nomad) might receive a slap on the wrist;
++++++++++++
Well, Cenkos were certainly fined half a million or so in 2016!
https://economia.icaew.com/news/august-2016/fca-fines-cenkos-securities-500k-for-failures
Notwithstanding the probable validity of the non-penalty for TRFC, I question the wording of Gerrard's statement that the referee " just explained to me he got it wrong right in front of his eyes". The first part might be accurate, but I'm certain he would not have uttered have uttered the last six words.
Also "he agrees it was blatant". Really!!?? This would imply either incredible naivety on Mr Beaton's part – or, Heaven forbid, an 'honest mistake' .
I demand to know exactly what he said!
Apologies for the pedantry, but I think Mr G is getting quite nifty with the 'spin'.
easyJambo 5th December 2019 at 16:01
…………….
The BDO Liquidators’ statutory reports to all known creditors should be due out within the week.
Something you alerted us to back in Aug
“If i’m not mistaken this is the same floating charge that craig whyte had claimed to have acquired through TRFC (formaly wavetower) and was in dispute in the courts and meditation services as Henderson and Jones was seeking anything of up to £18 million from the liquidators.
It may be an indication that BDO have reached an out of court settelment with H&J.
……………….
Are we to look out for this claim to be settled?
A quick reminder if you can about this, would be a great help, or is it best to leave until BDO report.
Cluster One 5th December 2019 at 19:01
Are we to look out for this claim to be settled?
A quick reminder if you can about this, would be a great help, or is it best to leave until BDO report.
================================
Well remembered as it had gone off my radar (detection … not wealth). Whatever was agreed with H&J, or an update on the status, should be provided.
The last two December reports were issued on 7th and 5th Dec, so tomorrow would fit quite well into the normal time scales.
The report should be published here https://www.bdo.co.uk/en-gb/rfc-2012-plc
I didn't know that Traynor had the ability to produce subtle, PR p!sh.
This DR headline and quote is from an article whose main purpose is left unsaid: the scruffy Celtic manager wears a tracksuit – and is certainly not 'classy'.
"The Rangers tradition Steven Gerrard honours but admits doesn't suit him
…
[He said] "But with Rangers they like the manager to be in a suit, the club is very traditional and they like you to look smart and classy so that’s the reason why I wear a suit on the side."
==========
And Klopp is never going to get the Ibrox gig then.
easyJambo 5th December 2019 at 20:04
……..
Thanks for reply.
“It seems like the world is against us today,” he said. “But we’ll make sure we get better for that. We’ll make sure we play better and try and put results to bed, because it looks like some more decisions will go against us as the season goes on.”
“We need to try and use it to our advantage. It’s not just today, it’s been happening for a while. It’s been happening for a good while. I believe it’s been happening for seasons. That’s my opinion, just my opinion.”
“I’ve watched footage. Look, I don’t think we ever get anything to go for us."
Those were the words of Steven Gerrard barely five minutes into his managerial reign at Ibrox – a tirade against officialdom which unsurprisingly brought no rebuke from the seemingly mute and impotent SFA compliance officer – despite the fact that such an attack would've seen any of the other 41 SPFL managers charged with bringing the game into disrepute.
Having read that match official John Beaton supposedly apologised to Gerrard for not awarding a blatant penalty last night – you'd have to look long and hard to find reports of another instance of a Scottish referee apologising for an error, of which there have been thousands, in the entire 140+ years of our national sport – it can be deduced that a degree of progress is being made and it will only be a matter of time before Regan and Doncaster publicly apologise for totally f***ing up our game back in 2012 in their supposed endeavour 'to do what was best for Scottish football.'
I believe Mr Gerrard (they love a "Mr") when he says that the Referee John Beaton apologised for not giving T'Rangers a "blatant" penalty.
I also believed Referee John Beaton when he reported to the SFA that he had seen all three of the potential red card incidents involving Frodo Morelos in the match against Celtic last December none of which merited even a yellow card.
I also believed the banner bearing Referee John Beaton's name and the photographs showing him down at his local, The Everyone, Anyone (Not Really-Not Theym).
I believe this penalty/non-penalty happened on the pitch; it happened a long time ago; there's no good raking over old coals; it was an improperly decided incident; Referee John Beaton is a fit and proper person and any dispute should be referred to the SFA Resolution Of Things Committee (Sectarian Singing, Fraudulent Financial Reporting, Inappropriate Statements Investigations Sub-Committee).
I also believe in The Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Astrology, The Loch Ness Monster and Hobbits. Other beliefs are available.
