Acouple of weeks ago we revisited the OCNC debate. This is a useful exercise to turn to periodically, for I have noticed how, with the passage of time, new aspects have become clear as new information emerges, or some ridiculous claim is made and then debunked.
In those circumstances, we are given the opportunity to reassess what we already know using the new known knowns, or finding significance in something previously overlooked, but now shed in a new light.
Or put another way, the Beauty of Hindsight!
In introducing his notion that both ‘sides’ are merely putting their opinion, SFM contributor MarkC recently brought me to see that one side must be correct and factual, while the other will merely be left expressing an opinion. In the same way that one side must be right, because TRFC is either a new club, or it’s not, one argument must be the one that is factually correct and leaving the other as just opinion (at best). Once a factual argument is put forward, it can only be countered with fact, for anything else is just opinion.
Armed with facts, there would be no need to prove that TRFC is a new club, for first it would be necessary for those who claim ‘same club’ to show, using documentary evidence and facts, that ‘Rangers Football Club’ isn’t currently in liquidation.
So, factual evidence; what facts do we have?
Well, it is a fact that Rangers Football Club availed itself of the advantages of incorporation in 1899, and it’s a fact that Rangers Football Club Plc entered the terminal state of liquidation in 2012.
It is also a fact that at no time since this incorporation took place has anyone been aware of any other Rangers Football Club ensconced within Ibrox, no one has written or spoken about it; or not, at least, until a snake oil salesman used it to push his off the shelf company as ‘The Rangers Football Club Limited’.
What’s more, no other failed incorporated football club has ever availed itself of this new notion of the ‘eternal club’. The SFA was apparently unaware of it either, for they never offered up the salvation of its use to the likes of Airdrieonians, or Gretna, or dear old Third Lanark.
In fact it seems to have miraculously appeared only as a result of the failed CVA attempt of Rangers FC Plc, and the words of one of the spivs who surrounded Ibrox at that time (and for some time before, and after).
The only ‘fact’ put forward to support the ‘same club’ argument is that the SPL say, in their rules, that they are the same club. But the rules don’t actually make them the ‘same club’, for it’s not the SPL’s place to say what is and isn’t a club, and they only explain how they would treat the situation under their rules, and as Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit (see appendices I, II and III) brought to our attention, the football authorities had reasons to introduce this to their rules that had nothing to do with establishing a separate club that lives on eternally.
It does, though, as Easyjambo’s post describes, show a willingness by football’s governors to change the rules to support their desired outcome.
As Hirsutepursuit (Appendix II) points out, the change to the SPL’s rules that enable this ‘interpretation’ of continuance after liquidation, only came about in 2005. So, have we to believe/accept that the split between club and Club has only existed since 2005 and is the preserve of the SPL?
And that brings me to look again at what Lord Nimmo Smith said of how the SPL rules view the continuation of a ‘Rangers’ (see appendix IV for reference). In short, a lot of words that confuse rather than clarify, and give no legal basis, or justification, for what he, or the SPL rules, say. Basically, the rules say ‘Rangers’ continues as the same club because the SPL rules say it does.
Then, in January 2015, Doncaster said this in an interview with the BBC:
“In terms of the question about old club, new club, that was settled very much by the Lord Nimmo Smith commission that was put together by the SPL to look at EBT payments at that time.
“The decision, very clearly from the commission, was that the club is the same, the club continues, albeit it is owned by a new company, but the club is the same.”
What Doncaster seems to be saying here is that TRFC are RFC because LNS said so.
Which is strange because it was the SPL’s own rules, and nothing else, that LNS based his findings on, and to have lent weight to the ‘same club’ argument, LNS would have had to have used some independent reasoning, or examples in law, to back this up. Instead we are left with the following:
- (i) the SPL, through an interpretation of their rules, told LNS that they looked on TRFC as the ‘same club’,
- (ii) so LNS said the SPL looked on TRFC as RFC,
- (iii) and then Doncaster said it’s the same club because LNS said so,
It’s a bit like me telling Big Pink (who is an acknowledged expert in the field of colours) that SFM treat black as white, BP tells the world that SFM treat black as white, and a couple of years down the road I announce that black is white, because Big Pink said so!
SOMETHING IMPORTANT I THINK WE’VE OVERLOOKED
Now here’s a fact for us all to consider. At some point Rangers FC ceased to be a member of the SPL. With the help of Neil Doncaster, Sevco (Scotland) Ltd tried to gain entry to the SPL and to participate as The Rangers FC. They failed.
Whatever entity was trying to gain entry into Scottish football, it was at that time not a member of the SPL, and so never had been under the jurisdiction of the SPL.
Therefore whatever the SPL rules or Doncaster said, or what conclusion LNS reached over the matter when it was based solely on what the SPL rules said, it madeno difference to the new club, since the SPL or Doncaster had no locus in the matter. Sevco were in limbo, and everything then depended on Sevco, as The Rangers FC, getting entry into the SFL.
Now, the ‘same club’ argument’s only factual ‘evidence’ is the SPL’s rules, and if they hadn’t included the recent amendment highlighted in Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit’s posts, then there would be no ‘factual’ evidence, at all, however flimsy it might be.
So let’s take a look at what the SFL’s Constitution and Rules say on the matter, and I will quote the relevant parts!
Here’s what it says on a liquidated club joining the league:
“ …”
And here’s what it says, in full, about how it would treat a liquidated member club:
“ …”
In fact, there is absolutely no mention of liquidated clubs in the SFL’s Constitution and Rules, because the notion that a club could live on after liquidation is just that, a notion invented by a spiv!
And because liquidation means the end of a football club, there is absolutely no reason for rules covering such an eventuality to be considered within the rules of football.
And as I said earlier:
‘…the change to the SPL’s rules that enable this ‘interpretation’ of continuance after liquidation, only came about in 2005.
So, have we to believe/accept that the split between club and Club has only existed since 2005 and is the preserve of the SPL?’
