Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?

ByTrisidium

Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?

A Guest Blog by Auldheid for TSFM

Honesty requires both transparency and accountability. In pursuit of honest, transparent and accountable governance of Scottish football, and only that objective, the following letter, with attachments, has been sent to SPFL lawyers, CEO and SPFL Board Members.

An honest game free from deception is what football supporters of all clubs want. It is the action the letter and attachments prompt that will tell us if there is any intention of providing it.

It is a response on behalf of readers here on TSFM, but the sentiment which underpins it is almost universally held amongst fans of all clubs.  Importantly it is a response directly to all clubs, especially those with a SPFL Board member, that will make the clubs and the football authorities aware just how seriously supporters take the restoration of trust in an honest game, honestly governed.

The annexes to the letter contain information which may be published at a later date. We thought it appropriate to first await any response from any of the recipients.

Please also draw this to the attention of friends who are not internet using supporters and love their football and their club.

Auldheid

__________________________________________________________________

Harper MacLeod
The Ca’d’oro
45 Gordon Street
Glasgow
G1 3PE
19 Feb 2014
Copy sent to SPFL CEO and Board Members *
Dear Mr McKenzie
We the contributors to The Scottish Football Monitoring web site write to you in your capacity as the legal adviser employed by Harper MacLeod to assist the Scottish Premier League (now the Scottish Professional Football League) to gather evidence and investigate the matter of incorrect player registrations involving concealed side letters and employee benefit trusts as defined in the eventual Lord Nimmo Smith Commission.
We note from the then SPL announcement that set up an enquiry that the initial date range to be covered was from the inception of the SPL in July 1998, but that was changed to 23 November 2000 because, according to our understanding, that is the date of the first side letter supplied by Rangers Administrators Duff and Phelps. It is also our understanding that the SPL asked for all documentation relating to side letters as well as the letters themselves.
It is a matter of public record that Rangers Administrators failed to supply the SPL all relevant documentation. Indeed the seriousness of not complying with SPL requests was the subject of an admonition of Rangers/Duff and Phelps from Lord Nimmo Smith under Issue 4 of his Commission.
Quite how serious that failure to comply or concealment was in terms of misleading the Commission and so Lord Nimmo Smith can now be assessed from the information contained at Annexes 1 to 10 attached.
We think that as legal advisers to the SPL (now the SPFL) you have a responsibility to make them aware that their Commission was misled by the concealment of documents starting on 3 September 1999, and signed by current SFA President Campbell Ogilvie, whose silence on the ebt matters referred to in the attached annexes* is questionable at the very least.
This letter but not attachments is being posted on The Scottish Football Monitor web site as this is matter for all of Scottish football and support for the issue being pursued to establish the truth can be gauged by responses from supporters from all Scottish clubs once the letter has been published there.
A copy of this letter with Annexes has also been sent to the SPFL CEO and members of the SPFL Board.
Acknowledgement of receipt and reply can be sent by e mail to:
(Address supplied)
Yours in sport

On behalf of The Scottish Football Monitor contributors and readers. http://www.tsfm.org.uk/

Addressees copied in
Neil Doncaster CEO
The Scottish Professional Football League
Hampden Park
Glasgow G42 9DE

Eric Riley (Celtic),
The Celtic Football Club
Celtic Park
Glasgow G40 3RE

Stephen Thompson (Dundee United),
Tannadice Park,
Tannadice Street,
Dundee, DD3 7JW

Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen);
Aberdeen Football Club plc
Pittodrie Stadium
Pittodrie Street
Aberdeen AB24 5QH

Les Gray (Hamilton),
Hamilton Academical FC
New Douglas Park
Hamilton
ML3 0FT

Mike Mulraney (Alloa)
Alloa Athletic FC
Clackmannan Road
Recreation Park
Alloa FK10 1RY

Bill Darroch (Stenhousemuir).
Stenhousemuir F.C.
Ochilview Park
Gladstone Road
Stenhousemuir
Falkirk
FK5 4QL

About the author

Trisidium administrator

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

3,234 Comments so far

ecobhoyPosted on6:50 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
March 13, 2014 at 3:05 pm
nowoldandgrumpy says:
March 13, 2014 at 1:42 pm

moo ‏@moo_ted 4m
And a third mortgage charge on TRFC showing at Co Ho ? pic.twitter.com/oz12UPsygu
——————————————————————————————
I don’t see that at Companies House. Anyone enlighten me?
==================================================
I would assume it’s the new Laxeys and Easdale charges on Edmiston House and Albion Car Park plus the old one connected with ther Sports Council charge over Murray Park.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on6:59 pm - Mar 13, 2014


ekt1m says:
March 13, 2014 at 2:53 pm
‘.JC, I noted your namesake celebrates his 73rd birthday today,..’
———
If I knew how to remove the ‘e’ I hamfistedly added to my nom-de-plume when first registering on RTC( something which Essexbeancounter does not let me forget! 🙂 ) I would remove it, because, of course, it was John Clark’s low-profile ,cast-iron , unflappable solidity and consistency on and off the field that I admired in those brilliant years. Many happy returns of the day to him, and lang may his lum reek!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on7:24 pm - Mar 13, 2014


iamacant says:
March 13, 2014 at 1:45 pm
‘..Bayern Munich President Uli Hoeness condemned to stay in prison for 3 years and 6 months for tax evasion.’
——
I hear his anguished cry: ” Wo waren Sie, Dave?” Or, why the hell did i not move to South Africa?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on7:33 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
March 13, 2014 at 11:46 am

As to the issue of defamation then there’s absolutely no problem in making a defamatory statement as long as its true but I would strongly advise that the necessary back-up evidence is to hand.
—————————————————————————
If its true it’s not defamatory.
========================================
I’m afraid you have misunderstood the legal position. It is correct to say that ‘veritas’ is a complete defence to a defamation action. However even if the action is defeated with no damages awarded against the person making the statement that statement remains defamatory in nature usually because it is a slur of some sort against the complainer.

The fact that it is true doesn’t rermove the fact that it is actually defamatory. It might sound strange but that is the position.

The other thing about a defamation action is that the person making the defamatory statement has to prove it is true or substantually true. The complainer doesn’t need to say anything or lead any evidence to prove his case that the statement is untrue.