I believe Mr Gerrard is forced to wear a suit and I believe he envies Neil Lennon not for the structure of Celtic or the players available or the way the team play or the results he achieves or the trophies he wins but he envies Mr Lennon being able to treat every day as Dress Down Friday. It's obvious that Mr King, or maybe Mr Jabba, is hampering T'Rangers march to Interstellar Domination by this insistence on wearing a necktie. It's common knowledge that when you force someone to put on a tie it's the equivalent of cutting off oxygen to the brain. Hold on, I might be defeating my own argument here.
Anyhoo, with two sleeps to a Cup Final I'm sure no part of our respected, honest SMSM will produce any dodgy reporting or articles about an "Old Firm" or a Club which has an unbroken history since 1690 or how a Stirling University Research Report proves that victory depends on how many of your players are named Ryan or how T'Rangers go into the Final top of the League on minus two points and minus two (or maybe three, who cares?) goals.
I believe They Believe They Are The People. Just as well they don't care.
Has anyone been able to decode the legalese jargon in the Amended Defence and Counter Claim submitted by James Blair for Rangers on the 29th November in case CL-2018-000631. They appear to be saying that Messrs Persey and Teare are wrong in their interpretation of the contract.
I’m afraid it’s beyond me but a pretty bold assertion if I’m reading it correctly.
https://www.docdroid.net/KxwFvkY/filing-amended-defence-and-counterclaim.pdf
Giovanni, I did try – but at 106 pages long, my wee tablet just automatically closed it down in protest!
But what I managed to see was that is was a "Re-Amended Defence…"
I'm at a loss to explain / understand how a re-amendment – and counterclaim – can be lodged BEFORE the actual 'quantum' of the damages due has been confirmed in Court.
On the face of it, it looks like RIFC is seeking to create further delays – even before the Court has completed the next stage in the process.
As such, it doesn't seem to be raised by RIFC in good faith, IMO.
I rest my case m'lud.
I'll get my wig…
Giovanni 6th December 2019 at 13:16
Has anyone been able to decode the legalese jargon in the Amended Defence and Counter Claim submitted by James Blair for Rangers on the 29th November in case CL-2018-000631. They appear to be saying that Messrs Persey and Teare are wrong in their interpretation of the contract.
I’m afraid it’s beyond me but a pretty bold assertion if I’m reading it correctly.
https://www.docdroid.net/KxwFvkY/filing-amended-defence-and-counterclaim.pdf
======================================
LOL. I've had a skim read through it, or as much as my brain would take in.
The document originated as TRFC's defence to claims made in September 2018. It has been re-amended following the latest adjudication in October 2019.
That shows up as a lot of deleted text (or defence claims) in the first part of the document (first 40 or so paragraphs). Thereafter there is a lot of new text (purple underlined), mainly relating to claims made, email traffic and interpretations of events around the summer of 2018. I would have thought that most of those emails had already been disclosed and formed part of previous judgements.
The last part of the document (green underlined) is TRFC’s counter-claim, that SDI had beached the 2017/18 agreement (pre Elite agreement) by failing to provide periodic statements and supporting information about the performance of the SDI agreement.
A few points I picked up on.
====================
Could someone explain what they understand by the following paragraph (from page 31) about James Blair's truthfulness (It sounds like it may have come from Dominic Cummings' book of excuses for Boris Johnston's lies):
Accordingly, it is denied, if it is alleged, that Mr. Blair knew that the statement he thought or considered himself to be making, or the statement pleaded in sub-paragraph (3), understood as he intended it to be understood, or any statement he had made, was untrue.
Possible disruption to the site later this evening from around midnight, due to some DNS changes having to be made.
I'l post when everything is complete.
easyJambo 6th December 2019 at 16:54
Could someone explain what they understand by the following paragraph (from page 31) about James Blair’s truthfulness (It sounds like it may have come from Dominic Cummings’ book of excuses for Boris Johnston’s lies):
Accordingly, it is denied, if it is alleged, that Mr. Blair knew that the statement he thought or considered himself to be making, or the statement pleaded in sub-paragraph (3), understood as he intended it to be understood, or any statement he had made, was untrue.
……………
A big boy did it and ran away. And if you want him to name names it was Scott Brown’s fault.
I believe that is what he is trying to say, without actualy saying it in some kind of way.
Cluster One 6th December 2019 at 17:31
I believe that is what he is trying to say, without actually saying it in some kind of way.