What is now obvious is that there was nothing in the rules of Scottish football that gives succour to the notion that TRFC is one and the same football club as RFC.
When the SPL clubs voted against Sevco, to be called The Rangers FC, from entering the SPL, they made the SPL rules on the ‘same club’ matter irrelevant.
When Sevco, to be called The Rangers FC, entered the SFL, they were, according to the SFL’s own rules, a new club, for there is nothing in the rules that says otherwise, or can be interpreted as saying so!
Of course, by the time Doncaster made his nonsense statement, the SFL had been disbanded, and it’s clubs were now part of the SPFL, with rules tailored to suit those who bought into the ‘same club’ notion. Handy, huh?
WAS IT ALL ABOUT ARMAGEDDON?
We all laughed at the time it was spewed forth, but perhaps Armageddon was a real possibility, but not in the way we were encouraged to believe. We know that RFC owed a significant amount of money (football debts) to clubs outside of Scotland, and so outside of the SFA’s influence. We also know, with some certainty, that the SFA turned a blind eye to, or were incompetent in policing, some of RFC’s wrongdoings (the EBTs and European Licence) and the last thing the SFA, and SPL, would want would be non-Scottish clubs kicking up the inevitable stink and getting UEFA/FIFA involved, and investigating the SFA. So how to prevent it?
Plan D (plans A through to C had been used up trying to save RFC)
Create a scenario where TRFC must pay these debts, is the answer! How to do that? Well there’s that rule in the SPL Rule book! Right! but we must ensure Rangers stay in the SPL! Easy, we’ll frighten the other clubs into voting them into the SPL, and so TRFC will have to pay ‘Rangers’ football debts… Oops, the vote went against us! OK, we can stall the other leagues for a year, let’s get them into the Championship, promotion’s a certainty… Oops, we did it again… Let’s create a new set up, all under the (effective) SPL umbrella, with rules to suit, before anyone notices!
Could it be that all that help wasn’t so much because, or not only because, it was ‘Rangers’, but because of what no Rangers, to pay the non-Scottish football debt, might mean for the SFA and SPL, and so for the whole of Scottish football? Was that the real Armageddon?
Footnote
While putting this blog piece together I found it very difficult to write whenever I had to include the ‘what do you call it’ newly discovered ‘club’ thingy.
I find the ‘big C/little c’ method of describing it to be a nonsense, and at best a poor effort to create whatever it was they (whoever they are) wanted to create.
Even Lord Nimmo Smith, a much more learned man than I, failed to come up with a word, phrase or expression to adequately describe it. In short, a club with a capital ‘C’ is exactly the same as a club with a small ‘c’ – and only a fool could imagine it creates a difference!
Is a game of Football somehow different from a game of football?
But, of course, what can you call something that you can’t see, you can’t feel, can’t hear, can’t smell, something that has never been heard of or spoken of before?
Clearly, LNS could find nothing within the millions of words previously written within the myriad of cases dealt with under Scots Law, UK Law and EU Law, and clubs and associations, both corporate and incorporate, will have been the subject of a fair number of legal cases in the past for him to draw on, yet there was no answer to this conundrum to be found there.
And if Lord Nimmo Smith was unable to draw on his legal knowledge or research, he was merely expressing a layman’s opinion on how the SPL viewed a ‘????????’ club!
In such circumstances, his opinion is no more valid than any other reasonable person’s might be!
Acknowledgements
Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit for the posts I have used in the appendices and my thanks in particular to EJ for kindly providing me with some documents I was unable to find on the internet by myself.
I’d also like to acknowledge the part MarkC played in bringing the debate back to SFM’s attention, it can’t be easy, constantly arguing against the accepted wisdom in any debate, but it always seems to bring out the best in us and something new.
APPENDIX I: HIRSUTEPURSUIT
March 1, 2017 at 23:02
EASTWOODMARCH 1, 2017 at 08:366 Votes …
Deviously, both the SPL (around 10 years ago coinciding with Rangers (In Liquidation) entering very choppy waters) and the SFA more recently, changed their rules to adopt this distinct “Club” (capital ‘C’) type definition, distinguishing it from the “owner and operator” company. It could have been said at the time to be a licence for unscrupulous, badly run “Clubs” to dump debts and shaft creditors, and so it proved with Sevco’s exploitation of these rules.
In 2005 the SPL changed its articles to create the definition of Club (with a capital C) – which actually INCLUDES the ‘owner and operator’. Whether the ‘owner and operator’ should be EXCLUDED depends on the context of the article in which it is used and to WHICH Club (with a capital C) it is referring.
The SFA did not add the ‘owner and operator’ tag until 2013.
It is interesting because the original SPL articles referred to the clubs (with a lower case c) as its members. Its members each held shares in the SPL. The clubs were listed by their full company names – rather than their trading names.
The Club (with a capital C) definition came about because the SPL were trying to launch SPL2 and one of the clubs (with a lower case c) that could have been included was Brechin.
Brechin is not a company, so could not as a club (with a lower case c) become a member/shareholder in the SPL. To cover this eventuality, a form of words was created that would allow the club (with a lower case c) to play in the SPL even if the share was not actually held by the club (with a lower case c).
If a club (with a lower case c) has not been incorporated, the club (with a lower case c) cannot own anything. In such cases, the assets are held by its members (usually a committee member or members). Since the original articles defined the member/shareholder as a club (with a lower case c), it would have resulted in the committee member who took ownership of the SPL share being defined as the club (with a lower case c).
The reference to ‘undertaking of a football club’ in the definition of Club (with a capital C) meant that it could refer to both an incorporated body and an unincorporated body of persons.
So the context of when the ‘owner and operator’ should be EXCLUDED from the definition of a Club (with a capital C) is only when that owner and operator is not a club (with a lower case c).
What is even more interesting is that three non-corporate clubs (with a lower case c) have each been listed as members/shareholders of the current SPFL – even though none have the legal personality to own anything.
…which is strange.