So the defamatory statement might well be true but if the person who made it can’t prove it is true he will lose the case and end-up with possible heavy compensation and expenses to fork-out.

That’s why I stated: ‘I would strongly advise that the necessary back-up evidence is to hand’. Without it you have a BIG problem.

Often internet posters can’t understand why journos don’t do stories which the journo knows is true but which by their nature are defamatory. The reason is simply that the journo or the publication’s lawyers don’t believe they can prove the allegation in court and don’t judge the story to be worth the damages and costs which would follow publication.

Sometimes on a big story of course it is judged to be worth running with it on the gamble that that no legal action will be taken or it might help unearth new evidence or witnesses to back-up the story.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on7:33 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Auldheid says:
March 13, 2014 at 12:11 pm
‘—– to draw people’s attention to how football puts itself above its responsibilities to the wider civil community.’
——–
As in ensuring priority in the administration pecking order for ‘football debts’ !

View Comment

HaywirePosted on7:36 pm - Mar 13, 2014


I steeled myself to wade through the tears on McMurdo’s last Blog. I never thought that I would ever see him say this, “It appals me that cretins like you are in the Rangers support.” And that’s as a result of them winning their League. Things must be bad!

View Comment

ekt1mPosted on7:48 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Essexbeancounter at 5.41pm. You wonder if HMRC are watching the Hoeness tax evasion case in Germany, I too hope so. Does anyone on here know what the minimum and maximum penalties are in the U.K. for tax evasion of this magnitude, or are our penalties only monetary or both? The fact that thousands of citizen’s are turning themselves in to the authorities speaks volumes for their laws.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on7:57 pm - Mar 13, 2014


JC

Yes but only in England and HMRC are contesting that argument. Not sure where matters stand but the very fact tax payers put up with it because of their love of football reinforces my point.

Football uses the specificity of sport argument to get special treatment in civil terms.
It is now using that conscession to rip the piss out of the ordinairy taxpayer and other creditors but as long as we are happy to let them, they will.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on8:10 pm - Mar 13, 2014


ekt1m says: March 13, 2014 at 7:48 pm

Here’s a link to the relevant guidance from the HMRC Compliance Manual:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/chmanual/CH81160.htm

Uli Hoeness deliberate understatement of his taxable income has been treated as a criminal matter similar to the HMRC Criminal Investigation Policy.

Happy to provide further info or answer questions on this subject after the Spurs v Benfica match. 😎

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:10 pm - Mar 13, 2014


ekt1m says:
March 13, 2014 at 7:48 pm
‘ Does anyone on here know what the minimum and maximum penalties are in the U.K. for tax evasion of this magnitude,….

-Have a swatch at this link,ekt1m: people can certainly go to jail for cheating the revenue, and for longer than 3 years!
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/cheating_the_revenue_%28contrary_to_common_law%29/

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:13 pm - Mar 13, 2014


I can’t find the CF copy of the RIFC minute about McCoist not wanting his salary published in the Prospectus, and need to get permission from AIM to omit it. Can someone kindly supply a link, please. I have a reply to my query to UKLA, and I’m not sure I understand it fully.

View Comment

EverydayisaschooldayPosted on8:15 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Long time lurker on RTC/TSFM, first time poster.

During the period covered by LNS, I spent in excess of £5k watching Scottish domestic football and now that I know that the whole thing was rigged and the SFA are to blame, I want my £5k back from the SFA.

This will also be the case for tens of thousands of other ordinary football fans, so let’s say that’s £100m that the SFA owe us (based on a very conservative 20,000 fans at £5k).

So here’s an idea!

The TSFM community form a properly constituted company (with strict governance arrangements!), the sole purpose of which is to achieve some form of justice for those ordinary fans (financial or otherwise).

Let’s call it, say, Three Amigos (Scotland) Limited – wherever there is injustice, you will find us, wherever there is suffering, we’ll be there, wherever liberty is threatened, you will find…

Shares are offered at say £100 each with a target shareholding of say 5,000 giving £0.5m to play with.

A board is elected from TSFM volunteers, preferably experienced businessmen, lawyers and accountants. Ideally, these will be retired individuals who would have the time to devote to this. Volunteers (board and non-board members) will help keep outgoings to a minimum.

The board put forward a choice of actions to pursue and the highest shareholder vote wins.

Suddenly, we’re no longer helpless spectators on the sidelines, but we’re on the pitch in the game.

Auldheid continues to play a blinder but ‘words will never hurt them’, however, a legal challenge funded by £0.5m might clear some wax from their years ?

Good idea/bonkers idea ? Discuss.

Lucky Day/Dusty Bottoms/Ned Nederlander

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on8:36 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Auldheid says:
March 13, 2014 at 12:11 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Perfect. :mrgreen:

View Comment

BrendaPosted on8:36 pm - Mar 13, 2014


A wee bit off topic but is there any sign of trfc’s audited accounts yet?? According to jim delahunt this evening on SSB ( I know I know !!) trfc have only 1 year to go until they can take part in European competition again ???? I was sure the criteria was 3 years audited accounts then back in the race???? Year 1 would be a start 😉

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on8:44 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Brenda says: March 13, 2014 at 8:36 pm

Delahunt stated that if TRFC win the Scottish Cup in the 2014/15 season they would be eligible to play in European competition in 2015/16 season. Of course he “forgot” 😳 to mention that participation would be subject to no further insolveny events and full compliance with UEFA FFP criteria, including submission of all TRFC accounts.

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on9:05 pm - Mar 13, 2014


ekt1m says:

March 13, 2014 at 7:48 pm
Essexbeancounter at 5.41pm. You wonder if HMRC are watching the Hoeness tax evasion case in Germany, I too hope so. Does anyone on here know what the minimum and maximum penalties are in the U.K. for tax evasion of this magnitude, or are our penalties only monetary or both? The fact that thousands of citizen’s are turning themselves in to the authorities speaks volumes for their laws.

==============================
In Scotland the penalty is a Knighthood.

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on9:31 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Everydayisaschoolday says:
March 13, 2014 at 8:15 pm

… “Three Amigos (Scotland) Limited” …
Shares are offered at say £100 each with a target shareholding of say 5,000 giving £0.5m to play with.
——
Would you say that was a … plethora of shareholders?