==========================================
My best interpretation is as follows:
If they are saying that JB lied when he said what he said, or thought he was saying what he said, or what folk understood by what he said, or how he meant it to be understood ………..or in fact anything that he said at all, was a lie,…… then we deny it.
easyJambo 6th December 2019 at 16:54
Accordingly, it is denied, if it is alleged, that Mr. Blair knew that the statement he thought or considered himself to be making, or the statement pleaded in sub-paragraph (3), understood as he intended it to be understood, or any statement he had made, was untrue
———————————–
My legalese is abysmal, but I'll have a go.
"If yir saying he's lying, he wisnae!…..His statement truthfully meant something else. He just gets his words mixed up a wee bit".
I'm surprised they didn't add, "He's even worse at filling oot forms and we can prove it".
I've been Christmassy busy all day, and am looking forward to having a full read at the re-amendments.
What I am absolutely unsure about is the notion of amendment and re-amendment of pleadings AFTER judgment has been made?
In my ignorance, I thought judgment on the' breach' had been arrived at, and only the question of the 'quantum' of damages remained, with the Judge being ready to allow parties to try to reach agreement before he imposed his view?
Was there an appeal to a higher court??
Have I missed several things?
Part of my efforts today was to tidy up the junk yard I call my garage. While doing so, I was listening o RTE radio, and heard the news bout the dire situation of the Football Association of Ireland: auditor today refusing to accept that it is a going concern; instead of any kind of profit, revised previous statements to show couple of million pounds of loss, and £55 million debt plus £20 M bank loans outstanding; and being at the moment baled out by UEFA monies.
Oh, I thought, how sweet it would be if only the balloon would go up on the practices of the SFA in relation to sports (as opposed to directly financial) matters in recent years , creating the Big Lie, conferring 'history' on new club, and refusing to open its Licensing Committee's actions to investigation.
I hope Mr Blair is not advancing the Ancient Scots Law defence:
"I might be a liar and a thief but, at least, I'm honest."
D'oh!
I'm a bit slow off the mark.
The TRFC 'lawyer' whose honesty was queried in Court, is called Blair.
The clue could be in the name.
Wonder if he could be related to that other well known liar – and [alleged] war criminal?
John Clark 6th December 2019 at 19:55
What I am absolutely unsure about is the notion of amendment and re-amendment of pleadings AFTER judgment has been made?
==============================
Although both parties had been encouraged to go through a mediation process, I think that SDI made further claims of breach of contract both by TRFC and Elite, hence the further opportunity to lodge defences.
easyJambo 6th December 2019 at 21:15
'..I think that SDI made further claims of breach of contract both by TRFC and Elite,..'
++++++++++++++
So, the quasi verbatim report [brought to (my grateful attention) by paddy malarkey [2nd December 2019 at 15:45] that was being touted elsewhere as a counterclaim by 'Rangers' jointly with Elite, far from being so relates to an initiative by SDRI to bring Elite into the damages claim?
That makes better sense to me. ( maybe I should look more frequently at the High Court of England 'rolls of court'- I might have seen the petition or whatever made by SDRI)
'Elite' of course were not involved as a party being pursued by SDRI in the Persey judgment. But it looks as though Mike is going after them now!
For once, it seems not to be King who is trying to protract matters, but Ashley having a go at Elite. Possibly to kick the idea that damages can be capped at £1 million well and truly into the bin?
Here's to a 106-page read!
Perhaps not tonight, though.
Rangers’ liquidators, BDO, are due to issue a Report to Creditors early next week.
Expect it will have a total due to HMRC of about £50m. About £30m for BTC (£22m underpayment + £8m compounded interest). Rest for WTC and Whyte non-remittance.
Not a chance they could have paid.
Rangers Tax-Case
@rangerstaxcase
……………….
Just a follow on to the conversation we had yesterday that the BDO report will be out soon.
John Clark 6th December 2019 at 22:02
'..Here's to a 106-page read!
Perhaps not tonight, though'
++++++++++++++
But I've had a wee keek and my eye fell on this (at para 26 on page 13)
" The letter of 4 June 2018 was sent in good faith by Rangers and in the belief, albeit mistaken, that such letter complied with ……"
I just love the oxymoron ' in good faith by Rangers'.
And the other way of expressing that wonderful mantra which is normally invoked in relation to refereeing decisions : '. in the belief , albeit mistaken' i.e. " honest mistakes" to you and me!
Cluster One 6th December 2019 at 22:18
'…Just a follow on to the conversation we had yesterday that the BDO report will be out soon.'
+++++++++++++
Following up on that conversation this morning over my bruschetta e caffe latte, I tried to check out Henderson and Jones.