APPENDIX II: HIRSUTEPURSUIT
March 1, 2017 at 23:32
I should add that LNS found The Rangers Football Club PLC (the owner and operator) guilty of offences that predate the creation, in 2005, of the definition of Clubs (with a capital C).
Even if you accept that Rangers FC (the Club with a capital C) can be separated from The Rangers Football Club PLC/RFC 2012 (the owner and operator) – which, to be clear, I do not – that distinction only came about in 2005.
So if there is guilt prior to 2005, that guilt lay with the club (with a lower case c).
LNS didn’t seem to spot the distinction.
…which is even stranger.
APPENDIX III: EASYJAMBO
March 2, 2017 at 08:01
My recollection of the change in the SPL and SFA rules on “Owner and Operator” was implemented in early 2006, as the SFA wished to sanction Vladimir Romanov for his comments, but couldn’t do so because he held no official post at the club (small “c”).
It was Vlad’s son Roman who was Hearts chairman at the time, although Vlad was the major shareholder. So feel free to blame Vlad for the change in the rules.
Hearts were fined £10,000 by the SFA for Vlad’s comments about referees in October 2006. The DR article below, suggests that the SFA rule change came into effect in May that year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/heart
APPENDIX IV
(46) It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule 11 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club.
Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.
While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise.
So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator. It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the League. Under Rule A7.1.1 the Club is bound to comply with all relevant rules. The Rules clearly contemplate the imposition of sanctions upon a Club, in distinction to a sanction imposed upon the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply even if the owner and operator at the time of breach of the Rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has been transferred to another owner and operator.
While there can be no Question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions Which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality), and which thus might affect the interest of the new owner and operator in it. For these reasons we reject the arguments advanced in paragraphs 2 and 9 of the list of preliminary issues.
Small add on.
EASYJAMBOAPRIL 22, 2017 at 22:45
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gfJ-DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=orders+under+para75+insolvency&source=bl&ots=CKWWxMgt8Z&sig=ZAb8LL43i0Ou-ViUqo62nqqlN-c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWnZW1g7nTAhVRJ1AKHR2lBjYQ6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q=orders%20under%20para75%20insolvency&f=false
Developing story
—————
Was that you who added the highlights in the above article? if so great work.
Cluster One April 23, 2017 at 10:31
was that the case where Green even as an ex director had a clause that the club/ company still had to cover any legal costs that may come his way?
———————-
No. That was a different case at the start of the Fraudco hearings where Green was looking for the club to fund his defence costs. That claim was thrown out, as was his appeal.
=====================
Was that you who added the highlights in the above article? if so great work.
———————————-
It’s just a feature of a Google search when it finds a result as a “Google Book”. My initial search was “Orders under para75 insolvency”, so each of those words were highlighted in the text.
You can search for other words within the book if you wish.
Thanks again
I was at the cup semi final this weekend. No not the one today but the one yesterday where fans mixed in the pub before hand and after. Thanks to the Hibees in the Penny Farthing we had a good laugh before and after. Don’t suppose there was much “mixing” today? Sad really but moving from the PF yesterday after the game down toward the city (we walked out and back) we went in to another establishment (the BH is a clue) which really surprised me. Very Irish, very Celtic (I mean very). Now I don’t mind that at all but it struck us all that there would be no mixing there today! We were (in red) not bothered at all but left a bit sad. Nice pub though and the staff were great.
JIMBOAPRIL 23, 2017 at 20:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efzDE8swyBU
————————————————————–
Thanks for that link Jimbo. A real supporter of football in Scotland, video blogging about his team. Prompted me to check a few of the earlier `casts and he seems to know his stuff. Would like to see his take on things Scottish football wise (not sevco-centric) in a blog on this site.
What is JJ on about now? having a go at PMCG for some obscure reason that he doesn’t quite explain, what is it about him that he ends up in confrontational spats. He complains about lack of donations! really, is there any surprise in that, he has alienated more bloggers than most sites have as regulars. It might be time for him to call it a day, keeping his sanity should become a priority as he looks very close to the edge.
I see JJ has had another pop at SFM in his latest article.
It never ceases to amaze me that he has the audacity to call the comments section of his blog ‘the Speakeasy’. Now there’s a misnomer if ever there was one, as the only comments permitted are those which are either sycophantic in nature, or confirm that a donation has been made, or preferably both.
I posted a perfectly civil and reasonable response yesterday to his tirade about how match official ‘bigots’ would award Rangers an unwarranted penalty and/or decline Celtic a stonewall penalty, but the post never made it past moderation. Speakeasy? Speaknodissent more like!
HIGHLANDER
APRIL 24, 2017 at 08:02 I see JJ has had another pop at SFM in his latest article.
============================================
I think he struggles with the quality of the articles here, the quality of the debate around those articles, the fact that there are podcasts being produced by people who know what they are doing, with guests who know what they are talking about and the donations by readers which help keep the site going.
This place is everything he would like his to be. Badly researched poorly written diatribes will never produce what he wants. No matter how many sock-puppets he uses or how much self aggandisement he indulges in. His “articles” are not forensically brilliant insightful analyses and what he thinks of as “satire” is often little more than tawdry filth and homophobia. No need to go into his plagiarism, it has been identified often enough.
So, in a word … jealous.
Can I also suggest that for a man who tells us he has received credible death threats and has been forced “into exile” it would be a bit mental to then go in person to pick up an internet award, which was broadcast live on the internet. The story about it being someone else was just silly, did you get him to practice the impassioned pleas about estranged fathers’ rights. After having told the World about being an estranged father.
Off topic but whatever happened to that once prolific contributor to this site Ecobhoy?
Always had a lot to say for himself but took himself way too seriously i thought.
I posit he has his own site somewhere
Craig Whyte case continuing, and from James Doleman’s tweets I can say that it’s Donald McIntyre in the witness box, Rangers’ financial director since May 2006. His evidence so far is pretty dry and doesn’t connect to much that interests us on SFM, in my opinion. It is also, perhaps, too pertinent to the case itself to discuss online (as it is about the structure of the debt and the relationship with Ticketus), so best to leave it to JD to sum up later.