View Comment

alexander276Posted on9:52 pm - Mar 13, 2014


re
He also admitted that with Rangers gone from the top flight the level of abuse that he has personally had to suffer (Aberdeen fans at that semi aside) has gone down and that this was welcome also

Not more a moment would I claim that Aberdeen fans are without fault, but I am uneasy that a generalisation about all Aberdeen fans seems to have developed based on a conversation between two persons who were not present (one had an interest in building up sympathy for his client and the other is a famously easily (mis) lead misreporter. Can we wait on the result of the inquiry before we smear all Aberdeen fans? What could explain the delay?
Aberdeen fans throwing money away … surely not .

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:05 pm - Mar 13, 2014


sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolis says:

March 13, 2014 at 8:44 pm

11

0

Rate This

Brenda says: March 13, 2014 at 8:36 pm

Delahunt stated that if TRFC win the Scottish Cup in the 2014/15 season they would be eligible to play in European competition in 2015/16 season. Of course he “forgot” 😳 to mention that participation would be subject to no further insolveny events and full compliance with UEFA FFP criteria, including submission of all TRFC accounts.
===============
He also forgot my e mail to him explaining that that the criteria for getting a UEFA licence was 3 years membership of their national association which for UEFA purposes began on 3 August 2012.

Since the granting of a licence process has to be complete by 31st May (if this years date applies in 2015) then the 3 years rule will not have been satisfied so even if the satisfy other licensing criteria like have a set of accounts for the year ending 31st Dec 2014 they still will not have been members of the SFA for 3 years in UEFA’s eyes.

This means it will be season 2016/17 before they can play in Europe. Hannah was wittering on about 3 years accounts being required. If any journos are reading here is the relevant Article 12.

Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence
Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant

1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible
for a football team participating in national and international competitions which
either:

a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated
league (hereinafter: registered member); or

b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football
company).

2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at
the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years . Any
alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example,
changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings
between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on
sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a
competition is deemed as an interruption of membership

NO FRIGGIN MENTION OF 3 YEARS ACCOUNTS 😈

View Comment

bluPosted on10:08 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Would-be Football club saviours alert – C4 now, “How to be a Billionaire”.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:09 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Brenda says:

March 13, 2014 at 8:36 pm

13

1

Rate This

A wee bit off topic but is there any sign of trfc’s audited accounts yet?? According to jim delahunt this evening on SSB ( I know I know !!) trfc have only 1 year to go until they can take part in European competition again ???? I was sure the criteria was 3 years audited accounts then back in the race???? Year 1 would be a start 😉
====================
Brenda

100 hundred lines

THREE YEARS MEMBERSHIP OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION. 😀

View Comment

BrendaPosted on10:16 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Silly me 😕 I’ll do the lines later Auldheid 😉

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on10:17 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Everydayisaschoolday says:
March 13, 2014 at 8:15 pm

“Good idea/bonkers idea ? Discuss.”
————————————
I admire your creativity but I’m not sure you are coming at it from the right angle. This is the law remember, not to be confused with common sense.

Using layman knowledge only, I’d imagine to bring a claim for damages you’d need to show that you were owed some kind of duty of care. I don’t think the football governing bodies do provide a duty of care to the general public. I have been educated that caveat emptor (buyer beware) might be the overriding legal position.

SFA/SPFL however do have contractual arrangements with the clubs they govern. You in turn have had a contractual arrangement with the club you support. Whether these contracts have remedies for misdemeanor by any parties is beyond my ken. The clubs are obliged to comply with certain criteria as part of their contract with the governing bodies and these stipulations are often enforced I understand. Whether its cuts the other way is doubtful. A club might be able to take some kind of civil action if it feels a governing body has financially disadvantaged them but I believe that such legal action is, usually, strictly against the rules of the SFA/SPFL.

A very long shot would be a claim by supporters against their club under the trades description act. It might be argued that you bought a ticket to see sport but were instead provided with family entertainment, a la World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). All highly speculative of course.

Aulheid has raised the possibility of club shareholders asking awkward questions of the governing bodies via their clubs, which is another stick that could be used to poke people.

Keep pegging away though. One of these days a speculative idea might just grow wings and fly.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:21 pm - Mar 13, 2014


With reference to the foregoing about Clyde SSB. I appreciate it is all about opinions but surely they must be informed opinions and if a pundit is not sure on a matter of rules the response should be that they will check rather than misinform.

I know Clyde have been told but I suspect they do not want to open up the same club debate as UEFA clearly do not subscribe to it, going to the trouble of writing an Article to protect their competitions from clubs doing what Rangers did to evade debt but try to continue as same entity.

The SFA obviously differ from UEFA but for the same reasons – to protect their competitions except in Scotland that is seen as denying a club has done what UEFA proscribe.

Between that and Bryson’s law and LNS’s no sporting advantage from hiding payments by a means whose regularity is still in doubt the question has to be asked are the SFA sleekitly going independent? 😯

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on10:21 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Auldheid says: March 13, 2014 at 10:05 pm

Thanks for putting Jim Delahunt straight on that 😀

It never ceases to amuse me that TRFC supporters call SSB for advice on technical matters and actually believe that what they are told is “authoritive” 😕 .

It would not surprise me if the SFA think that UEFA are stupid enough to accept that their secret 5-way agreement will overide Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant requirements. 🙄

View Comment

ekt1mPosted on10:23 pm - Mar 13, 2014


John Clarke at 8.10pm says. I looked through the link you provided. Yes, there are penalties in the legislation for tax evasion, depending on the monetary value, it can be as low as 6mths in jail for £3000 to 10 years for £24million Vat fraud. More naming and shaming of these fraudsters by the so called ‘Fourth Estate’ would not go amiss. Perhaps the EBTers may have food for thought. Though I hae ma doots.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on10:25 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Auldheid says:
March 13, 2014 at 10:05 pm

“A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a LEGAL ENTITY…”
———————————–
You might want to hand out 100 lines to Lord Nimmo Smith also.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:30 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Castofthousands says:

March 13, 2014 at 10:17 pm

Aulheid has raised the possibility of club shareholders asking awkward questions of the governing bodies via their clubs, which is another stick that could be used to poke people.
===========================
What the shareholder route will show is that the SFA either did not apply the rules and process diligently or the rules are not fit for the intended purpose and need strengthening.

It is one or the other and I’m betting on the former, but either way shareholders must be answered. .