I was not surprised to discover that they are quite a titchy wee company ( buying other peoples law suits).
But I was surprised that they are not an independent wee outfit.
No, they are one of about a dozen or so companies that are owned by a holding company called Breal Capital Ltd.
Whose main business seems to in steel stockholding.
Association of ideas. Could there be…?
My researches were interrupted by Mrs C's insistence that I get off that damn pc and do something useful .
Must get back to that research. Steel stockholding? Who have I heard used to be in that line of business?
Oh, what fun!
That naughty Craig Whyte has been at it again, to promote his book.
Traynor will be apoplectic!
From The Sun;
"A WHYTE KICKING
Secret recording hears Whyte and Rangers administrators blast stars such as Naismith, Davis and Lafferty in crisis talks
EXCLUSIVE
Douglas Walker 6 Dec 2019, 22:20
…"
Interesting – and a bit concerning – article about Amazon's growth for world domination now encroaching on footy.
The final sentence is 'bang on the money'.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2019/dec/03/amazon-prime-video-tv-football-premier-league-broadcast-stream
In checking my inbox the other day I noticed that Cardiff City are appealing against the decision that they have to pay Nantes 6 000 000 euros (in respect of the late Emiliano Sala's transfer).
That led me on to other areas of FIFA disciplinary stuff and I came across this, of which I had never heard or read a word.
" 1. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee [ in their judgment of 20 September 2019]found the club Rangers FC responsible for the infringement of the relevant provisions of the RSTP related to third-party influence (art. 18bis par. 1) and to the obligations of clubs (art. 4 par. 2 of Annexe 3).
2. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee orders the club Rangers FC to pay a fine to the amount of CHF 10,000. " (about £7600)
https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/dc-190616-20-09-2019-club-rangers-fc.pdf?cloudid=rl4dv1jttkuxkwe43lqb
I've had a quick look at the hundred and odd page, multicoloured uber amended pleadings in MASH v GASH and decided that unless I get really, really bored I am not going to read it to follow the history of the case ab initio.
I would advise anyone thinking of doing so to first read or re-read SDI Retail Services Limited v The Rangers Footbal Club Limited, 2019 EWHC 1929 (Comm). It's a lot shorter; it answers a lot of squirrel questions; it lays out judicial determinations on facts and it states the legal position. The decision dates from 19th July this year and follows four days of evidence and submissions on 15th to 18th April this year so anything prior to these dates can be binned.
So far as Mr Blair of the non-denial denial is concerned one of the witnesses in April, ie a couple of months ago, was "James Don Blair, Rangers' Secretary" and he is included in a list of witnesses described by Judge Persey as "unhelpful and unsatisfactory".
Paragraph 10 of the decision tells us all what Judge Persey thought of Mr Blair's evidence. Despite Mr Blair being a Man Learned In The Law Judge Persey takes the ink to point out it took Mr Blair eight Witness Statements before he came to a settled conclusion on what his position actually was. Sadly, Judge Persey held "This is all inadmissible." and goes on to fillet Mr Blair's role.
Could have been worse? It was.
Paragraph 22 narrates the Elite/Hummel Agreement concluded on 30th March 2018.
Paragraph 24 narrates Mr Blair making later statements about this Agreement which Judge Persey pithily but politely dismisses with "This was untrue."
I don't know every word in the latest document but I don't need to unless I need reminding of the smoke and mirrors, twisting and turning, up is down approach taken by T'Rangers in almost every matter; an approach which even in their most ambitious moments would cause Boris, The Donald and Prince Andrew to blush.
LUGOSI 7th December 2019 at 11:09
'…I've had a quick look at the hundred and odd page, multicoloured uber amended pleadings in MASH v GASH .'
+++++++++++++++++
Nice one, LUGOSI.
John Clark 7th December 2019 at 10:57
That led me on to other areas of FIFA disciplinary stuff and I came across this, of which I had never heard or read a word.
https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/dc-190616-20-09-2019-club-rangers-fc.pdf?cloudid=rl4dv1jttkuxkwe43lqb
===========================
It was reported in the MSM at the beginning of last month, but barely raised an eyebrow. I wouldn't put it down to anything more than an unfamiliarity of the complexities of international transfers, a situation that could easily impact any other clubs, rather than one that could only happen to TRFC.
I was more struck by the assertion that under the FIFA Disciplinary Code, the club "Rangers" or "Rangers FC" is a "legal person". It's a pity that the Scottish football authorities and LNS don't share the view that a football club is necessarily a legal entity.
bbc.co.uk/sport/av/cricket/50679284
Hs
easyJambo 7th December 2019 at 11:55
'…the assertion that under the FIFA Disciplinary Code, the club "Rangers" or "Rangers FC" is a "legal person".