Homunculus
perhaps he is a jolly japester – he was complaining about James Doleman soliciting donations last week- one would hope anyone genuine with any insight wouls see the irony in that. The alternative is perhpas some kind of problem. i have met very few folk with such a persistent belief in their own superioriority of imtellect and insight based on no evidence.
Court taking morning break, with nothing much said that we didn’t already know, but witness confirmed that Rangers was ‘at heart a business’ with the aim of making a profit.
BILL1903APRIL 24, 2017 at 11:08 (EDIT)
In my opinion Ecobhoy was much more precise than any current bloggers, and took his subject matter more seriously than he took himself. I think it was his precision and the way he wouldn’t budge from his position that got up some people’s noses, but I usually enjoyed (most of) his posts and he was always good for a debate when things got quiet. I’ve always felt it was a shame he left the blog, as he was often a very good ‘Devil’s Advocate’ and so helped develope a number of topics.
BFBPUZZLED
APRIL 24, 2017 at 11:28
========================================
Kidding and joking aside, if that is one person writing and they are serious in what they are writing then I agree that they could well have issues.
As I said, his performance at the Football Blogging Awards certainly didn’t come across as someone who was in complete control of his faculties.
More to be pitied than scorned really, but the arrogance (based on very little from what I can see), the sense of entitlement and the attacks on others makes that quite difficult.
This is a “comment” from his latest
============================
Kung Fu Tim says:
April 24, 2017 at 8:47 am
JJ..You simply have to keep this site going.
You risk your life on a daily basis to give your readers the truth.
Donation on the way .
Minutes: ‘This huge and glorious institution will be in the hands of one man.’
A direct quote from JD, so think it will be alright, and obviously has no bearing on trial, but this is written in the minutes of a meeting. ‘Huge and glorious institurion…’ No wonder they lost sight of reality and let their club die! If only they’d realised that it was only a football club, just like every other one, they might have had the foresight not to get into the mess in the first place!
It’s one thing spouting all their jingoistic nonsense at supporters meetings and to the press, but surely some sense of proportion is needed in the boardroom!
Lunch now, till two, with nothing to surprise us so far. A couple of times it became clear that no one in the boardroom was aware of another ‘club’ at Ibrox other than the one that went into liquidation. You’d have thought that that would have been mentioned in the minutes whenever the fear of administration was raised, just to allay any fears of losing ‘the Club’!
Two points from Donald McIntyre’s evidence.
From the minutes of an Independent Board meeting he clarified for Prentice that of the two tax cases one was an “actual liability ” and the other a “potential liability ”
The date of the meeting was 24 April 2011.
In follow up emails to that meeting it came out that the recommendation to use Ticketus for funding needs had come from Mike McGill, Murray Groups rep on the Board in earlier discussions with David Grier. (I don’t think it referred to funding the purchase though)
Ally,
I think you may have inadvertently hit upon the real problem they had at Rangers – supporters in the boardroom. The jingoistic nonsense seems to go along with that notion.
One of the issues that always comes out of supporter-ownership is that supporters tend to be ruled by their heart rather than their head, so pragmatic business decisions have a very hard time being sold! Supporter representation is important in a club board, but it does need someone hard-headed to go ‘Are we sure that’s a good idea?’.
And good to see that, despite his constant sniping, JJ still comes here for the goods. Hi JJ *waves*
AllyjamboApril 24, 2017 at 12:51
‘…..It’s one thing spouting all their jingoistic nonsense at supporters meetings and to the press, but surely some sense of proportion is needed in the boardroom!’
________
My thoughts exactly, Allyjambo.
That the minutes of a board meeting of any Scottish commercial enterprise read like something that might have appeared in a piece written by Goebbels about ‘rightful place in history’ and ‘our destiny as the herrenvolk’ kind of confirms that a level of madness had been introduced by SDM into the now defunct RFC, such that otherwise sensible business chaps were led to pretend to believe ,or actually did believe, the cant that came from the canting cantor.
And, of course, the ones who pretended to believe are to be despised beyond all measure. While the ones who might genuinely have believed, although to be pitied on account of feebleness of mind, are to be regarded as not fit to participate in any kind of sport since they do not and cannot accept that no one can be ‘entitled’ to win a sporting competition.
The best that such might hope for (or, perhaps, expect) is that other folk in charge of the competition will cheat on their behalf.
And, sadly, their hopes/expectations have to date been realised.
A fact that those in charge of football competition in Scotland can in no way hide, disguise, magic away ( circle or otherwise) or otherwise erase from the record.
We have had a cheating majority shareholder of what was RFC plc , followed by a cheating SFA, follow-followed by newspaper men and BBC men who cheer-led them on, and follow-followed-followed on by a succession of boardroom chancers, cheats, Del-boy types trying to make a buck out of other people in as shady a venture as ever lost its business credit in the financial markets.
Somehow the Tweets from James Doleman at al remind me of the saying that the universe is unfolding as it should.
So I looked that up. Hope everyone enjoys it as much as I did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X8YnCq6UME
easyJamboApril 24, 2017 at 13:21
‘….In follow up emails to that meeting it came out that the recommendation to use Ticketus for funding needs had come from Mike McGill, Murray Groups rep on the Board in earlier discussions with David Grier…’
_________
eJ, I love it!
If only because it feeds my fantasy!
VCTs, Octopus, and folk who might have been involved in Octopus who might know folk in Murrerwell who might be in business as asset strippers ( small time) who might be stupid enough in their vanity to allow themselves to become patsies of knights of the realm!
Great wee work of fiction in there somewhere, I think. Might need a John Grisham to write it, though.
And, sadly, I am no John Grisham.
