The Case for a New SFA.

Avatar ByBig Pink

The Case for a New SFA.

After making inquiries into progress on Resolution 12 to the Celtic AGM of 2013 there is little doubt in my mind that the SFA made a serious error in the process of UEFA licensing.

Here are some facts:

 

  1. UEFA does not issue licences to clubs who have due tax bills outstanding,
  2. UEFA require the SFA to satisfy themselves of a club’s eligibility for a licence and that clubs have provided proof no overdue tax payable exists,
  3. UEFA also require a club to tell the SFA and UEFA if, after the issue of a licence there are material changes in their circumstances which would affect their eligibility – including the situation at #1 above,
  4. UEFA awarded Rangers a licence to play in European competition in March 2011,
  5. In May 2011 Rangers received a tax bill, which they did not contest or appeal or agree a payment plan. The bill (which remains unpaid) was overdue by 30 June 2011,
  6. UEFA received no notice of this,
  7. Rangers did not lose their licence and in fact competed in both the Champions’ League and The Europa League in that season.

 

None of these facts are disputed (as far as is known) by anyone connected to the saga. What is in doubt, because the SFA won’t answer the question, is whether they received a copy of the tax bill and the May letter that accompanied it from Rangers or not.

If they did send it to the SFA, Rangers could reasonably argue that they did their bit and the SFA fell down on the job by failing to notify UEFA of their new unfavourable tax status.

If Rangers did not send it, then they had broken not only UEFA FFP rules but more importantly the trust amongst SFA members that full disclosure is honestly made in a self-certification process. The SFA in not carrying out their monitoring responsibilities properly and using the powers UEFA FFP gave them also broke that trust.

In either case, there is a systematic failure by the SFA to administer the sport effectively; either through a failure of trust, a failure of administration – or both.

Even worse, in the four years that have elapsed since this incident, it seems that nothing has been done to put matters right. The SFA have been very active in refusing to answer questions on the matter, particularly this one;

“How will you prevent it happening again?”

 Incredibly, up to now, no measures have been put in place to add rigour to the licensing process. Are they really saying that they think the process was carried out satisfactorily?

No they are saying nothing. Silence and denial, followed by silence and inaction.

So what is the point of this article? Let’s call out the elephant in the room right away – it is unequivocally not to have a go at Rangers. This is no longer really about Rangers at all, but about the SFA’s mal-governance of the game. Besides, clubs affected by this seeming failure on the part of the authorities (in that year Celtic, Dundee United and Hearts and Kilmarnock) are hardly likely to successfully sue a club now in liquidation (although small shareholders might take a different view with regard to the SFA’s conduct).

Nor am I seeking to find some retrospective punishment for the club (as far as I know sanctions are neither available retrospectively, nor useful in this case ) but to be aware that the question above urgently needs to be addressed if the status of football as a sport is to be maintained.

To the extent that this is about what has happened to Rangers, does anyone – no matter what club they owe their allegiance to – seriously consider that TRFC would NOT be in a better situation today had the SFA acted with propriety and applied their rules correctly in 2011/12?

With the kind of money on offer these days for entry into Europe, and the interdependent nature of the game, it seems fairly self-evident that trust is not enough to allow effective regulation, and that incompetent governance where money is the paramount consideration is unacceptable.

The SFA has long enjoyed a misconceived impression of its function as being that of a quasi-legal body, bestowing upon it a status of independence and aloofness from the partisan interest of the clubs. In the main, fans have largely bought into that myth. However the SFA is nothing of the kind.

It is in fact merely a cartel which is allowed to govern itself for its own benefit and is only accountable to the clubs that make up its membership, and not the fans. Check out the last sentences of almost any rule, where discretionary powers awarded to itself effectively render the rule worthless and unenforceable.

Literally, a nihilistic approach to governance

Maybe it is time the SFA scrapped the get out of jail discretionary clauses, and put some robust regulation in place to ensure the financial transparency of all clubs?

Even better, politicians are never slow to tell us of the importance of football to the social fabric of the country – in that case why not follow their own rhetoric, recognise that it cannot be allowed to self regulate in narrow self interest, and legislate to have football governed independently?

If I was a Rangers fan, I’d be thinking that the SFA’s failure to police the UEFA licencing issue helped accelerate the club’s demise – by making it easier to paper over the cracks.

If I was a Celtic, Hearts, Dundee United or Killie fan, well the consequences for them in terms of lost financial and competitive opportunities are fairly obvious.

Conclusion? The clubs can no longer be trusted to run the affairs of the industry themselves.

A new independent, accountable regulatory body (funded by the clubs) is the minimum we need to save the game in this country. It should comprise representatives of the clubs, the fans and other stakeholders – and it should have a holistic remit as its prime directive, whilst ensuring fair and equitable treatment of all clubs.

It can take decisions on the basis of what is good for the game without the baggage of self-interest, and without any west of Scotland institutionalised bias. Of course Scotland isn’t alone in this. Football is a powerful political force across the world, and as developments at FIFA over the past couple of years have demonstrated, it is institutionally corrupt. The clubs can no longer be allowed to run it as they see fit, and we need to begin a campaign which will ultimately convince the pay-at-the-gate fan of the truth of that.

The UEFA licensing issue is only a pebble in the sand of football incompetence and corruption, but it is a microcosm of what ails the game. The good of the sport, and not individual clubs, is paramount. The SFA cannot and will not deliver that.

The case for a new regulatory body is clear, and the status quo is not an option unless the death of the sport is deemed acceptable.

There is little doubt in my mind that unless regime change is effected, in a few decades there will be no regime .

About the author

Avatar

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

1,255 Comments so far

ianagain

ianagainPosted on4:38 pm - Oct 15, 2015


Do RIFC have insurance  that would cover CG?
Knowing  DCK its probably one of the first costs he dispensed with.
Chancers make their own luck dontcha know.
You would be advised to take the offer of ‘look after yer car mister’ lf parking at the Albion.

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on5:09 pm - Oct 15, 2015


A lateral thought
The main participants in this pantomime are all  Spivs
Q
What would a Spiv ask himself when faced with providing insurance cover for himself and fellow Spivs?
A
How can I exploit this situation to siphon some cash out of the business and dump the consequences on the business itself
So
I wouldn`t be a bit surprised if the Insurance co chosen to provide cover to D&O turned out to be some offshore entity with links to the Spivs who charged a hefty premium and gave appropriate backhanders.
Such an entity would be ready and willing to liquidate itself at short notice to avoid having to cough up leaving the Insured dependent on  his previous employer for cover

View Comment

Cygnus X2

Cygnus X2Posted on5:17 pm - Oct 15, 2015


So. just for laughs…

Let’s imagine that CG’s claim for (unforeseen) legal expenses pushes TRFC and RIFC over the edge and into insolvency.
DCK gets to flush the whole thing down the toilet, now that he can’t get at any of the cash that BDO recovered for creditors, but CG is to blame.
The companies go down the swanny (ie?) before the judicial sh1t hits the fan and paperwork in Govan gets ‘lost in the confusion’.
DCK gets away no worse off than he is now (he hasn’t got much upside left).
CG escapes time at her majesty’s pleasure.  Rangers fans hate him, but they do already.
CW still gets painted as the primary bad guy, but he’s there already.
No one goes to jail, therefore everybody wins.
Any takers?