On keep pegging away, I wonder what SFA sponsors make of it all and have SPFL got a sponsor yet?

View Comment

EverydayisaschooldayPosted on10:33 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Angus1983 says:

Everydayisaschoolday says:
March 13, 2014 at 8:15 pm

… “Three Amigos (Scotland) Limited” …
Shares are offered at say £100 each with a target shareholding of say 5,000 giving £0.5m to play with.
——
Would you say that was a … plethora of shareholders?
________
El Guapo: “Well, you just told me that I had a plethora, and I would just like to know if you know what it means to have a plethora. I would not like to think that someone would tell someone else he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora”.

Was £22m raised in the IPO or was it just a plethora ?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:33 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Castofthousands says:

March 13, 2014 at 10:25 pm

0

0

Rate This

Auldheid says:
March 13, 2014 at 10:05 pm

“A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a LEGAL ENTITY…”
———————————–
You might want to hand out 100 lines to Lord Nimmo Smith also.
=================
Don’t get me started. 😀

Our game is being bent Curly Wurly shaped just to deny institutionalised deception. I mean even the LNS Commission to investigate deception was deceived!!!

View Comment

BigGavPosted on10:39 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Auldheid says:
March 13, 2014 at 10:05 pm

Since the granting of a licence process has to be complete by 31st May (if this years date applies in 2015) then the 3 years rule will not have been satisfied so even if the satisfy other licensing criteria like have a set of accounts for the year ending 31st Dec 2014 they still will not have been members of the SFA for 3 years in UEFA’s eyes.

2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at
the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years .
—————

What is meant by the “start of the licence season” here?
If TRFC apply by 31st May 2015 for a licence to play in Europe in 2015-16, could they possibly argue (no doubt with CO’s support!) that they will have met the criteria by the time that season starts?

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on10:41 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Auldheid,

Bye the way I had a look on the Scotish Government website yesterday but couldn’t find any report of the meeting on Fan Ownership organised by Bruce Crawford MSP on 20 February 2014.

However I did find the following on his Twitter Account
Alison Johnstone ‏@AlisonJohnstone Feb 20
Very positive @ScottishFans event for Community Ownership Week. My motion with @RHBruceCrawford here:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx?SearchType=Advance&ReferenceNumbers=S4M-09079&ResultsPerPage=10 … #OwnYourClub•

If you back fan-owned clubs, please urge your MSPs to sign this, lodged by @RHBruceCrawford & @alisonjohnstone http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx?SearchType=Advance&ReferenceNumbers=S4M-09079&ResultsPerPage=10

I’ll check in a week’s time but if you’re on Twitter, (I choose not to be!) perhaps you could ask him for a copy of his report of his meeting and the progress of his Motion.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on10:44 pm - Mar 13, 2014


BigGav says:
March 13, 2014 at 10:39 pm

0

0

Rate This

Auldheid says:
March 13, 2014 at 10:05 pm

Since the granting of a licence process has to be complete by 31st May (if this years date applies in 2015) then the 3 years rule will not have been satisfied so even if the satisfy other licensing criteria like have a set of accounts for the year ending 31st Dec 2014 they still will not have been members of the SFA for 3 years in UEFA’s eyes.

2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at
the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years .
—————

What is meant by the “start of the licence season” here?
If TRFC apply by 31st May 2015 for a licence to play in Europe in 2015-16, could they possibly argue (no doubt with CO’s support!) that they will have met the criteria by the time that season starts?

_______________________________________________

This is the Ibrox club.
SFA will bend heaven and earth to get them their ‘rightful’ European slot, no?
Don’t see a few piddling rules being any obstacle.

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on10:52 pm - Mar 13, 2014


john clarke says:

March 13, 2014 at 6:59 pm
ekt1m says:
March 13, 2014 at 2:53 pm
‘.JC, I noted your namesake celebrates his 73rd birthday today,..’
———
If I knew how to remove the ‘e’ I hamfistedly added to my nom-de-plume when first registering on RTC( something which Essexbeancounter does not let me forget! 🙂 ) I would remove it, because, of course, it was John Clark’s low-profile ,cast-iron , unflappable solidity and consistency on and off the field that I admired in those brilliant years. Many happy returns of the day to him, and lang may his lum reek!
=============================================================================
JC(e)…I was immediately tempted to make a similar comment when I first saw Ekt1m’s post…but managed to resist.
I fully agree re your comments on his superbly consistent performances,,,but…but…I bet he cannot take verbatim note in a public tribunal as you have shown yourself to be so capable.
Not for nothing was his nickname “The Brush”…just as you swept up those UTT notes…!
…jim jams on…upstairs tae ma bed…!

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on11:08 pm - Mar 13, 2014


ekt1m says:

March 13, 2014 at 7:48 pm
Essexbeancounter at 5.41pm. You wonder if HMRC are watching the Hoeness tax evasion case in Germany, I too hope so. Does anyone on here know what the minimum and maximum penalties are in the U.K. for tax evasion of this magnitude, or are our penalties only monetary or both? The fact that thousands of citizen’s are turning themselves in to the authorities speaks volumes for their laws.
==========================================================================
Ekt1m….strangely enough, I discussed this immediately with my partners, who are both tax specialists, but not the slightest bit interested in football, so I had to explain the sheer stature of Hoeness in the context of German, European and World football. One may also add Messi Junior and Senior to this scenario.
The short answer is that UK tax law, with its diverse legal systems, does not really allow for such a simplified mass or universal “voluntary disclosure” system. Apart from a few periodic “amnesties”, UK taxpayers who are guilty of evasion, not avoidance, simply keep their heads below the parapet, until they are “rumbled”, in the same manner as RFC(IL).
Each case is therefore treated as an individual case and on its own intrinsic merits…or should that be “demerits”.
All the above sentiments are mine and mine only…IMHO…!

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:23 pm - Mar 13, 2014


BigGav says:

March 13, 2014 at 10:39 pm

Auldheid says:
March 13, 2014 at 10:05 pm

Since the granting of a licence process has to be complete by 31st May (if this years date applies in 2015) then the 3 years rule will not have been satisfied so even if the satisfy other licensing criteria like have a set of accounts for the year ending 31st Dec 2014 they still will not have been members of the SFA for 3 years in UEFA’s eyes.