Our good Mr Doleman is a master in breaking down courthouse legalise into language the less well educated of us can put into context, unlike some who seem to glorify in muddying the waters only to show how well versed they are in the use of on line thesaurus programs. Fortunately we are all getting a better grasp of all subjects we wish to gain a better insight off through the relatively simple process of using Google style search engines
JJ’s constant sniping and undermining of SFM along with a growing band of those he has sent to the naughty corner, has to be answered, it is my opinion that the vast majority of those he has taken umbrage with have done nothing more than disagree with his analysis of subjects which he has blogged on, many of which have been insightful and we’ll researched, some have been truly horrendous.
He has a tendency to (as other contributers to this site have pointed out) come over as a homophobe, a racist, a bully who has threatened at least one regular with physical abuse, he has made a number of blatantly false claims which I won’t bore you with for the time being, and on his rather amusingly named speakeasy banned any dissenters in a purge that North Korean security services would do well to study. I only once wrote on his “speakeasy” and was duly banned with no explanation, I will not go and debate on his site for the simple reason being if he feels he is losing his argument, you will get banned, just ask his many one time close correspondents like the karmageddon, gordorfc, bill mcmurdo, the taxman, homunculus, P McG, Reiver 9(what ever happened to reiver) to name but a few. Auldheid you and the mech seem to be safe for the time being although if he falls out with his invisible friend we will know that he has crossed the event horizon.
ALLYJAMBO
APRIL 24, 2017 at 11:38
Court taking morning break, with nothing much said that we didn’t already know, but witness confirmed that Rangers was ‘at heart a business’ with the aim of making a profit.
====================================
Just out of curiosity AJ – were there more punters today in the public section of the court ?
[If I was back in Glasgow I would definitely try to go to watch some of the proceedings.]
[Was Findlay wearing a TRFC scarf ?
]
Auldheid
April 24, 2017 at 14:39
————————————————————————————–
Max Ehrmann wrote the words in 1927, Les Crane used the words for the title track on his 1971 album, Desiderata.
The picture above is of a pennant containing the words, hanging on a wall one foot away from where I am typing this.
Both bought in 1971.
Pat ByrneApril 24, 2017 at 14:53
‘..JJ’s constant sniping and undermining of SFM…’
_____________
Pat Byrne!Fie, for shame!
There is no way that ‘SFM’ could possibly be undermined.
It can be sniped at, certainly.
But any sniping can have the effect of making readers of the ‘sniping’ turn to the target of the sniping!
And, when they do, what will they find?
Very little in the way of personal insult of or aggression against individual posters no matter what they post.
Instead, they will find a level of civilised comment and debate in which most participants clearly distinguish between what they accept as facts and what their speculations as to the significance of those facts might be.
It would be exceptional if anyone who posted on SFM was unable to provide, when challenged, an argument in support of his/her post.
It might not be a strong or persuasive argument, but it would be some kind of reasoned opinion rather than a bald, unsupported by evidence of any kind, assertion.
I think that SFM ( for whom of course I do not speak) may happily say with Hamlet ” Let the galled jade wince, our withers are unwrung”.
StevieBCApril 24, 2017 at 15:04 (Edit)
ALLYJAMBO APRIL 24, 2017 at 11:38 Court taking morning break, with nothing much said that we didn’t already know, but witness confirmed that Rangers was ‘at heart a business’ with the aim of making a profit. ====================================
Just out of curiosity AJ – were there more punters today in the public section of the court ? [If I was back in Glasgow I would definitely try to go to watch some of the proceedings.]
[Was Findlay wearing a TRFC scarf ? ]
_________________
Sorry Stevie, I’m stuck here in windy Derbyshire and only following James Doleman’s tweets, so no idea how the sartorial QC is dressed today. I think his scarf will have gone back into it’s oaken casket after an airing yesterday, so I doubt he’d be wearing it today
I believe easyjambo was through on Friday, and is possibly there today, so he may be able to give us an update on Scotland’s most flamboyant poseur of the courtroom!
Proceedings were adjourned for the day when it was just getting interesting. To be continued in the next episode of the Craig Whyte Diaries.
Findlay was just about to get into the nitty gritty about why the wee tax case had gone unpaid. If Auldheid and/or Big Pink want to go along tomorrow morning it could be quite revealing.
EJ,
How is Findlay carrying out his cross-examination? Is it quite hard hitting, does he seem to be setting traps, or is it quite matter of fact, like a wee chat with (so far) three people he’s quite well acquainted with?
I suspect that it must be quite disconcerting to be questioned by someone with inside knowledge of how things are run at Ibrox, who might well know just how candid you are being with your answers – even if he’s not! The way he seemed to catch Smith out when he’d denied knowledge of possible administration, only to bring up Smith’s own words from the minutes of a meeting, made me think he’d set a trap. Was that the impression you got from the questioning and actually seeing the reaction?
Bear in mind AJ, that despite his alleged management magnificence, Wattie, is not the sharpest tool in the shed
scottcApril 24, 2017 at 17:34 (Edit)
ALLYJAMBO APRIL 24, 2017 at 17:03 … The way he seemed to catch Smith out when he’d denied knowledge of possible administration, only to bring up Smith’s own words from the minutes of a meeting, made me think he’d set a trap.…Bear in mind AJ, that despite his alleged management magnificence, Wattie, is not the sharpest tool in the shed
______________________
Which is something I’m sure Findlay will know. He’ll also know how vain (or not) Smith is and whether or not he knows how sharp he is (or not)! But, I think, Smith and Super’s moment in the spotlight, that they did not want, is over, and the people to follow will be harder to trip up! But still, for some, they cannot be sure how much their questioner will already know about how things worked at Ibrox, and that’s before any documents, tapes and whatever else Whyte might have on them all is brought into play!
So what have we learned so far.?
There was a H&S Liability that was not addressed.
Ally had negotiated a bumper pay out if he didn’t become manager.
And rangers knew they owed £2.8 mill to the inland revenue in jan 2011.
————-
Roll on more revelations
CLUSTER ONEAPRIL 24, 2017 at 18:34
So what have we learned so far.?There was a H&S Liability that was not addressed.Ally had negotiated a bumper pay out if he didn’t become manager.And rangers knew they owed £2.8 mill to the inland revenue in jan 2011.