View Comment

Avatar

NapoleonPosted on5:17 pm - Oct 15, 2015


Just noticed an alert for this in my mail folder, anyone any idea what could be coming here ?

I’m assuming it’s in some way related to Auchenhowie ?

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on5:22 pm - Oct 15, 2015


SFM central has been a busy place today. A few visitors to the Plush Suite have come and gone, and I am now here myself with several orphaned cable ends to find homes for 🙁

Things are really beginning to take shape though, and I expect some Podcast action very soon.

Tomorrow will of course be interesting (potentially). Can anyone attending PM me this evening please?

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on6:15 pm - Oct 15, 2015


Re D&O it did occur to me that maybe RIFC has struggled to secure cover at an acceptable premium.
SFM readers may find this hard to believe in view of the constant stream of upstanding characters who have passed through the Ibrox Boardroom over the past few years. Surely any potential insurer would have drawn great comfort from that….
I also wondered whether an auditor would note to the Board that there had been an obvious oversight if such cover had not been effected, this being something that could have a serious impact upon the business in the highly unlikely event that there should be any wee problem. I mean, who would think that possible down Govan way?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:15 pm - Oct 15, 2015


Cygnus X2 15th October 2015 at 5:17 pm #So. just for laughs…
The companies go down the swanny (ie?)
==============================
That would be the Suwanee (or Suwannee) River in Southern Georgia/Northern Florida.

There’s two famous songs that include its (mispelt) name in their lyrics; ‘The Old Folks At Home’ by Stephen Foster & ‘Swanee’ by I. Caesar & G. Gershwin, the latter made famous by Al Jolson. 

View Comment

Avatar

gerrybhoy67Posted on7:45 pm - Oct 15, 2015


This is the latest company our esteemed football rulers have hooked up with according to BBC online — 
         ” Energy firm Utilita will sponsor the rest of this season’s Scottish League Cup in a deal, the SPFL announce.”
            Then in other news                  
“Pre-payment energy provider Utilita has been hit with a £560,000 penalty after wrongly blocking customers from switching supplier.
Regulator Ofgem found the company had blocked 40,000 customers from moving to other suppliers.
Refunds totalling £110,000 will be paid to customers who lost out financially as a result.”
It seems this company specialises in Pre-Payment Meters which are more expensive to use and are often the only choice for some people.
The game in Scotland has a distinct lack of morals and integrity and although some of our sponsors may be big and wealthy companies there is no gloating to be done with our choice.
Another sign that change at the very top cannot come soon enough. 
Mr Clark I sincerely hope you gain entry tomorrow so that we can be assured of all the facts as reported.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on8:04 pm - Oct 15, 2015


I see the club from Ibrox today announced a new head of recruitment, the same one who worked with Warburton at Brentford. If they are taking on staff is it a sign they are not as cash strapped as we might think?

View Comment

Avatar

shawfieldtoteboardPosted on8:51 pm - Oct 15, 2015


I see the club from Ibrox today announced a new head of recruitment, the same one who worked with Warburton at Brentford. If they are taking on staff is it a sign they are not as cash strapped as we might think?

Zero hours contracts?

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:15 pm - Oct 15, 2015


pthehoops 15th October 2015 at 8:04 pm #I see the club from Ibrox today announced a new head of recruitment, the same one who worked with Warburton at Brentford. If they are taking on staff is it a sign they are not as cash strapped as we might think?
——————–
An ibrox club tried to recruit a player when in Administration. so who knows what goes through their heads

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on9:31 pm - Oct 15, 2015


upthehoops 15th October 2015

Well we have all been making assumptions based on past accounts etc, so it is hard to get an accurate picture of what is going on.

However I believe there  must be an improvement in finances  given the cost of the squad will have dropped, the gardeners are about paid off and season ticket sales are up. That is why I am skeptical about the regular ‘End of the World’ shouts of being bust by the end of each and every month.

As I have said before I expect T’Rangers to get into the next calendar year without the need for additional finance.

Of course given there is no openness or transparency down Govan way these days we may never know if the kid’s inheritance has been dipped into already or if the war chest is about to be opened.

However even when things are heading for the buffers businesses often try and give the impression of everything being normal and indeed on the up and up.

The question is, given that austerity is required at Ibrox I can’t imagine Mr McParland will be on a great salary and one wonders what he would have been on a Burnely. So why the move after a matter of months? Is Warburton really that magic?

Maybe he just enjoys a challenge or Stevie in IT just needs extra help getting to grips with the Windows 10 update.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:01 pm - Oct 15, 2015


gerrybhoy67 15th October 2015 at 7:45 pm
‘..Mr Clark I sincerely hope you gain entry tomorrow ‘
_________
I had to look around to see who the ‘Mr’ is! 02
I discovered today that , apart I suppose from those cases that are televised live, there seems to be no such thing as routine ‘access privileges’ for the Press.They just turn up like any ordinary member of the public and take a seat in the public gallery-if there’s one free!
And it was the opinion of the chap who told me that that although there may be a few more people attending tomorrow, there will be adequate seating accommodation.Press people tend to try to sit in the front seat, but anyone can sit there-it’s not theirs by right of being ‘Press’.
I think I must have watched too many old movies, or read too many references to ‘the press gallery’ in reports of big trials, but I was a wee bit surprised at that. But my informant knows what he’s talking about , working in the place!
I think I should get in ok, if I get off this blog and into my bed at a reasonable hour so that I can get up early enough to be outside the Court before it opens!