2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at
the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years .
—————

What is meant by the “start of the licence season” here?
If TRFC apply by 31st May 2015 for a licence to play in Europe in 2015-16, could they possibly argue (no doubt with CO’s support!) that they will have met the criteria by the time that season starts?
======================
The Licence process starts in the 6 months or so before the UEFA season starts in July. So for 2015/16 season it will start around December with a view to checking the licensing forms and granting a licence by 31st May which is the deadline date this year for 2014/15 UEFA licences.

The reason is logistics, UEFA need June into July to set the qualifying fixtures etc. I cannot see them delaying granting until August 2015 just to get TRFC past Article 12.

I am excusing my nerdiness here on the basis that our friend Bryce asked the question on Twitter a couple of months back and I had to check what SFA did this year.

View Comment

BigGavPosted on11:54 pm - Mar 13, 2014


Thanks, Auldheid.

What I was trying to pin down was whether the “licence season” referred to the season IN which the application was made (2014-15), or the season FOR which it was made (2015-16).

However if, as you say, the UEFA season starts in July (which makes sense as the qualifiers start then), then TRFC would fail the 3-year test under either interpretation.

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on12:03 am - Mar 14, 2014


Oh dear!! DR back page tomorrow, Civil War at Sevco!! http://twitpic.com/dy83ub

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:15 am - Mar 14, 2014


Auldheid – it’s a pity that you have not received a response yet to your letter.
Are you expecting any response from anybody – although after 3 weeks it might be unlikely?

Is there any possibility that e.g. a club chairman could raise the matter under ‘AOB’ in an SPFL meeting?

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on6:05 am - Mar 14, 2014


The Daily Record reports that Dave King flew into Scotland last night. The media had previously reported that King had commented that on arrival from South Africa, he would first go the the City, to meet with institutional fundraisers to discuss whether a new share issue would be acceptable.

Is there any indication that King has kept good on his intentions – did he have those meetings I wonder?

View Comment

FisianiPosted on6:07 am - Mar 14, 2014


POLL
When will The Rangers go into administration
A .- March
B – April
C – May
D -June
E -July
F =Never

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:15 am - Mar 14, 2014


Long Time Lurker says:
March 14, 2014 at 6:05 am
1 0 Rate This

The Daily Record reports that Dave King flew into Scotland last night. The media had previously reported that King had commented that on arrival from South Africa, he would first go the the City, to meet with institutional fundraisers to discuss whether a new share issue would be acceptable.

Is there any indication that King has kept good on his intentions – did he have those meetings I wonder?
============================
I don’t expect anyone from the media to ask him those questions. They will no doubt prefer to help him prepare his Chariot for a triumphant ride into town. Now we know Jack Irvine has left Rangers we may soon find out who is putting meals on his table these days. Okay I know Jack won’t starve, but he seemed to form his Rangers PR career by attempting to discredit others as much as he promoted those he represents. Interesting times ahead, but I guess the media flag is already tied to King’s mast.

Ally’s ‘warchest’ ready for a dusting down sometime soon?

View Comment

twopandaPosted on7:23 am - Mar 14, 2014


Morning Men
.
We have a settled routine on here
.
Friday`s normally set aside for shares / late accounts / companies house late postings & McCoist salutes the fans gung-ho etc etc before the weekend fixtures – such and so forth and later possibly some SFA SPFL nonsense – all messes slipped in on Fridays close of play.
.
For some reason they`ve declared Friday hostilities with fans and one`s been `summoned`.
.
Poss its planned distraction but routine schedule is
Weekends usually set aside for starting wars / bitter slaggings – take-overs- boycotts & such.
.
Could somebody please contact their PR 😉 and politely ask them to postpone this week’s ho-ha or any summons to the marble staircase till at least Saturday [ideally pm] as we`ve planned our Friday Shop & mrstp is a creature of habit!
.
– or do we have to find out what`s really going on. Blimey 😉

View Comment

Hoopy 7Posted on7:24 am - Mar 14, 2014


Good Morning.
The TRFC accounts are now two weeks late.

There should be no excuse for this given the systems in use today and the time since the year end.

Have we any news on dispute between Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland.

Deluded bears still asking if they can get into europe if they win cup.

The glibless one arrives to be hailed as the Messiah. Let the games begin.

No real surprise that Auldheid has not had a reply. They will be in their bunker hoping the storm will pass.

We must keep pressing home the message until fans get the changes we need.

The fans can be the driver for change but I feel that nothing will be done unless we can force the hands of our chairmen who have the power to rid the games of the compromised ones.

On taxation matters I hope HMRC are keeping a tight rein on the finances at Ibrox.

Germany showed the way to deal with Tax indiscretions – no fear no favour.

Scottish Football needs a strong HMRC

View Comment

FisianiPosted on7:28 am - Mar 14, 2014


My guess B

View Comment

ptd1978Posted on7:37 am - Mar 14, 2014


Will The Rangers admin not depend on whether the SPFL & SFA do anything about the moral hazard of an admin and promotion this year.
The important question now is for the SFA and the SPFL. Will they agree to meet with the Rangers before the end of the season the discuss potential insolvency events an it’s consequences. Will they be forthcoming about any such meeting or will they try and hide it like the shameful meetings with Craig Whyte in 2011/2012.
With SFA and SPFL collusion and connivance it’ll be a May admin. Without, it’ll be next season, using ST money and screwing the team post CVA.
So may it is.

View Comment

beatipacificiscotiaPosted on7:51 am - Mar 14, 2014


The Rangers Administration? I believe it must be this season. To start next season on minus points would be disaster. An administration will be manufactured April or May.

View Comment

scottcPosted on8:22 am - Mar 14, 2014


john clarke says:
March 13, 2014 at 6:59 pm
36 0 Rate This

———
If I knew how to remove the ‘e’ I hamfistedly added to my nom-de-plume when first registering on RTC( something which Essexbeancounter does not let me forget! 🙂 ) I would remove it,

John,

Sign into Gravatar (http://en.gravatar.com/) using your WordPress account and then change your display name in Profile

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on8:28 am - Mar 14, 2014


upthehoops says:
March 14, 2014 at 7:15 am

Ally’s ‘warchest’ ready for a dusting down sometime soon?
———————————————————————
They can dust it down as often as they like but they’ll never open it – because guess what ❓

View Comment

neepheidPosted on8:34 am - Mar 14, 2014


beatipacificiscotia says:
March 14, 2014 at 7:51 am
3 0 Rate This

The Rangers Administration? I believe it must be this season. To start next season on minus points would be disaster. An administration will be manufactured April or May.
=============
That is correct from a football point of view. However the timing of any insolvency event is in the hands of people who couldn’t care less about football. If an insolvency event in July produces a better cash return than an insolvency event in April, then July it is. Total control over the timing of any insolvency event gives the current investors a great bargaining position with any “Real Rangers Men”, who might eventually arrive with some cash to save “the club” from these very bad people. “Pay us more or the club gets a 15 point deduction next season” sort of thing. Laxeys and the rest are in a very strong position.