==============================
January 2011 is before 31 March 2011, which was the date the SFA awarded Rangers a European licence. So when DID this bill crystalise?
UPTHEHOOPSAPRIL 24, 2017 at 18:39
——————
we are only in day three and we have 12 weeks to go…very interesting it will all become
JOHN CLARKAPRIL 24, 2017 at 15:38
” Let the galled jade wince, our withers are unwrung”.
Sadly JC my knowledge of Shakespeare was cruelly ended when I decided that this education malarkey was not for me and I upped and left to gain life experience by working as a 14 year old from the back of milk carts and the Barr’s Lorries delivery boy rather than the study of the Bard’s Lore’s.
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 6h6 hours agoMoreMinutes: Board concerned “they did not know much about Mr Whyte and had been unable to find much out”
——————
They could have asked every internet bampot about whyte as soon as he was linked with ibrox
CLUSTER ONEAPRIL 24, 2017 at 18:43 ——————we are only in day three and we have 12 weeks to go…very interesting it will all become
============================
It is clear already that the media are selectively reporting. They won’t go near the wee tax case and implications for Resolution 12.
Allyjambo April 24, 2017 at 17:03
EJ,
How is Findlay carrying out his cross-examination? Is it quite hard hitting, does he seem to be setting traps, or is it quite matter of fact, like a wee chat with (so far) three people he’s quite well acquainted with?
I suspect that it must be quite disconcerting to be questioned by someone with inside knowledge of how things are run at Ibrox, who might well know just how candid you are being with your answers – even if he’s not! The way he seemed to catch Smith out when he’d denied knowledge of possible administration, only to bring up Smith’s own words from the minutes of a meeting, made me think he’d set a trap. Was that the impression you got from the questioning and actually seeing the reaction?
=================
On Friday, I thought Findlay was very courteous and respectful to Smith and McCoist and used his knowledge of the inner sanctum of the Blue Room to good effect. He obviously phrases his questions in a way to lead the witnesses to the answer he expects. Any experienced QC will generally not ask questions to which he doesn’t know the answer beforehand. It comes across very much as leading the witness, but it’s all for the benefit of the Jury. At one point this afternoon I had anticipated the next question in my head, and sure enough it was word for word with what Findlay asked. It can be quite boring at times with some of the apparently simplistic questions asked about topics that most of us are very familiar, e.g. difference between Ltd and Plc companies, or exec and non exec directors, or what is an escrow account.
Today, was a bit different. Prentice was very slow and methodical in his approach (more so than on Friday), but also trying to lead McIntyre to certain conclusions about the financial state of the club. I thought I was listening to James Keegan at one point as he paused for spells looking for his next point in his papers (JC will know what I mean).
Findlay on the other hand was a bit more assertive, combative and at times dismissive of McIntyre. e.g. there was an exchange about the Ticketus loans in 2009 and 2010 and why their existence was not published to shareholders. Findlay had earlier established that McIntyre’s fiduciary duty was to the shareholders, but then asked why the Ticketus arrangements had never been mentioned, even in the Annual Report, describing them as “hushed up”. McIntyre responded by saying that they didn’t need to be disclosed. Findlay’s retort was along the lines of “not disclosed, you mean hushed up, you’re playing with words Mr McIntyre”
Findlay also used hypothetical scenarios to good effect about making an offer to buy out a company from McIntyre. The scene included him holding a finger poised over an imaginary iPad ready to transfer the offered funds to McIntyre, with a 5,4,3,2,1 countdown, but McIntyre still said no. Unflustered, Findlay responded curtly with “OK then you can keep your company, but it might be five years before you get another offer”
Findlay also managed to get a few chuckles about the value of making progress in Europe, when he commented that the club had only managed a day trip to Malmo in its last sojourn.
I’ve been very impressed with Findlay so far, but we have yet to hear from the headline witnesses, such as SDM. He’s easy on the ear.
EJ, thanks for updates.
We know the sort of questions we would like to be put to Minty if called, and under oath…but I can’t help thinking he would avoid a proper grilling on the stand.
And wrt the witnesses list: are Minty’s HBOS ‘sugar daddies’ – Masterton & Cummings – listed, do you know ?
EJ
Big Big thanks to you and also to James Doleman and others who report realities fairly.
We are collectively in your debt.
easyJamboApril 24, 2017 at 19:33 (Edit)
Thanks for that, EJ, your description of how Findlay questioned Smith and McCoist is just how I had envisaged it:
‘On Friday, I thought Findlay was very courteous and respectful to Smith and McCoist and used his knowledge of the inner sanctum of the Blue Room to good effect.’
I am sure they were just called as a link to the football side and to set the scene at a football club which is so different from that at a normal company that is the subject of a court case, so Findlay would see no value in being hard on them – and ‘courteous and respectful’, I am sure, is a very good way to get information from people in any court!
AllyjamboApril 24, 2017 at 12:01
BILL1903APRIL 24, 2017 at 11:08 (EDIT)
In my opinion Ecobhoy was much more precise than any current bloggers, and took his subject matter more seriously than he took himself.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ecobhoy was a great contributor to this site, and although I disagreed him once or twice, I have nothing but admiration for the way he took on the State Aid fantasists, and totally dismantled their arguments by meticulous research. Much missed, I hope he’s OK and enjoying whatever he’s doing these days.
Findlay on Ibrox “bits of it were falling to bits” McIntyre”We’d held back a bit on repairs”?
——————–
DESPERATE Rangers fans have signed up to repair their crumbling stadium – for free.Now a team of around 50 painters, joiners, brickies, plasterers and welders could be set to descend on the Govan stadium and their Murray Park training ground.
The initiative comes a week after Gers powerbroker Dave King said the venues are likely to require millions of pounds in repairs. Previous estimates have speculated that the cost of general repairs could total £10million.
That inititive fell flat after the co-ordinator became embroiled in a row over racist material.