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on10:09 pm - Oct 15, 2015


John Clark 15th October 2015 at 10:01 pm #
______________________________________
Good luck JC and more power to your elbow0404

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on10:40 pm - Oct 15, 2015


Given the invisible hand of support available to a self proclaimed “Establishment” club it ought to be simple to foresee when all matters relevant to survival will coalesce
Probably
When a 25pt deduction for administration or liquidtion makes no difference to whether or not Zombie1 or Zombie2 or its successor gain promotion
Everything else is capable of being swept under the carpet

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:41 pm - Oct 15, 2015


John Clark, I agree with Jean,  go there and let us know what is going on.  with gratitude JC.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:43 pm - Oct 15, 2015


OOPs missed my smileys,  04101421

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:05 am - Oct 16, 2015


jimbo 15th October 2015 at 10:41 pm #
‘.. go there and let us know what is going on.  ‘
________
It’s at times like this that I do wish I was right into twitter and texting with two thumbs going like the clappers o’hell!
Because I think it’s possible, maybe even likely, that the judge will allow people to use their mobiles , as the proceedings proceed!
They might still have to ask for permission beforehand, but on a couple of earlier occasions when there was interest in a TRFC case, the newsmen in the Courtroom were tweeting  their editors when anything caught their  interest.
And I can scarcely make a phone call on my supposedly smart phone, never mind text at speed.
And as for Twitter.- me? Confined to 140 characters? Can you imagine! Nuh, neither can I.02

View Comment

Avatar

LUGOSIPosted on12:33 am - Oct 16, 2015


Dear Mr Clark,
I hope that you have a pleasant morning and I would like to thank you for your dedication to the cause.
Now remember to take your chapeau off in Court and under no circumstances refer to Oldclub/Newclub.
We all await your report.
Yours sincerely,

View Comment

Avatar

RayCharlezPosted on12:35 am - Oct 16, 2015


I am usually wrong but for a bit of pre-trial mischief making, wouldn’t it be interesting if Brian Stockbridge is listed as a witness today?
It’s the only explanation that makes sense to me.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on2:28 am - Oct 16, 2015


Supposedly smart phone 21 I know what you mean!  Mind you my phone has settled many arguments in the pub with some of the old guys I drink with.  (I’m 62 BTW).  When it suits them it’s the greatest gadget out.  When they lose a barney the internet is the most untrustworthy shower of liars on the planet.   Sometimes I kid on I’ve looked something up which I no chance of finding,  like who Jock Smiths first wife came from.  I usually say Fauldhouse , that seems to shut them up for some reason.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:06 am - Oct 16, 2015


So today is the day the big trial starts. All we can hope is that justice is pursued and achieved. I believe part of that is controlling angry mobs outside courts who want to pre-determine the outcome of a trial.  If anyone wants to see this mob in action have a look here.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL3a2LHEqqw&w=420&h=315%5D

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR7nb9CWVTE&w=420&h=315%5D

View Comment

Flocculent Apoidea

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on8:59 am - Oct 16, 2015


John Clark 16th October 2015 at 12:05 am 
“Because I think it’s possible, maybe even likely, that the judge will allow people to use their mobiles , as the proceedings proceed!”
———————————-
Would that include recording?  If so, we need to have a whip round for a box of memory cards.  (Remember to pause it when you go to the loo, though, JC)21

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on9:43 am - Oct 16, 2015


Lots of fascinating posts. Can’t add anything to the technical, legal, financial speculation. 

After catching up here, I was doing a little English proofing on a report my son is submitting at Copenhagen Business School. It’s about a well-known German car company’s problems. This quote jumped out at me: 

While the actual scandal is the result of managerial misconduct, this is itself in turn a result of underlying dysfunctional corporate governance.

Clever lad. Did someone mention the SFA? 🙂

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on9:50 am - Oct 16, 2015


James Doleman tweeting live.

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on10:14 am - Oct 16, 2015


Corrupt official 16th October 2015 at 9:50 am #James Doleman tweeting live.
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman
===============
Just had a look at the photos of Green and Whyte arriving. No baying mob, and all very civilised. Whoever decided to switch this hearing away from Glasgow should be applauded for actually showing a bit of common sense.
Apparently there is currently some legal discussion inside the court on whether press and public should be admitted to the hearing.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on10:23 am - Oct 16, 2015


neepheid 16th October 2015 at 10:14 am
   Maybe it’s a bit too early for them. 09
Quite surprised by Craigy’s body language…Looking quite relaxed, While Chicco…..Not so much. 07

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on10:30 am - Oct 16, 2015


James Dolan reporting on twitter that no tweeting from court but he is being allowed in and will update in breaks.  It should mean JC is in the public gallery too.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on11:03 am - Oct 16, 2015


tykebhoy 16th October 2015 at 10:30 am 
    JC will be pretty much a “face” there Tyke. I think he could cadge a cup of tea at anybody’s door. Lord Turnbull?….Is it a sign.  13

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on1:43 pm - Oct 16, 2015


Lord Turnbull has ruled that proceedings may not be reported on Social Media,  so it is going to be difficult to share what has gone on.
Be prepared for a long drawn out process though.

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on2:45 pm - Oct 16, 2015


easyJambo 16th October 2015 at 1:43 pm #

Perhaps you were thrown by CO’s post immediately before but it is Lord Tyre unless there has been another switcheroo.  Interestingly another Twitter user spoofing reporting from court mentioned Lord Turnbull as the presiding judge too 22

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on2:55 pm - Oct 16, 2015


Hi outside mansion house now with a box of biscuits and an angry wife can anyone tell me the office address please!

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on4:00 pm - Oct 16, 2015


James Doleman reporting an adjournment until 16.30.  That’s late for a judge to be in court.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on4:03 pm - Oct 16, 2015


JC and I have left for the day but proceedings are continuing after 4.30.

There will be further hearings, probably in December before any trial date is set.

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on4:13 pm - Oct 16, 2015


While we await our own intrepid court reporters.  From James Doleman’s blog

Five people appeared in court in Edinburgh today, Craig Whyte, David Grier, David Whitehouse, Paul Clark and Charles Green. For legal reasons we cannot report the bulk of proceedings but can summarise the charges as they stand at the moment.
The indictment read to the court is 20 pages long but can be broken down to three sections. The first set of charges relate to allegations that Craig Whyte fraudulently acquired Rangers Football Club (RFC) by concealing the fact he was funding his takeover using money borrowed from “Ticketus” (Octopus investments) instead claiming to various bodies that he was using his own personal wealth. He also committed fraud by not disclosing he had been previously banned from being a company director. David Grier David Whitehouse and Paul Clark are charged with conspiring in this alleged fraud to the sum of £28,262,094 with Whitehouse and Clark also accused of conspiring to pervert the course of justice by not disclosing information to a court.
The second set of charges relate to allegations of a conspiracy between Whyte, Whitehouse, Clark and Charles Green to place RFC in administration and then, after appointing Duff and Phelps as administrators acquiring the assets of the business for a sum significantly below the market value using a company, Sevco 5088 as a vehicle. This, the prosecution say deprived the company’s creditors of money that should have been due to them. Greens consortium, the Crown said, paid Duff and Phelps a £200,000 “exclusivity fee,” of which £137,500 of which was refunded by Craig Whyte. Green is also charged with misleading investors and others about Whyte’s role in the transaction.
The third set of charges relate to Green transferring the assets of the club to a new entity “Sevco Scotland Ltd,” hence taking possession of a “non-cash asset” without the approval of the directors of Sevco 5088. This also deprived investors in Sevco 5088 of a financial benefit and later led to inviting the public to invest in shares at an Initial Public Offering while depriving them of pertinent information, ie the potential claim of Sevco 5088 on the company.
No pleas or declarations can be reported. The case continues.