View Comment

Para HandyPosted on8:37 am - Mar 14, 2014


rougvielovesthejungle says:
March 13, 2014 at 2:42 pm
47 3 Rate This

Angus1983 says:
March 13, 2014 at 2:08 pm

I like it Angus. There’s nothing more fans of all the provincial clubs would like but to play all their games in Scotland’s footballing capital.
Perhaps the diddy clubs could play their games at Partick though!
————————————
I am sure West of Scotland Cricket Club would be happy to once again host football matches at their Partick ground (they did after all host the first ever international between Scotland and England plus a number of Scottish Cup finals amongst others). However, if you were thinking of Thistle’s ground, that would be Firhill Stadium in Maryhill.

I refer you to my earlier response to Angus… 😎

What is it with these Northerners? Are they all so confused with Club names? 😛 :slamb:

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on8:41 am - Mar 14, 2014


Fisiani says:
March 14, 2014 at 6:07 am

POLL
When will The Rangers go into administration
A .- March
B – April
C – May
D -June
E -July
F =Never
==========================================
Perhaps in keeping with the ethos of the blog it would be helpful if any poster who responds actually explains their choice preferably with some facts rather than wishful thinking either way.

What will be will be and patience really is a virtue so sayeth my dear departed granny and I have always found her pearls of home-spun wisdom has served me well throughout my life.

Her birthday fell on St Patrick’s Day so this time of year is very special to me and I can still see her as clear as day with her shawl wrapped round her and her ‘birthday flowers’ pinned to it – a bunch of shamrock of course 🙂

View Comment

TSFMPosted on8:46 am - Mar 14, 2014


John Clark(e)

Try it out your ID on a post now. Least we could do after your efforts last week 🙂

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on9:01 am - Mar 14, 2014


Ecobhoy

I realise the purpose of this blog is not to analyse the law of defamation but I had a wee bit of time to do a bit of research and indeed I had a look on one of Scottish football’s most famous law firm’s website to see what they said – I won’t cut and paste in case they are precious about copyright – but their website confirms that in order to be defamatory, a statement must be untrue.

I don’t suppose there is a huge distinction to be drawn between the following two statements:-

1 In order to constitute “defamation” a statement must be untrue; and
2 It is a complete defence to an action of defamation that the defamatory statement complained of is true.

I think 1 is a better explanation of the law.

I agree with you on burden of prrof of course. The big point (as you correctly say – and as a certain vocal Rangers supporter may soon find out if I read this morning’s papers correctly) is that if you are going to slag someone off – especially someone with deep pockets, you’d better be able to quickly, easily and irrefutably back up what you say.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on9:11 am - Mar 14, 2014


Morning everyone,

Here’s a link to an article in today’s Guardian which highlights the appeal being considered by Uli Hoeness which is the main difficulty that tax jurisdictions have when determining whether to take recourse to either a civil or criminal law recovery.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/mar/13/bayern-munich-uli-hoeness-tax-evasion-disgrace

The comments section includes a salient question. What was origininal source(s) of the up to 150million Euro shown by Hoeness Swiss Bank Account statements?

View Comment

South0fThe BorderPosted on9:12 am - Mar 14, 2014


From the late Tony Benn – that needs asking of the SFA:

Ask the powerful five questions:

WHAT POWER HAVE YOU GOT?
WHERE DID YOU GET IT FROM?
IN WHOSE INTERESTS DO YOU YOU EXERCISE IT?
TO WHOM ARE YOU ACCOUNTABLE?
HOW CAN WE GET RID OF YOU?

Only Democracy gives us that right. That is why no one with power likes democracy and that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it – including you and me, here and now.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on9:17 am - Mar 14, 2014


paulsatim says:
March 14, 2014 at 12:03 am

Oh dear!! DR back page tomorrow, Civil War at Sevco!! http://twitpic.com/dy83ub
========================================================
Looks as though it’s the Easdales turn to have the heat turned-up on them. In some ways they are in a weak position because they weren’t Rangers Men when Green gathered together the pledges from the original investing consortium to pay D&P for the Rangers business and assets.

Interestingly the Easdale camp hold the proxies for some of the mystery overseas shareholders who were founder members of that consortium. Media House or JI obviously have PR connections with Easdales/McGills and I wonder whether the SMSM now being green-lighted to have a go at the Easdales could have triggered Jack walking away.

This could be a possibility if the Board had decided to throw the fans a sop by providing Jack’s head on a platter – surely it must be worth a few thousand ST sales. But I can think of a few reasons why JI would argue against that and if he lost then he had to choose between the Easdales and Rangers – atleast in the short term.

Jack is a Rangers man through and through and IMO would never abandon his ‘club’ but he is quite capable of switching allegiance to a new ‘King’ if he believes that fits the Rangers he believes in. The problem with that for me is that I don’t see King as a Savious for Rangers – anything but.

And Irvine is a sharp businessman who will be well aware that King’s back of a fag packet financial plan would be lucky to last a season. So, unless age has finally got to him, there will be more substantial corners of the jigsaw that JI holds or has spotted.

So King might be little more than a pawn to eject the current Board and for a new owner to step forward and with JI’s overseas connections they might have nothing to do with traditional Rangers Men so they shouldn’t be in too much of a hurry to polish the brown brogues and dust down the blazers 😎

I have often wondered whether this new Board have any clue as to who the mystery shareholders actually are as opposed to their nominee ‘fronts’. But to my way of thinking it might make sense to whip the mystery men into line by clipping the wings of their messengers – ah she’s just a Keltie clippie 😆

And Laxeys – whatever their interim plana are for Rangers although the ultimate aim will be to release locked-in property value to the shareholders – they could benefit by diverting the attention of fans away from their moves and also from putting some pressure on another significant shareholding bloc.

