THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight


MungoboyMay 10, 2017 at 21:43  ‘EJ, perhaps that was before Police …

Comment on THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight by John Clark.

mungoboyMay 10, 2017 at 21:43  ‘EJ, perhaps that was before Police Scotland had a word outside. As I said, he wasnt in court when I was there. No doubt JC will enlighten us about today.’
Yes, mungoboy,  your man was there during the time I was in court yesterday. 10.10am to 12.30.

I have written the following, as an honest summary account of what I heard. I did not take written notes, not wishing to be embarrassed by being approached by a big polis, so I am relying on memory-which ,of course, is fallible.
There were times I couldn’t quite hear clearly , and it’s clearly possible that the running order of question/response might not be accurate. But, in substance, I believe what I have written to be the gist of what the jury heard, with no add-ons.

I haven’t seen what JD or anyone else from the ‘reserved for media’ seats has tweeted or otherwise reported( there were about 10 guys, including JD and Grant Russsell, with whom I chatted before and during the morning break)

As for the proceedings , essentially the witness was asked to say who he was, what age he was ( he seemed to have difficulty with that one!) , did he know CW and could he see him present in court, and what exactly his  ( the witness’s) occupation is.

Winess gave the answers to the basic questions, and then described himself as a corporate lawyer, whose business lay chiefly in helping companies buy/sell other companies. He had occasionally dealt with football clubs, notoriously difficult and complicated businesses.

He gave some kind of explanation of differences between tax lawyers, property lawyers, commercial lawyers, and further questions related to Takeover rules, and how one had to be careful not to accidentally force a proposed target company prematurely  to go public about a possible take-over bid because of the immediate effect on share values.  Correspondence in the early stages has to make it plain that no bid is being made, just an expression of interest in ‘looking under the bonnet’

Further questioning (stumblingly put, I thought) established that witness had never heard of CW until he was asked by a Peter Shakeshaft whether he knew this wealthy individual. He said he had not, but kind of made the assumption that he would be connected to Whyte and McKay ( he pronounced it, not as ‘McEye’ but as McKay as in OK), and Shakeshaft suggested that CW might be worth getting to know.

He got a later phone call from Shakeshaft asking whether he knew that CW was contemplating buying RFC, and that it might be useful to witness to think about getting involved.

Witness ( a partner in Collyer Bristow) invited CW and nine other prospective clients as his guests at a ‘Plus’ market do.

Subsequent to that, witness said, nothing much happened : he was kind of left up in the air as to whether CW was going to use his services.

At some point though, he wrote to Dundas and Wilson ( acting for ‘Murray’) informing them that Liberty Capital would be using a ‘newco’ if it were to go ahead with any purchase. Liberty Capital had the resources available ,from a reliable financial backer.

Witness was asked to describe what that letter was intended to portray.

It was a ‘letter of comfort’ only, simply an indication that no one was wasting RFC’s time .

Advocate Depute produced a later letter, signed by Witness, on CB headed notepaper, repeating the information and saying that the ‘newco’ would Wavetower, the directors of which would be Ellis, Akers and CW, and giving  the proportionate levels o fthe shareholdings of eack.

The letter went on to say that Wavetower would have the necessary £33 + million- £25=m for debt repayment and £5 .?m for purchase of majority 85% shareholding.

Asked about the fact that  shareholdings of Akers and Ellis were simply shown as TBA ( to be agreed?), while those of CW were shown as being 75.2%, witness explained that it was important not to be seen to be actually bidding-because that would fall foul of the ‘Blue Book’- if a bid were formally made, the ‘Blue Book’ (the  Takeover Panel’s/ Stock Exchange’s rules would immediately apply)

Asked what the purport of that letter was, witness again said it was no more than a ‘letter of comfort’as from a him as a corporate lawyer ascting for a client,  and  NOT as from  an appointed (under the Blue Book rules)financial adviser whose function it would be to issue any  ‘proof of funds’.

Witness said he was subsequently told by Olswang’s (??) that they were acting the main operators, and that witness should just do his ‘little part’ . Witnss said he was told that  a firm called (?Cairns and ?)
would act for Ellis and Akers, while he was, loosely, acting for CW.

The advocate depute got the witness to agree that the letter said ‘funds are there’, not ‘funds would be there’
Witness confirmed that in, wriiting those letters, he had taken instructions from CW-who was sole shareholder in Liberty Capital.

I left the Court at that point, to keep another appointment.
(At one point  Donald Findlay raised a point of law , the jury was sent out, and the point was quickly discussed. No ruling on the point was required to be made as the AD agreed the point.
Tea-break followed immediately, and then, with the jury back, proceedings recommenced).

John Clark Also Commented

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
It’s a very quiet night, and not being at all interested in the Eurovision Song Contest, I spent a little time on the UEFA website, (sent there by interest in the ‘co-efficient’ posts about the non-appearance of TRFC in the list., which I think has been satisfactorily explained by Ej and P/T Pete)

My interest turned to the European Clubs Association.

RFC  was, of course, a founder member of the Association.But they lost full membership when they ceased, through being put into Liquidation, to be able to participate in professional football.

Irritatingly, the ‘Scotland’ entry still shows a ‘Rangers’ as an ‘associated member.’

Wikipedia has this : “Due to the liquidation in 2012 of the company that formerly ran the club, Rangers were not permitted to continue their full membership of the ECA. However Rangers FC was entitled to associated membership of ECA as considered to be a founding member with its history intact.”

The breath-taking inconsistency is, well, breath-taking! How do the minds of these people actually work?

I have sent a message to the ECA ‘contact us’ email address to point out that TRFC is not commercially, legally or in football terms, the RFC that was a founder member of ECA, and is in no entitled to be regarded as such.

Much good it may do, but I feel better for having sent a message.19

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
I should have waited a wee bit longer to see if my first post would be released from ‘moderation’!
Sorry about the ‘repeat’ post.

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
My post of 02.06 this morning is in moderation.

I reproduce it below, having excised the phrase that might have triggered the ‘moderation’

“PortbhoyMay 13, 2017 at 00:05 ‘…There you go BD, ….‘ _________

A great link,Portbhoy!

I had forgotten that piece from James Traynor, who could say in the same piece both this

“I was asked to remain but my conscience won’t allow me to stay in our profession”

and this

“against Rangers and their fans, who deserve enormous credit for having saved their club, just waiting for the catalyst?” ( the italics in both quotes are mine)

The man is a disgrace to himself and to journalism, even the kind of journalism practised by the sports people at the DR.”

Homunculus’ later post is a far better example of the kind of  ‘journalist’ that I believe JT to be, i.e one whom it is scarcely worth the effort of despising.

(the phrase I had used was taken from a description of Falstaff in  ‘Henry IV’ ( apologies, Essex, for a the reference to Shakespoke. Nice to have you back, btw!)

Recent Comments by John Clark

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

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

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

Football as a glue of ‘community’

Of community trust,

of basic honesty,

of the  Corinthian spirit,

of sporting integrity….

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

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

in this little country of ours.

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

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

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

I have only the haziest understanding of that concept.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a decently worked out rationale for the concept?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who knows?

About the author