https://rangersfraudcase.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/the-indictment/

View Comment

TallBoy Poppy

TallBoy PoppyPosted on4:33 pm - Oct 16, 2015


John Clark 15th October 2015 at 10:01 pm #
Thanks for taking the time to PM me, JC. I’ve sent you a copy of the OoC’s own guidelines on what ‘recognised’ court reporters may have access to. Judging by today’s reporting restrictions, the Crown are quite rightly trying to keep a lid on idle speculation. I’m hoping this will not go so far as to prevent fair and full reporting of proceedings when the bunfight starts in ernest. Is Mr Doleman’s shorthand up to speed?02

View Comment

Avatar

y4rmyPosted on4:41 pm - Oct 16, 2015


From James Doleman’s blog:

The second set of charges relate to allegations of a conspiracy between Whyte, Whitehouse, Clark and Charles Green to place RFC in administration and then, after appointing Duff and Phelps as administrators acquiring the assets of the business for a sum significantly below the market value using a company, Sevco 5088 as a vehicle. This, the prosecution say deprived the company’s creditors of money that should have been due to them. Greens consortium, the Crown said, paid Duff and Phelps a £200,000 “exclusivity fee,” of which £137,500 of which was refunded by Craig Whyte. Green is also charged with misleading investors and others about Whyte’s role in the transaction.

Of course, should this be proved, the SFA will undoubtedly revisit the Pinsent Masons investigation and act upon it.14
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/10183586/Charles-Greens-controversial-Rangers-takeover-cleared-by-SFA.html

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on4:42 pm - Oct 16, 2015


Tykebhoy 16th October 2015 at 2:45 pm #easyJambo 16th October 2015 at 1:43 pm #Perhaps you were thrown by CO’s post immediately before but it is Lord Tyre unless there has been another switcheroo.  Interestingly another Twitter user spoofing reporting from court mentioned Lord Turnbull as the presiding judge too 

Lord Tyre is presiding over the ‘other’ case. The one that was held on Tuesday and pushed out to November

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on4:54 pm - Oct 16, 2015


James Dolman report     The Indictment     Five people appeared in court in Edinburgh today,  Craig Whyte, David Grier, David Whitehouse, Paul Clark and Charles Green. For legal reasons we cannot report the bulk of proceedings but can summarise the charges as they stand at the moment.     The indictment read to the court is 20 pages long but can be broken down to three sections. The first set of charges relate to allegations that Craig Whyte fraudulently acquired Rangers Football Club (RFC) by concealing the fact he was funding his takeover using money borrowed from “Ticketus” (Octopus investments) instead claiming to various bodies that he was using his own personal wealth. He also committed fraud by not disclosing he had been previously banned from being a company director. David Grier David Whitehouse and Paul Clark are charged with conspiring in this alleged fraud to the sum of £28,262,094 with Whitehouse and Clark also accused of conspiring to pervert the course of justice by not disclosing information to a court.     The second set of charges relate to allegations of a conspiracy between Whyte, Whitehouse, Clark and Charles Green to place RFC in administration and then, after appointing Duff and Phelps as administrators acquiring the assets of the business for a sum significantly below the market value using a company, Sevco 5088 as a vehicle. This, the prosecution say deprived the company’s creditors of money that should have been due to them. Greens consortium, the Crown said, paid Duff and Phelps a £200,000 “exclusivity fee,” of which £137,500 of which was refunded by Craig Whyte. Green is also charged with misleading investors and others about Whyte’s role in the transaction.     The third set of charges relate to Green transferring the assets of the club to a new entity “Sevco Scotland Ltd,” hence taking possession of a “non-cash asset” without the approval of the directors of Sevco 5088. This also deprived investors in Sevco 5088 of a financial benefit and later led to inviting the public to invest in shares at an Initial Public Offering while depriving them of pertinent information, ie the potential claim of Sevco 5088 on the company.     No pleas or declarations can be reported. The case continues.

My comment from CQN.

  Now folks just because it’s not being reported on social media does not mean it’s not happening or not being recorded.  

  In fact if it were being open season my suspicion would be that justice for all sides is being subverted.    
These are serious charges and have to be evidence backed or no case to answer.    

Early doors but based on above I reckon we are looking at a roll back to BDO taking over again and that puts the matter back into the both getting the best for creditors, but also meeting football justice, knowing what is now known from CF material about LNS deception and 2011 Licence deception.     That simply cannot be ignored in an attempt at a fresh start because in both cases there is no doubt whatsoever cheating did take place and that cannot be swept under the carpet this time.    

Feel the fear and do it anyway.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on4:56 pm - Oct 16, 2015


Of course, should this be proved, the SFA will undoubtedly revisit the Pinsent Masons investigation and burn it.

Cynical, moi?

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on5:01 pm - Oct 16, 2015


Y4rmy 
The SFA will stand highly exposed if matters proceed in an orderly fashion.
Duped, gullible, negligent and complicit.
There is enough evidence now to suggest guilty on all four counts which is why the current system must change.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on5:18 pm - Oct 16, 2015


In terms of what I’m reading is it going to be the case we will hear next to nothing about what is going on in this court case until it’s over? To what extent does the ban on reporting apply? 

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:19 pm - Oct 16, 2015


Auldheid 16th October 2015 at 4:54 pm #
——————————-
James has provided a fair summary of the charges.  The press were given a full copy (20 pages) of the indictment and I hope that someone gets permission to publish it in full.  I did manage to borrow a copy from one of the press and skim read it.  It is fair to say that there were several elements to each of the charges.
 
There were over 30 members of the public there at the start but it had diminished to about 10 by mid afternoon.
 