These are mainly musings of mine and not meant to be a connected narrative but they are issues which might come into play. But looking back over the last few years the one things I think I have learnt is never to be surprised at whatever new developments emerge from Ibrox.

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on9:23 am - Mar 14, 2014


It’s the court that decides whether the statements are defamatory Shirley – or the level to which they are so. Hence my repeated posts regarding the “truth” defence. There are many cases where the person pursuing libel or slander through the courts knew they were in the wrong but went to court in an attmept to clear their name (whitewash it more like) – my favourite example was Jonathon Aitken – he of the “simple sword of truth and trusty shield of British fair play”.

The Grauniad’s editor said of its pursual of the case:

It was about the dishonest misuse of our libel laws to close down legitimate scrutiny of the people we elect to govern us.”

He went on

“The case should serve as a warning to future litigants who may be set on stifling scrutiny. Libel is not a game: it is too often used by the rich, the powerful and the crooked to suppress proper reporting and fair comment.”

Disclosure: I have had some experience of publishing and have had to consider these issues in the past.

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on9:25 am - Mar 14, 2014


Para Handy says:
March 14, 2014 at 8:37 am

What is it with these Northerners? Are they all so confused with Club names?
——
Nah … methinks a little touch of the wind-up going on. 🙂

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on9:28 am - Mar 14, 2014


Post on an Aberdeen forum regarding TRFC’s delight at winning the 3rd Division …

“It’s kinda like winning the Tour de France on a high-end Kawasaki and bragging about what a challenge it was… ”

🙂

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on9:29 am - Mar 14, 2014


One subsequent comment on the Uli Hoeness article from The Guardian that I think is relevant to our cause.

“Well, we’ve been mocking the Bayernliga as the rich man’s SPL for long enough, now we finally have the answer as to whether Bayern are Rangers or Celtic.” 🙂

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on9:37 am - Mar 14, 2014


scottc says:

March 14, 2014 at 8:22 am
john clarke says:
March 13, 2014 at 6:59 pm
36 0 Rate This

———
If I knew how to remove the ‘e’ I hamfistedly added to my nom-de-plume when first registering on RTC( something which Essexbeancounter does not let me forget! 🙂 ) I would remove it,

John,

Sign into Gravatar (http://en.gravatar.com/) using your WordPress account and then change your display name in Profile
======================================================================
Scottc…you have now removed the only educational/intellectual hold I, and possibly all contributors to this glorious blog have over JC(e)…the true “Scribe of the Blog”…!
JC(e), in the interests of continuity and perpetuity, I do not think you should change your name by deed poll by following Scottc’s kind(?) instructions…I prefer you the way you are…”e” and all…! (wee sad smiley thing!)

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on9:41 am - Mar 14, 2014


TSFM says:

March 14, 2014 at 8:46 am
John Clark(e)

Try it out your ID on a post now. Least we could do after your efforts last week 🙂
==============================================================================
TSFM…et tu Brute…?…you are merely encouraging him…(wee wicked smiley thing!)

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on9:53 am - Mar 14, 2014


If John Clark(e) r(e)mov(e)s his “e” I think w(e) should all add an “e” to the (e)nd of our nam(e)s in homag(e).

yours

Campbellsmoneye

View Comment

hangerheadPosted on9:56 am - Mar 14, 2014


Angus1983 says:
March 14, 2014 at 9:28 am
11 0 Rate This

Post on an Aberdeen forum regarding TRFC’s delight at winning the 3rd Division …

“It’s kinda like winning the Tour de France on a high-end Kawasaki and bragging about what a challenge it was… ”
___________________________________________________________________

That’s all well and good but who would be the driver of the bike using the same comparison?
Mr Blobby?

View Comment

BrendaPosted on10:00 am - Mar 14, 2014


I know I’m hanging onto this but what about the audited accounts ???? Why have a rule saying they have to be posted by a certain date then ignore the fact that this date has passed. And this clumpany are as they they have done with many, giving yet another rule ‘the finger’ so to speak 😥

I’d say B they can’t chance having minus points going into the 2nd tier against full-time teams possibly without their superstars 😉

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:26 am - Mar 14, 2014


Eco,

Funny, I never thought of Dave King as Michael Heseltine but if the cap fits!

On football versus timing of administration. Football will play its part only in so far as a suitably resourced TRFC starting next season on zero points is a much more saleable commodity than one on -15. I would even query if it would be sellable at all. It would be a very brave or stupid bear that took on that challenge. Its a classic and fairly devastating counter to the season ticket boycott. And they still have sale and leaseback to fall back on.

30-15 to the home side in my opinion. In fact to switch sports I now see the original consortium plus their recent joinee’s in Laxey’s as dormie 3 i.e. struggling to see how they could lose now.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on10:30 am - Mar 14, 2014


Brenda says:
March 14, 2014 at 10:00 am
2 1 i
Rate This

I know I’m hanging onto this but what about the audited accounts ???? Why have a rule saying they have to be posted by a certain date then ignore the fact that this date has passed.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Brenda who are you suggesting is ignoring the fact that the rule has not been complied with? Companies House won’t be ignoring it – but Companies House cannot make them file accounts any more than the police can make people obey the law. Companies House can only fine them for non-compliance (and ultimately take steps to get the company dissolved). If you didn’t mean Companies House, did you mean AIM? (I don’t know how what AIM does to be honest – not much is my feeling). The media (ah ha ha ha ha ha ha)? SFA/SPFL? 🙄

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:41 am - Mar 14, 2014


Brenda
The accounts are needed for licensing purposes but from memory there are some provision in the rules that the SFA could fall back on to still grant a licence or not withdraw permission to play.
These provisions are in national club licensing which apply to clubs outside the top tier. In that respect they are as effective as a kleenex on top of the head in a monsoon to keep out the rain.
However clubs in the top tier are subject to UEFA FFP licensing which has the intent , apart from fair play, of protecting UEFA competitions from the failure of a club operating at the edge of financial viability from going belly up during a competition.
Hence audited accounts are a must for a top tier club wanting a place in UEFA competition.

You would think that would be a purpose of domestic licensing under both national and UEFA standards, but if the national association thinks banning a club would be devastating for the domestic game because of the size of their support base then they are more likely to downplay the impact of a club going belly up during a season than preventing them starting it.