—————
RANGERS chairman Dave King has said it will take several years to bring the club’s facilities up to standard. Mr King, in a new statement addressing fans questions said it is “as as unfortunate as it is true that Ibrox and its surrounding environs have been sadly neglected for many years – even prior to the Craig Whyte takeover”. He asserted that during the final years of Sir David Murray’s reign at Ibrox the bank put club finances “under so much pressure” that stadium upkeep was “relegated to essentials only”. He said there were no plans to extend the capacity of the stadium at present as that is “structurally not feasible”. Ibrox required “significant maintenance work” and there needs to be a major overhaul of the roofs of the Broomloan, Copland and Sandy Jardine stands. Disabled facilities need to be “brought in to the 21st century” and the concourse facilities require upgrading. Several corporate hospitality suites are being upgraded over the course of this summer. He said: “The present reality is that it will take several years to bring the facilities up to the standard that our supporters and the local community deserve – but the board is determined to do that. ———————
HELD BACK A BIT…“Don’t put off until tomorrow what you can do today.” Benjamin Franklin
If the ibrox club had done the repairs at the time and never held back maybe the stadium would not be in such bad state. I believe they never held back a bit on buying players when the ground needed many repairs
Cluster one at 18’34
‘So what have we learned so far.?There was a H&S Liability that was not addressed.’
Have we learned this?
We know from the terms of the indictment that Craig White agreed to pay a sum to meet a Health and Safety liability. As far as I am aware no evidence has been led as to whether this was payment for work done, or required to be done. Again no evidence has been led as to whether this was paid or partly paid. We do know that he paid off some of what he had agreed to do i the indictment (Lloyds, for example).
One thing that surprised be today was that McIntyre seemed to be unaware that Ticketus normally generated their profits by buying STs at a discount to the face value.
He stated that his knowledge of the arrangements was that Ticketus charged a fee for their services. The example given appeared to backed up by documentary evidence, with a £160k fee charged on a £5.1m advance before the takeover. That equates roughly to a 3% return over a couple of months which is still pretty attractive in APR terms.
upthehoopsApril 24, 2017 at 18:39
CLUSTER ONEAPRIL 24, 2017 at 18:34 So what have we learned so far.?There was a H&S Liability that was not addressed.Ally had negotiated a bumper pay out if he didn’t become manager.And rangers knew they owed £2.8 mill to the inland revenue in jan 2011.
==============================
January 2011 is before 31 March 2011, which was the date the SFA awarded Rangers a European licence. So when DID this bill crystalise
========================
Today is the beginning of the lifting of the lid of confidentiality that has protected the SFA so far.
A liability no matter when it is accepted does not become an overdue payable if it meets certain conditions to excuse it as such and confidentiality has enabled the SFA to avoid explaining the circumstances in which any conditions for excusing the liability were met.
The SFA might still be able to prove that in respect of the liability accepted in Feb/March 2011 no overdue payable as UEFA define one existed at 31st March 2011, 30th June 2011 or 30th September 2011 so I caution against jumping fences too early. Remember the Bryson factor.
However regardless of what comes out tomorrow or later, I doubt anything will be said or done by SFA until the trial is over by which time all the right questions will have become clear.
ULYANOVAAPRIL 24, 2017 at 22:04
Have we learned this?We know from the terms of the indictment that Craig White agreed to pay a sum to meet a Health and Safety liability. As far as I am aware no evidence has been led as to whether this was payment for work done, or required to be done.
—————
If the Health and Safety liability.was payment for work done or required to be done.we know from statements from Mr king this work was not done.RANGERS chairman Dave King has said it will take several years to bring the club’s facilities up to standard. Mr King, in a new statement addressing fans questions said it is “as as unfortunate as it is true that Ibrox and its surrounding environs have been sadly neglected for many years – even prior to the Craig Whyte takeover”
sorry if i can’t reply back tonight, i’m in the middle of listening to the latest TWM Episode 14
So Lloyds was to blame for Rangers not being able to complete necessary maintenance – as well as buy players ?
Yes, I think that’s what King – and the ex-Rangers FD – meant to say…
neepheid
April 24, 2017 at 21:28
—————————————————-
If we are getting into nostalgia, try this
Type into google search as per below
site:http://www.sfmonitor.org/ search ecobhoy
(exactly as shown)
The first entry found should be
Podcast Episode 1 – The Scottish Football Monitor – sfm.scot
(you can use any seach term after search above eg neepheid)
You can then go to edit at the top left then, find on this page from drop down, type in search item eg ecobhoy
Then tab through all highlighted posts.
I have too much time available, I know.
EASYJAMBO
APRIL 24, 2017 at 22:07
One thing that surprised be today was that McIntyre seemed to be unaware that Ticketus normally generated their profits by buying STs at a discount to the face value.
He stated that his knowledge of the arrangements was that Ticketus charged a fee for their services. The example given appeared to backed up by documentary evidence, with a £160k fee charged on a £5.1m advance before the takeover. That equates roughly to a 3% return over a couple of months which is still pretty attractive in APR terms.
==========================================
It’s absolutely incredible (in the true sense of the word) that he didn’t know the business model.
In the normal course of events Ticketus actually paid a fee to the club. That was for the club selling the season tickets Ticketus had bought, basically acting as an agent for them.
The club still sold the ticket, meaning the supporter didn’t realise they were buying from Ticketus rather then the club.
It is entirely possible that Whyte came up with a different arrangement. However that was Ticketus’ normal business model and one which Rangers had used before.
TWM 14 Now out – with James Doleman
This week’s tribute: Killie’s Frank Beattie
Excellent podcast BP.
Interesting and informative to hear James Doleman explain the workings of the court.
And if you and/or Tris do end up in the Big Hoose, I’m sure the Bampots will come and visit!
Would be very interesting to hear James’ opinions on the proceedings – after the verdict has been delivered.
Today’s Daily Record is headlining with the Rangers board had no idea where Craig Whyte made all his money. Perhaps they should have asked their award winning journalist.