Similarly there were around 15 press people there which also diminished to 8 or 9 by mid afternoon.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on5:49 pm - Oct 16, 2015


upthehoops 16th October 2015 at 5:18 pm #
‘..is it going to be the case we will hear next to nothing about what is going on in this court case ‘
_______
Yes,we just don’t know what it might be safe to discuss. I think, though, it’s safe to say that  the actual case and charges were not at all a subject.
There was a lot of procedural discussions as the various QCs raised issues particular to their individual clients about which they sought further information from the Advocate Depute.
And much humming and hawing about whether some information is subject to disclosure, and whether a report from ‘expert witnesses  would be available sooner rather than later.
Everyone said they wanted to get on with setting a date for trial, but not before a number of those kinds of difficulties had been resolved, perhaps by further meetings between defence counsel and the Advocate Depute.
Court rose at about 3.45, after agreement that they would reconvene at 4.30 and sit late, since a continuation to Monday didn’t suit.
I think the judge was minded to set a date of 7th December for another preliminary hearing, with a four week time limit for the Advocate General to respond to the written ntes from Counsel.
I did not return to the Court for the 4.30 continuation, but they would be trying to resolve other issues about the volume of material  so that at the next hearing it would be easier to estimate the length of time that the full trial might need.
And I don’t think it could possibly be in breach of the rules if I say that the accused , when they walk in to the court-room, have to pass between the two rows of public seats, which are separated hardly by a leg-stretch, before they can get into the well of the court.

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on6:28 pm - Oct 16, 2015


Well
The Sevco 5088-Sevco Scotland shenanigans were deemed dodgy on SFM way back in 2012
It remains to be seen if  the accused are found guilty or otherwise
However
That we even have charges on this matter vindicates many of the SFM bloggers who posted at the time particularly the legal and insolvency experts

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on6:28 pm - Oct 16, 2015


Without commenting too much on the charges, Isn’t it amazing that The SFA, SPL, SFL, LNS, PM, a few Lords and a host of other bodies never noticed anything untoward, and will be in total surprise this evening. 
    Not to mention the SMSM and 40,000 ST holders. 
  The PF must be a bampot.  15
   

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on6:35 pm - Oct 16, 2015


Thanks to JC and Easyjambo for attending today. I think we all understand that they are very limited as to what they can say, but I am very reassured by the fact that the proceedings took place in open court before independent witnesses. The whole truth will come out soon enough, I guess, and I am sure there are very good reasons for keeping matters low key until the full trial starts.
Just a thought on the Pinsent Masons report. Didn’t TRFC pay the thick end of £1 million to find out absolutely nothing (allegedly)? And then pass a copy to the SFA? In the light of the indictments, could the hugely expensive report possibly have been commissioned, not to establish the truth, but to provide a fig leaf behind which both the Board of TRFC and the SFA could cower if the truth ever did emerge?

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on6:40 pm - Oct 16, 2015


More detail on the charges from the Record
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-fraud-case-ex-ibrox-6647320#

FORMER Rangers bosses Craig Whyte and Charles Green were in the high court today charged with participating in a major fraud. Whyte, 44, Green, 62, appeared at the High Court in Edinburgh alongside David Grier, 50, David Whitehouse, 50, and Paul Clark, 51. Prosecutors allege that the five men joined Gary Withey, 51, to embark on a course of criminal conduct during their time at the Ibrox club. The businessmen came to prominence following Sir David Murray’s decision to sell Rangers in May 2011. The Crown claims that in the months before and after the take over, Whyte, Withey, Grier, Whitehouse and Mr Clark carried out a fraudulent scheme. Lawyers claim they obtained a total of £28,262,094 from ticket company Ticketus and a business called Merchant Turnaround PLC. They also claim that Whyte, Whitehouse, Clark and Green conspired with each other to break the law following the administration of Rangers in 2012. It is claimed they took part in a scheme to acquire the club for a sum less than its true market value. Now prosecutors have begun the process to bring the six men to trial. The Crown were also hoping to bring another man – Imran Ahmad, 44, – to trial. However, for reasons which cannot be disclosed, Crown Office lawyers have temporarily stopped proceedings against Ahmad, an ex-club director. Now, the case will next call for another procedural hearing later this year. The claims surrounding the six men emerged during a procedural hearing this morning. The five men arrived at courtroom number three before proceedings began at 10.30am. Whyte, of Lancashire, arrived at the legal complex with long hair, a smart single breasted suit in the company of a glamorous woman. Withey, of Woking, Surrey, was excused from attending court and wasn’t present during the hearing. During proceedings, Lord Turnbull imposed reporting restrictions on what was said at the hearing. But the press can report the details of a 20-page legal document which alleges the accused men’s criminal behaviour. Prosecutors claim that between January 1 2010 and February 16 2012, at various locations in Scotland, England, France and Monaco, Whyte, Withey, Grier, Whitehouse and Clark indulged in a conspiracy. It is alleged that they conspired to “acquire and obtain by fraud a majority and controlling stake in the shareholding of Rangers”. Prosecutors claim that they acted illegally in their dealings with ticket company Ticketus over a deal regarding the sales of Rangers season tickets. It is claimed they obtained £28,262,094 from Ticketus and Merchant illegally and that they then used the money to persuade Rangers that they could afford to take the club over. Prosecutors allege that they were then able to acquire “85.3 per cent of the issued capital of the club for £1 by fraud and did thus obtain a majority and controlling stake” in the shareholding of the club. The second charge concerns the conduct of Whyte and Withey and a company called Wavetower Limited. It is with regard to a debt owed by Rangers to the Bank of Scotland plc. Prosecutors allege that they “unlawfully” gave the club “financial assistance” by causing Rangers to enter into a “ticket purchase agreement” with Ticketus. It is claimed that this was done for “the sole or main purpose of facilitating the acquisition of the club by providing finance which was lent by the Club to Wavetower Limited which in turn allowed Wavetower Ltd to repay the club’s debt to the Bank of Scotland PLC.” Prosecutors claim that this contravened the Companies Act 2006. The third charge alleges that on May 20 2011 at the Hampden Park premises of the SFA, Whyte concealed the fact that he had been a disqualified company director. It is claimed that he did this to satisfy the SFA that he was a “fit and proper” person and that he could act as director at Rangers football club. It is claimed that Whyte acted fradulently. The fourth charge alleges that between December 13 2010 and January 31 2012, at Ibrox stadium and various locations in Scotland, England and continental Europe, Whyte, Withey, Grier, Whitehouse and Clark also acted illegally again. It is claimed that on these dates, they “did agree to do something that you knew or suspected or ought to reasonably to have known or suspected would enable or further the commission of serious organised crime.” Prosecutors allege that they agreed to participate in a conspiracy which was to “acquire and obtain by fraud a majority and controlling stake in the shareholding of the Rangers Football Club plc through Waytower Limited aforesaid.” Prosecutors claim this contravenes section 28 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. The fifth charge alleges that on July 16 2012 at the premises of Duff & Phelps and at various locations in Scotland and England, Whitehouse and Clark attempted to pervert the course of justice. Prosecutors claim that this happened after being requested by Court of Session judge Lord Hodge to provide a report to him following an allegation of conflict involving Duff and Phelps. The company were appointed administrators to Rangers. The Crown claims that in the report, the claim is made that “prior to the acquisition of Rangers on May 6 2011, Duff and Phelps were never made aware of the terms surrounding the financing of the transaction through Ticketus.” It is claimed that they knew this statement was false and that Whitehouse, Clark, and Grier were aware of the terms surrounding the financing of the transaction through Ticketus. Prosecutors claim that they did this “to avoid detection, arrest and prosecution in respect of the crime libelled in charge 1 hereof and with intent to pervert the course of justice.” The sixth charge alleges that between February 1 2012 and June 14 2012, at various locations in Scotland, Whyte, Whitehouse, Clark and Green conspired together to acquire through the administration of Rangers, “de facto control and ownership of the business and assets of the club.” The seventh charge alleges that between February 1 2012 and and December 31 2012 at Ibrox and other locations throughout Europe, Whyte, Whitehouse, Clark and Green acted illegally. It is alleged that they did “agree to do something that you knew or suspected or ought reasonably to have known or suspected would enable or further the commission of serious organised crime.” Prosecutors claim they conspired to acquire Rangers “for a sum considerably below the market value.” The eighth charge alleges that between March 1 2012 and December 30 2013, at Ibrox, Green obtained “material benefit and a quantity of shares and money by fraud.” Whyte, of Lancashire, Withey, of Surrey, Grier, of Wokingham, Clark and Whitehouse whose addresses have been given care of Duff and Phelps in Manchester, and Green, whose address hasn’t been disclosed, haven’t entered pleas.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on6:45 pm - Oct 16, 2015