It is the fear of losing to the game/industry the number of folk who support Rangers that dominates thinking at Hampden.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:42 am - Mar 14, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
March 14, 2014 at 9:01 am
ecobhoy says:
March 13, 2014 at 7:33 pm

I had a look on one of Scottish football’s most famous law firm’s website to see what they said – I won’t cut and paste in case they are precious about copyright – but their website confirms that in order to be defamatory, a statement must be untrue.

I don’t suppose there is a huge distinction to be drawn between the following two statements:-

1 In order to constitute “defamation” a statement must be untrue; and
2 It is a complete defence to an action of defamation that the defamatory statement complained of is true.
================================
It might come as no surprise that I might not necessarily agree with one of the most famous law firms in Scotland on the content of their website. They might not be that good legally but just have a very good PR 😆

I think Statement 1 is potentially very poor in legal terms but I have been as guilty of trite ‘law’ as one of the most famous Scottish legal firms – so I’m in really bad company – with my statement that: Veritas is a complete defence to a defamation action. I also think there is a BIG distinction between the statements in legal if not layman’s terms.

However I really can’t make an informed comment without seeing the context that their website advice is placed in. Some amazing bloomers often appear on websites for very professional organisations because compiling the copy for them is often something dealt with quite far down the food chain. At the end of the day the website is presumably designed for public consumption to garner clients and not as the basis for a learned legal discussion.

However leaving that aside let’s look at their statement:

‘1 In order to constitute “defamation” a statement must be untrue’

I don’t know whether that statement is based on a general observation or specifically geared to an action for defamation. If it is a mere aside then it’s something a layman might say or accept as fact. However in view of where it has been published I think it fair to apply a stricter legal context.

My understanding of the legal position is that in order to prove a statement is defamatory then the statement must be substantially untrue – in other words some of it might be true. So on that basis alone I don’t agree with the website. Might be a small point but it’s these small points that bring court success and build legal reputations.

There is a useful synopsis at http://www.ma-radio.gold.ac.uk/mediapocket/scotdef.htm

‘The defence of justification is known as veritas and defamatory words can be defended as being ‘justified’ though not in fact true.

‘Vulgar abuse known as rixa is a defence and covers intemperate expressions used in argument.

‘Scottish law allows a separate defence of ‘fair retort’, that intends to cover situations where someone repudiates defamatory statements by other people. It is important that the ‘counter-attack’ does not permit a new and separate defamatory publication of the defamed person’s critics.

‘In Scottish defamation law, motive is not a relevant factor for the defence of ‘fair comment’ or what is now known as honest comment in the English system. In Scotland, the opinion does not have to be honestly held. It only has to be relevant.’

I would state that the above comments reinforce my reservations about the validity of the advice contained on the website although there is my earlier caveat re ‘context’.

However I am glad to see that you also now seem to agree with my original observation which you originally appeared not to accept that a ‘veritas’ defence to a defamation action should be backed-up by evidence and not just the plea: ‘But it was the truth M’Lud’. 😳

I remain unchanged in my position that whether or not a defamatory action is won or lost or even taken that the defamatory statement remains defamatory and this isn’t expunged by the payment of compensation or legal action.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:53 am - Mar 14, 2014


Smugas says:
March 14, 2014 at 10:26 am

Eco,

Funny, I never thought of Dave King as Michael Heseltine but if the cap fits!
=============================================
I think our Mr King is a Master of Disguises and roles and might even become a Master of the Universe 🙂

So we have an interesting struggle coming-up and I reckon plenty to keep us busy ❗

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:01 am - Mar 14, 2014


sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolis says:
March 14, 2014 at 9:11 am

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/mar/13/bayern-munich-uli-hoeness-tax-evasion-disgrace

The comments section includes a salient question. What was origininal source(s) of the up to 150million Euro shown by Hoeness Swiss Bank Account statements?
====================================
Wasn’t it The Co-op Bank ❓ Sssshhhh don’t tell the Bear Financial Non-experts 😆

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on11:17 am - Mar 14, 2014


Fisiani says:
March 14, 2014 at 6:07 am

“When will The Rangers go into administration”
————————————
I’m not sure this is a productive approach. TRFCL do have financial constraints and a number of previous estimates of February 2014 being a crunch date did appear tenable. The need for additional loan funding indicated as much.

It feels a bit like a death watch.

As has been said above, any insolvency event may be timed to illicit best advantage to those immediately concerned. Since there are so many variables involved it will be difficult for outsiders to make an educated call. It does seem to have been a feature of the shenanigans that a flexibility in the application of qualification criteria can act like a time machine; placing the clumpany in a different place to where it should by rights actually exist.

The DR’s ‘Civil War’ strapline makes me suspicious as to whether this is actually the case. Why would the DR proclaim a headline that closely resembles the truth? Perhaps any club restructuring will be choreographed around a stage managed drama that spins a fairytale of the victory of the guys in white hats over their black bunnetted adversaries.

As might be indicated in the Bayern case, a lot of money can be sloshing around football clubs and where it comes from and where it goes to may not be clear. I suspect this is a microcosm for bigger business where firms do not live by their audited (or otherwise) accounts alone.

View Comment

No1 BobPosted on11:22 am - Mar 14, 2014


http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/king-to-set-out-pay-as-they-play-scheme-to-rangers-fans-155805n.23693712

The ‘glib and shameless liar’ has arrived in Glasgow and, as predicted, is being held aloft by the local football journalists as being the saviour who will pump his millions into Ibrox and fund ‘the light blues’ back to their rightful position.

It is reported that King “has spent the last two days in London speaking to institutional investors in Gers about whether they would back his plans for the Ibrox club”.

I trust that those institution’s had a copy of Judge Brian Southwood’s words: “are unanimous in finding that he is a mendacious witness whose evidence should not be accepted on any issue unless it is support by documents and other objective evidence” in front of them during those meetings.

Not so much ‘show us the deeds’ but ‘show us the written evidence that this is not a worthless money pit you proven liar and convicted tax evader’.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on11:31 am - Mar 14, 2014


ecobhoys cautionary note concerning defamation appears to have gone unheeded.

I trust the ‘truth’ defence will be sufficient a buttress.

View Comment

Comments are closed.