++++++++++
The point being (for the benefit, eJ, of our SMSM and other 'deniers') that it is a football club , and not any 'holding company' that may own it, that dies if or when that football club goes bust and in consequence of that loses its entitlement to membership of its national association.
RFC of 1872 became insolvent and entered liquidation….. Wavetower ( known as The Rangers Football Group Ltd since 12 May 2011) is still alive and kicking, 7 years after it bought RFC of 1872 and ran that club into Liquidation.
It is legally impossible for TRFC, newly created in 2012, to be regarded as being the same club as the club that is in Liquidation.
No matter that one QC 'learned in the law' amused us all in Court when he babbled on about 'the essence of things' , 'the what-it's-all-aboutness' , 'the fans', 'the traditions', 'the history' and so on, RFC of 1872 is as dead as the Monty Python parrot.
Its extremely loyal fans have attached themselves to TRFC.
But of course, the majority of them must know that their wishing that TRFC were the Rangers of 1872 simply cannot make it so, any more than any of us can wish a departed loved one back into life.
Not even the Celtic plc Board's disgraceful behaviour in allowing TRFC to claim to be entitled to share the 'Old Firm' trademark in place of RFC of 1872 can make TRFC into the other cheek of the 'Old Firm'.
Nor can all the ridiculously repetitive SMSM hype about tomorrow's 'Old Firm' match.(In which connection, let me applaud Tam Cowan for his entertainingly sarcastic remark about the pubs in Venezuela being stowed out with folk desperate to see that match on TV.)
Honest to God.
easyJambo 7th December 2019 at 11:55
'..I wouldn't put it down to anything more than an unfamiliarity of the complexities of international transfers, a situation that could easily impact any other clubs, rather than one that could only happen to TRFC.'
+++++++++
Yes, no doubt about it, what used to be 'club secretaries' now have to be very sharp lawyers indeed, so you are right in what you say about the complexities of international transfers.
But I think there would be an expectation that James D Blair , as sharp as they come, ought to have been on top of those complexities, serving as legal adviser to a club well accustomed to international transfers.
Seriously, though, I myself was bemused, if not flabbergasted,at the extent to which football essentially a sport, has become a legal minefield!
https://twitter.com/fansscarves/status/1203591227586830337?s=21
Quote of the season.
Just hope it's an entertaining cup final today – and that the referee has a good game as well – and that the best team wins.
It could – and should – be a positive advert for Scottish football.
StevieBC 8th December 2019 at 12:06
'..Just hope it's an entertaining cup final today'
++++++++++++++
Let's have no sectarianism (whether 'religious' or 'political') ,no 'red mist ' physical assaults on the pitch, and no feckin eejit supporters endangering people with fireworks, and no ludicrous 'honest mistakes' on the part of the officials.
And of course, no post-match street , pub, or domestic violence, and just normal volumes of work in the A&E rooms.
Pipe dream?
It could – and should – be a positive advert for Scottish football.
—————————————————————————–
Let's have no sectarianism (whether 'religious' or 'political') ,no 'red mist ' physical assaults on the pitch, and no feckin eejit supporters endangering people with fireworks, and no ludicrous 'honest mistakes' on the part of the officials.
And of course, no post-match street , pub, or domestic violence, and just normal volumes of work in the A&E rooms.
———————————————————————————
OK I'll break the silence!
Didn't see it all but not a classic (OK conditions were very Scottish!)! Best team lost and hopefully ref paranoia hats are binned!! UTH? No idea how busy Glasgow's emergency services were tonight JC?
bordersdon 8th December 2019 at 20:40
You called me out on the Ref today Bordersdon. Firstly I will say Rangers were the better team, however it reminded me of when Tommy Burns was the Celtic Manager. Everyone in Scotland was fine with the same pattern of play in those days. What's the problem now?
I will also say Alfredo Morelos has to be the biggest cheat to play in Sottish football in decades. As for the Ref, Morelos had at least 8 fouls, and was spoken to about diving about 3 times, but no card ever shown.
Happy, happy days! I have celebrated many Celtic cup final victories, but I will steal a comment from Mr Gerrard to celebrate this one. Today 'Celtic found a different way to win'.
UTH
———————————————————
I think my point on refs was, as I have consistently said, that you win some and lose some decisions. Not a fan of the Lanarkshire "mafia" theory!
Anent Harvey couldn't agree more.