In regard to James Doleman’s report, I have to say that there was no ‘reading out’ of any charges when the public were in.
It may have happened before the public doors opened, but there would have been no press in the court either , because they were all hanging about in the lobby along with us.
 We did not get in until about 10.15. easyJambo and I  were seated side-by-side a good few minutes before the accused entered and walked past us ( as per my earlier post), as if they were arriving for the first time. (maybe they had been in earlier and sent out!)
But there was no reading out that I heard. Maybe eJ will confirm that?
What the press had was a paper , just handed to them a few minutes before the door to the court room opened, and , as eJ says, containing 20 pages of detailed charges.

View Comment

ThomTheThim

ThomTheThimPosted on6:48 pm - Oct 16, 2015


Wearing my Hat of Naivety, would it be fanciful to suggest that the ban on cyber reporting is not based on preventing responsible blogs, such as this, from reporting proceedings, but more like gagging those whose intentions would be to “pervert the course of justice”?

if this post is way off the mark, blame the sun in Tenerife!☀️?

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on6:50 pm - Oct 16, 2015


neepheid 16th October 2015 at 6:35 pm.
   I would also like to express my gratitude to JC & EJ. 19
  wrt Your post. At the time, the SFA stated they would be asking further questions and would reserve the right to probe further. 
    A copy of the questions they asked would be needed to ascertain figginess,… Because to my mind. PM merely managed to answer a question they were not asked. 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on7:00 pm - Oct 16, 2015


http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/details-of-charges-against-craig-whte-and-charles-green-revealed-1-3918715

Details of charges against Craig Whte and Charles Green revealed

But the press can report the details of a 20 page legal document which alleges the accused men’s criminal behaviour.
Prosecutors claim that between January 1 2010 and February 16 2012, at various locations in Scotland, England, France and Monaco, Whyte, Withey, Grier, Whitehouse and Clark indulged in a conspiracy.
It is alleged that they conspired to “acquire and obtain by fraud a majority and controlling stake in the shareholding of Rangers.”

===================================

A few rhetorical questions, clearly it would be wrong for anyone to answer them.

1, Is that a typo or are they really alleging the conspiracy started in 2010.

2, If so was it just in relation to Rangers or did it include other matters.

3, The joint administrators claimed not to be conflicted in the administration, as they were not involved in the takeover. So what role did they allegedly play in the conspiracy.

Like I said, rhetorical questions based on what has been reported and presumably cleared to have been published. 

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on7:02 pm - Oct 16, 2015


John Clark 16th October 2015 at 6:45 pm #
———————————–
I can confirm that your age has not affected your memory from this morning.

From the Record article, it appears that the contents of the full indictment can be disclosed and thus discussed. (also repeated in the Scotsman)

Some additional points from the indictment that I would add are as follows:

  1. The parties misled in the original purchase by Whyte/Withey or Whyte/Withey/MCR included the Jerome Pension Fund/ Merchant Turnaround/ The RFC Independent Committee/ Murray Holdings/ Ticketus/ The Takeover Panel/ the PLUS Exchange
  2. What we have called the “switcheroo” was stated as having been carried out  without the agreement of the investors in Sevco 5088. 
  3. Also that Cenkos had been misled in the run up to the IPO by non disclosure of a contingent liability.  
View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on7:19 pm - Oct 16, 2015


scottc 16th October 2015 at 4:42 pm #Lord Tyre is presiding over the ‘other’ case. The one that was held on Tuesday and pushed out to November

Thanks for the correction and apologies to all especially EasyJambo for the confusion

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on7:32 pm - Oct 16, 2015


Homunculus 16th October 2015 at 7:00 pm #

I know you said rhetorical but I don’t think there can be any harm in mentioning a few facts on item 1.  The SDM to Whyte sale was concluded in May 11 and followed an investigation by an RFC board sub committee who’s findings were pretty much ignored anyway.  That investigation presumably took a couple of months which puts the offer in the first quarter of 2011.  The planning of the offer presumably was more than a few days which could easily take us back a couple of months or more taking us back to the end of 2010 possibly.

Remember there was no immediate pressure like admin at the time and no sign of alternative bidders so no need for a quick purchase.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on7:43 pm - Oct 16, 2015