It’s a good job it wasn’t stated in court that the Rangers board had accepted the week tax bill before 31 March 2011. The Daily Record might have headlined asking the SFA why they awarded them a European licence!…oh wait that WAS stated in court.
StevieBCApril 25, 2017 at 04:06
“…Excellent podcast BP…”
______
I agree.
Mind you, while JD may be ‘comfortable’ in a Court-room, I still am a wee bit feart to look the Judge in the eye, or raise an eyebrow, or put any kind of expression on my face, or nodin agreement, or shake my head in disagreement with anything that anybody says.
And if there’s a polis on duty in the Court and he looks at me sideways if I’m jotting something down I get a wee bit apprehensive.
The public benches in Court-rooms ,from the very second the judge enters, are certainly not places in which to be anything but respectful and quiet at all times.
My sadness at leaving Australia and the grandweans next week will be to some extent ameliorated by the fact that I will be able to attend Court again, at least on some days.
Cross-examination of McIntyre continues, Findlay playing to the bears by noting – to buy a football club, you must buy shares in the company that operates it.
Of course, no one is going to contradict him, and it is two ex-directors of Rangers in discussion. We can be 100% certain that without the OC/NC debate this would never have been raised by either counsel.
McIntyre states that sale was a ‘private bargain between Whyte and Murray’.
Findlay suggests the board were in a ‘financial predicament’ in 2011 and that the stadium needed a ‘large amount of money spent on it’, suggesting £1.7m.
Findlay says the board had no idea how to (deal?) with the BTC potential liability of over £50m.
“That would be the end of Rangers”
McIntyre agrees there was no money to pay the £1.7m but suggests could have borrowed to keep stadium open.
Seems to be getting to the nitty gritty of the state RFC was in!
Nothing done to secure £2.8m to pay HMRC, McIntyre agrees.
McIntyre agrees Murray called Whyte’s bid ‘the only show in town’
Findlay suggest the board could have cut costs even if it meant finishing lower in the league.
McIntyre says ‘it’s a balance’
Apart from the £1.7m, everything so far seems to back up what the bampots knew already, years before the SMSM!
Findlay askes who originated the ‘tax planning’, McIntyre says he doesn’t know
Now moving on to DOS scheme. Shows McIntyre a letter from HMRC dated 2010 re tax due on DOS
PAYE and NIC were payable in full…will litigate all scheme users
Findlay suggests ‘HMRC were coming for the club and were after blood’
‘yes’ McIntyre replies.
Interesting it’s ‘the club’ and not the company that apparently you had to buy shares in to own the club who’s blood HMRC was after! Somebody must have forgotten to tell them…
Auldheid, here it is:
Letter dated 26 November 2010, McIntyre confirmed Rangers accepted liability as there was a ‘side letter’
Lady Stacey asks relevance – Findlay says it’s vital to defence
Findlay agrees (I don’t know to what but prob something Lady Stacey said) ‘this is not a public inquiry, it is a trial’. Lady S accepts his statement.
Re : AJ @ 10.57 25 April
I’m treading carefully here but Wow ! on date quoted .
McIntyre asked if any payment made to HMRC, says there was not, a decision made by Murray Group.
Findlay suggests ‘the liability was just left around in the hope someone else would pay it’
McIntyre says ‘I wasn’t aware of it either’
Findlay ‘and you were the Rangers’ finance director’?
McIntyre ‘Yes’
Findlay notes not paying the tax bill cost over £500,000 in interest.
I doubt the SFA feel ‘treading carefully’ will help them much. I just hope JD didn’t make an error with the date, but he can’t have, as it was well known, even to the SFA, by November 2011. So November 2010 it must be!
A song for Mr Regan and the SFA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG9m-6dVKRI
“Nowhere to run, Nowhere to hide”
24 April 2011 Paul Murray had ‘an idea for a bid’ Findlay asks, McIntyre says ‘yes’.
With a search for documents underway, Lady Stacey says she is unhappy with the ‘chaos around her’. Court adjourns.
Looking forward to hearing from Auldheid on how he feels about the revelation of RFC’s acceptance of the overdue tax bill in November 2010 and how it will impact on Resolution 12. I hope it will give him the leverage with the Celtic board he hopes for.
We know the SFA will not respond to our questions on the matter of ‘crystallisation’, but, at the very least, they must be forced into saying that RFC lied over the tax bill at the time of their Euro License application.
But, of course, there may be much more to come on the issue in the weeks ahead, and maybe RFC didn’t quite lie to the SFA!
The Nov 2010 document basically said your options are pay up now, appeal to a tribunal before 31 December, or we will come after you. There was a recommendation to at least pay something on account in order to stop interest accruing.
easyJamboApril 25, 2017 at 11:25 (Edit)
The Nov 2010 document basically said your options are pay up now, appeal to a tribunal before 31 December, or we will come after you. There was a recommendation to at least pay something on account in order to stop interest accruing.
__________________________
Presumably, as McIntyre confirmed RFC had accepted liability, that no appeal was made. Is that the impression you got, EJ?
Cross-examination continues with questions about P Murray’s proposal to take over RFC.
Main point so far – shares would have been underwritten by party who wanted to remain confidential.
PM’s proposal states ‘the club would be insulated from any liability’ over the tax case.
McIntyre says he thought Murray’s chance of success with this proposal was ‘slim’
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/856809169005019137
Would it be fair to suggest that Minty could have taken the decision to pay the liability, thus avoiding any Euro license debate, and also negating wee Craigy’s negotiating card, from which he would have recovered the cost of the liability anyway?
A strange decision by MIH…….Unless they had an inkling it was not getting paid.
Findlay suggests Murray Group saw Rangers as ‘a millstone around their neck’
McIntyre asked if he was ever concerned information was withheld from Whyte during takeover ‘I had concerns about salaries’ he replies.
McIntyre: ‘onus’ of providing Whyte with information on tax case was with Murray Group