ThomTheThim 16th October 2015 at 6:48 pm #
‘.. would it be fanciful to suggest that the ban on cyber reporting is not based on preventing responsible blogs, .
________
Not fanciful at all, I would say.
But the Courts are only slowly coming to terms with the reality of modern comms.
It’s got to be remembered that the public have a right to attend court. Theoretically,the whole population of the UK could attend a court on the same day, and listen to all and everything that is said and done, and there would be no possibility of slanted, biased, or selectively prejudicial ‘reporting’ because everyone would hear for himself.
Since that is not yet totally possible or practicable ( although courts in many parts of the world have live transmissions of trials), and yet since the public have a ‘right to know’, the Courts basically have to allow ‘reporting’.
This has been traditionally  done by TV and the Press, which are legal persons, known and able to be held to account and punished if need be for prejudicial reporting in their publications. The Courts can handle that.
The phenomena of Twitter and Facebook and emails and whatever else raised the question of what is ‘publication’?
I could theoretically send each of you individually a letter giving the contents of my notes of a day in court, and my views of how that day went and how the people spoke and re-acted
etc etc. And I would not be in contempt of court, anywhere than I was, for example, when I was describing today to Mrs C [ not that she was hellish much interested]
But simultaneously reaching perhaps tens of thousands of people with anything I chose to say -unchecked and virtually uncheckable- about a day in court is a horse of a different colour.
It will probably take a while before blogs can be ‘trusted’ to be as ‘responsible’ as the traditional news media.
I would imagine that that would require a  ‘recognition’ that a blog is in the control of ‘responsible’ people, registered in some way that allows the authorities to do it for contempt of court blah bladh blah.
I would hope that this particular blog would be able to meet any formal registration requirements, and that, once registered with the Courts etc as being the equivalent in terms of ‘publishing’  as a good quality, well-run newspaper ready to respect the rights of accused persons etc etc, it would be given access to the courts on the same footing.
But the Courts are only slowly moving to the point of finding how to incorporate the ‘social media.’

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on7:59 pm - Oct 16, 2015


Given the five names involved, three we know were involved in the takeover. This is public knowledge and has been well reported.

Two were the joint administrators, this is a matter of public record and authorised by the Court. They claimed not to be conflicted as they had taken no part in the takeover.

However according to the report 

It is alleged that they conspired to “acquire and obtain by fraud a majority and controlling stake in the shareholding of Rangers.”

So all five were allegedly involved, some time in 2010, to fraudulently acquire the business. Without getting involved in too much conjecture, I find it very interesting that the joint administrators have been charged with being involved before the initial transaction even took place. Particularly given the role they subsequently filled and the integral part they played in the next chapter.

There is not a lot new today, though I would suggest something like that is. It tends to suggest things may have been less reactive and more proactive.

View Comment

justshatered

justshateredPosted on8:00 pm - Oct 16, 2015


As court proceedings grind inexorably forward it’s business as usual in the land of lunacy finance in Govan!
A new Head of Development resigns from a good job in England to re-unite with his old boss at ‘The Rangers’. So another wage has been added to the bill and apparently Eustice will also sign on in the near future.
All of us on here can do basic arithmetic and we know the pot is empty so what is going on?
Have the Three Bears ponied up for October’s wages or has Dave King found the keys to open the war chest?
As usual money is not an issue on Edmiston Drive. They are happy to live, or was that leech, off other peoples wealth or generosity. The Dignity mobile carries on regardless.

A lot may come out in the future court proceedings but, remaining within the rules of our sport, it is clear that the days of self certification/accreditation/investigation MUST come to an end. No longer can the authorities trust clubs to tell them the truth. There is simply too much money at stake or at least the opportunity to earn more money in Europe if you can tell enough lies.

This was the whole point of having rules in the first place, to prevent lies/whoppers/untruths to be told in an attempt to solve massive over spending by qualifying for European competition.

We are all aware of the term ‘speculate to accumulate’ however to create a situation of insolvency if you fail to qualify is akin to tossing a coin and hoping it lands in your favour.

It has been claimed that The SFA were aware in October 2011 that RFC were heading for the buffers but they did nothing to protect the rest of the clubs under their jurisdiction. They have allowed a succession of people to be involved in ‘The Rangers’ who leave a lot to be desired. The have allowed ‘The Rangers’ to self certify and self investigate as if they did not have a conflict of interest. This is not good enough.
The people at Hampden have taken money under false pretences, they have abused their position, they have placed our sport in jeopardy due to their inactivity and incompetence. If they had any principles they abandoned them long ago and with that went any moral authority to govern our sport.

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on8:19 pm - Oct 16, 2015


I think these questions from Paul McConville  in June 2012 may soon be answered.
 
Duff + Phelps Had Binding Agreement With Sevco 5088. Why Did They Sell Ibrox to Sevco Scotland?

Sevco 5088 Ltd, Sevco Scotland Ltd and RFC 2012 Ltd – Which One Claims to Be Rangers?

View Comment

valentinesclown

valentinesclownPosted on8:42 pm - Oct 16, 2015


woodstein 16th October 2015 at 8:19 pm #I think these questions from Paul McConville  in June 2012 may soon be answered. Duff + Phelps Had Binding Agreement With Sevco 5088. Why Did They Sell Ibrox to Sevco Scotland?
Sevco 5088 Ltd, Sevco Scotland Ltd and RFC 2012 Ltd – Which One Claims to Be Rangers?
———————————————————————————————
One of my favourite balanced interviews from April 13.  Touching on Sevco 5088 & Sevco Scotland.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAAahUKEwjcl_fw1cfIAhVE7xQKHXMZD6c&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsport.stv.tv%2Ffootball%2Fclubs%2Frangers%2F221242-extended-video-of-rangers-ceo-charles-greens-interview-with-stv%2F&usg=AFQjCNHRE7mQrwl5kKAJdp8UuTeOsVbHZA&sig2=_oFWz4Q82tnOMs3MAVLVEA

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on9:11 pm - Oct 16, 2015


I am wondering how accurate the compressed version in the SMSM is, of the 20 pages issued by the court.  
    Apparently, some of the accused could “persuade” Rangers, that the purchase was affordable. Almost like Rangers had free will of its own. It was duped. Not the owners or directors, who are afforded no responsibility
    However, later, with Newco, they could “cause” Rangers to commit actions, not through its own free will,  but “cause” it, as owners and directors, and they bear that responsibility. 
    Similarly, the SFA took a good duping. by these owners and directors.
   Is this really the framing of the charges, or are they SMSM-isms?.
    

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on9:24 pm - Oct 16, 2015


Earlier this evening, I was speculating as to why pleas in Court proceedings could be withheld from reporting.
My thought was along the lines, if x people are charged with an offence and one or more of that group were to plead guilty, with the others entering not guilty pleas, then this could present difficulties. as a potential jury could then form the view on guilt or innocence.
Can anyone shed light on precedents for pleas being withheld from public reports? I understand from the media reports that no pleas were returned in proceedings at the High Court today.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on9:31 pm - Oct 16, 2015


An observation/question regarding Clark & Whitehouse acting as administrators of TRFC PLC (now RFC 2012 PLC (IL)).
Would the strange non-administration behaviour of the administrators be explained by their knowledge that the outcome of that administration had been predetermined?
At the time, we were all amazed and somewhat baffled by the unique approach of the administrators and their unorthodox non-costcutting and the lack of any material downsizing.

View Comment

macfurgly

macfurglyPosted on9:51 pm - Oct 16, 2015


Homunculus 16th October 2015 at 7:00 pm #
——————
2010? Typo?
Ask SDM.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on9:51 pm - Oct 16, 2015


Corrupt official 16th October 2015 at 9:11 pm #I am wondering how accurate the compressed version in the SMSM is, of the 20 pages issued by the court.       Apparently, some of the accused could “persuade” Rangers, that the purchase was affordable. Almost like Rangers had free will of its own. It was duped. Not the owners or directors, who are afforded no responsibility     However, later, with Newco, they could “cause” Rangers to commit actions, not through its own free will,  but “cause” it, as owners and directors, and they bear that responsibility.      Similarly, the SFA took a good duping. by these owners and directors.    Is this really the framing of the charges, or are they SMSM-isms?.
==================================
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-34552932
Well, the BBC haven’t pushed out the boat in their reportage, with less than 70 words.
It’s nice to see that the state broadcaster is keeping the nation fully informed as usual.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:18 pm - Oct 16, 2015


Corrupt official 16th October 2015 at 9:11 pm #
‘.I am wondering how accurate the compressed version in the SMSM is, of the 20 pages issued by the court.  ‘
________
I asked at the reception office in the Court if I could have a copy of the charges paper. I got a very vague answer, which suggested that I might get one across the road in Parliament House, sort of somewhere. I only skim-read the copy we borrowed from a Press-man, but I kind of think your suggestion that a bit of subliminal editing  may have been done has some validity!
I have emailed the Judicial Communications people to ask how I get a copy.
And, also, to mention to him  that in spite of what I had been told the other day, the first row of the public seating was actually labelled ‘reserved for Press’!!
Not only that, but the Polis directed us ( the tax-paying public) into only the three back rows, notwithstanding that the Press only occupied the first row of the front three rows, the two behind being almost completely free.
Given that there is a glass half-barrier between the public seating and the well of the court, and that all of the legals in effect have their backs to the public, and that they appear not to use the microphones, even a couple of rows distance-wise can make the proceedings virtually inaudible, or at least a strain to follow. (What’s that?? No, I’ve no problems with my hearing!)

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on10:27 pm - Oct 16, 2015


valentinesclown 16th October 2015 at 8:42 pm #
 
I must admit I have never seen that clip before.
I remember the Peter Smith interview where CG promised to produce the email he (CG)  had regarding thr Dallas Cowboys deal,  and I noticed that Peter got a little sly dig at  CG at around 8mins 50seconds into this interview, to the effect that he had still not seen said email.
No noticable response from CG. Wonder how composed he will be in front of a QC?

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:41 pm - Oct 16, 2015


Long Time Lurker 16th October 2015 at 9:24 pm #
‘…I understand from the media reports that no pleas were returned in proceedings at the High Court today.’
_______
That is correct. Not yet at the stage of ‘how do you plead?'( at least as at 4.00 pm. Have there  been any updates on the rolling-news screens on how things went when the court re-convened at 4.30 pm?)

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on10:43 pm - Oct 16, 2015


JC
Only this question.
How many pencils and padsl so far?

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on10:43 pm - Oct 16, 2015


John Clark 16th October 2015 at 10:41 pm #

John, no updates, all vague – reporting restrictions etc.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on11:06 pm - Oct 16, 2015


More from @jamesdoleman on Bella. Excellent summary of the state of play:

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/10/16/operation-iona-a-full-report-of-the-rfc-court-hearing/

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on11:07 pm - Oct 16, 2015


macfurgly 16th October 2015 at 9:51 pm # Homunculus 16th October 2015 at 7:00 pm # —————— 2010? Typo? Ask SDM.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Delete post if this is inappropriate to discuss
But
Actually
One of the mysteries in this panto is why the RFC 2010-2011 accounts did not get approved by the auditors and published
So there is no written record as to who paid MCR for advising the ultimate Purchaser during his due diligence of RFC in the 9 months leading up to the sale for £1
Was it
RFC? If it was then Why? 
The Seller? If it was  then Why?
The Purchaser….If it was then he was acting out of character using his own money?
Also
The lender of £24m to the Purchaser relied on OPM i.e. “investments” which suddenly materialised in their Q4 accounts as over £20m of “sales” in April/May 2011.Who were these investors and were they fronting for a handful of people. Maybe just a single Mr Big?
It beggars belief that these 20 or so individual investors were queuing up patiently to hand over large sums to their Fund Mgr in the few weeks preceding the date when the money was given to the Purchaser. It’s also a big swallow to accept that the Fund Mgr. got involved in the “mistaken” belief that the Purchaser had already completed the acquisition and therefore had the authority to commit future ST sales
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
One wonders whether the £4m to £5m quoted as legal fees for CG are mirrored elsewhere and who is funding them?
It’s hard to believe that the other defendants don`t find it necessary to take similar action to persuade their employers at the time to stump up their legal costs

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:41 pm - Oct 16, 2015


ianagain 16th October 2015 at 10:43 pm #
‘..JCOnly this question.How many pencils and padsl so far?’
______
Actually, ianagain, I scarcely put pencil to paper, partly because it was quite difficult to hear, but mainly because it was all about each QC trying to establish what precisely was to be the evidence base of the Advocate-Depute’s case against his particular client, and whether particular matters (unspecified) might or might not be legitimately included.
Nothing by way of  TV-style ‘I put it to you’ red meat! Simply ( or, rather, fiendishly complicated )legal stuff, and references to this that and the other Act , not about the actual matter of the charges, but about on what basis of agreement as to evidence and witnesses the (eventual) trial is to be held.
It is no secret that there is a mass of documents and emails of one kind or another involved and who knows how many ‘witnesses’.
To tell the truth, I was actually quite impressed, and I reminded myself of how (aeons ago, it now seems!) I would occasionally refer to Cicero as a sort of benchmark of legal ( not moral) standards and objectives: essentially, ‘if the rest of you collectively ( ie the State) want to put me in jail, you need to prove my guilt, not for my sake, but for yours, when the day comes that people want to  put you in jail’

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:43 pm - Oct 16, 2015


Danish Pastry 16th October 2015 at 11:06 pm

Great read DP, thanks for posting the link, it really does paint the picture of what happened.

Assuming it’s accurate of course. 

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on11:58 pm - Oct 16, 2015


I see that the SPFL finally got round to announcing September’s Derek McInnes MoTM award, only half way into October. Derek McInnes again received the eponymously named award and was duly hit by the curse of MoTM tonight.
Aberdeen record of 3 wins and 2 losses (including a 0-2 reverse at Hibs) was sufficient to win the award, whereas Ross County’s unbeaten month (including a 7-0 victory over Falkirk) was deemed ineligible as wins over Championship clubs (particularly gubbings) have been expunged from the records and are not to be acknowledged under any circumstances. 24

View Comment

Comments are closed.