The Existence of Laws


“The Board believes that the new chairman will bring stability, …

Comment on The Existence of Laws by ecobhoy.

“The Board believes that the new chairman will bring stability, experience and a wealth of knowledge to the Club.”

I have read the Rangers AIM statement on Walter’s appointment as chairman but am left puzzled. I thought Walter was already a director of Rangers International before becoming Chairman. So does the statement mean that Walter wasn’t previously attempting to bring stability to Rangers and not contributing his ‘experience and a wealth of knowledge’ to the club when just a director?

ecobhoy Also Commented

The Existence of Laws
Bangordub says:
June 12, 2013 at 12:40 pm

Any of the “legals” here venture an opinion as to whether a news organisation “referring to” as opposed to “reproducing” the CF info would be at risk of litigation or prosecution?

I have been thinking about anything in Scottish terms that is similar to the CF situation and it’s back a bit so my memory is vague although I’m sure a quich internet search will provide details.

It centres round the break-in at Lothian & Borders Police HQ at Fettes in Edinburgh when I think it was Special Branch files were nicked. The story ran and I think info from the stolen files appeared in the media.

I also have an even vaguer memory that the break-in and the files were linked to the Edinburgh rent-boy ring scandal which was alleged to have involved members of the Scottish Justiciary. I have no doubt that all sorts of pressure would have been applied to downplay the story.

But there wasn’t a complete black-out as there has been with CF and the thing that really puzzles me is that no one even seems to know what, if anything, actually makes the CF material untouchable.

And as I keep obeserving – the CF documents don’t need to actually be used as it’s enough to know what they contain and then ask the relevant questions of the bodies involved, who have their own legit files, to comment on the issues raised. We aren’t talking about decades ago – we are talking up to a max of around 2-3 years ago. This is recent history and if files have been shredded then that tells its own story as well.

I am sure that there are limits for keeping files – don’t they have to be kept for 6 years on tax related issues and I’m sure lawyers and accountants would require fairly long retention periods.

The Existence of Laws
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
June 12, 2013 at 12:21 pm

From KDS:

Sent an email to Alex Thomson asking why no publicity on CF exposures – his response

“Yes – it’s all hacked I believe. V serious criminal offence. Post Leveson it’s beyond toxic – radioactive.

Thanks anyway – hope all’s good.”

So looks like none of the media will touch it!

And yet others seem to think that the way in which CF got it is more to do with farce. I find it hard to believe that if this information has been obtained through criminal means that CF has not been traced and charged and the only explanation for that must be that either she or the servers are in an overseas location and beyond the law or extradition. Or is it just taking a long time to find her because there are more pressing issues for the authorities.

And for the conspiracy-minded among us – could it be that the authorities are happy to let her continue to study her output rather than risk losing access if they act?

The Existence of Laws
Bangordub says:
June 12, 2013 at 12:15 pm

Private Eye are cracking the Dam of silence I see:

Interesting – Thinking back to the tapes last night of Duff & Duffer and CW – I wonder if that’s why it kept being raised about access to Group documentation I think was the term used.

Given the Eye readership I suspect CF is about to get many more people looking at her tweets.

Recent Comments by ecobhoy

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
jimmci says:
April 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm

And why did we not get the panel’s reasoning together with the decision last night?

Simples ❗ The Decision was the easy bit 😆 The explanation to sell it was the hard bit and despite a nightshift they appear to have fluffed their lines AGAIN 🙄

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Allyjambo says:
April 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm

Might I suggest that SD’s main interest in this meeting was to put the RIFC board straight on some matters regarding the security over the IP and just how watertight it is, rather than to discuss funding or any ‘amicable’ discussion how best to move the club forward!
You might be right but would SD want the club suffering another Insolvency Event? Perhaps they were asking for the second loan tranche of £5 million which the new board apparently rejected on taking control.

I have undernoted a reply I made to parttimearab last night which may have been missed but may also be relevant.

3. Insolvency events

(i) The inability of the Company to pay its debts as they fall due within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”);
(ii) The issue of an application for an administration order or a notice of intention to appoint an administrator in relation to the Company;
(iii) The passing of a resolution or order for the Company’s winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation;
(iv) The declaration of a moratorium in relation to any of the Company’s indebtedness;
(v) The making of any arrangement or any proposal for any arrangement with any of the Company’s creditors; and
(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

Now I haven’t a clue whether that has anything to do with the SPFL Rule Change. But it’s clear that there could be various stages in an Insolvency Event and perhaps the rule change is to cover all eventualities which might not have been previously defined in the Rule Book.

In particular I look at:

(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

And I think of the various charges which have been placed on Rangers assets wrt the £5 million loan. I have previously posted that the contracts wrt a Default Event could see the assets pass to SportsDirect without any court hearing and SD also already has the power to appoint a Receiver to deal with any of the assets that pass to it via a loan default event.

Now that might not ultimately lead to a full-blown Insolvency depending on what SD actually decide to do with Rangers. But looking at the above I wonder whether with the SPFL rule change that just taking control of the assets is enough to be classed as an Insolvency Event under SPFL Rules?

Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead ?

But does the rule take effect immediately or from the new season?

It seems that if it is immediate and Rangers suffers an Insolvency Event then that would be an automatic 25 points this season and 15 next season. Assuming it is able to survive death a second time.

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

From what I saw, all criticisms emanating from ICTFC was directed towards the SFA machinery and not towards CFC. Similarly, I have seen no evidence of any criticism of ICTFC being put forward by CFC. I see that fact as quite telling.

Celtic were quite entitled to make all the statements they made and had the boot been on the other foot, in the circumstances I am sure KC at ICTFC would have done likewise.

Similarly, had the situtaions been reversed w.r.t. the foul, I would have expected CFC to back their player robsutly in the same way that ICTFC did.

This is about governance of the sport, not internecine disagreements between member clubs – for which I am yet to see any cause advanced from either party.
Couldn’t agree more!

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

My view is that Celtic played this one wrong (only in the public nature of it)and it was easy for media outlets to infer cause and effect in the Celtic/Compliance Officer actions.
There is some merit in your view IMO. However there’s a balancing act to be achieved which requires an answer to what the officials saw, didn’t see, or decided or didn’t decide on Sunday.

All I heard in the ground, leaving the ground, on the train, in the pub, was real anger and disbelief at the decision which worsened with the TV replays.

I do think Celtic fans were due an explanation and tbf to Celtic I doubt if they could have forseen what an absolute hash the SFA would make of it. Obviously the SMSM has ridden to the rescue of the SFA so what’s new about that?

But we’re still awaiting the answers requested. Will we get them? Not without keeping the pressure on the SFA on all fronts where Hampden’s dark secrets exist.

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Gabby says:
April 24, 2015 at 10:18 am

If Celtic really, really felt they needed to send a letter, then this is the type of thing they should have sent…
I disagree as the letter you suggest goes way beyond the immediate point which is simply: ‘Please explain how the decision was arrived at’. I say decision because when Celic sent the letter it seemed there had been no decision reached but that the incident had been ‘missed’ by all officials.

Once the SFA provide that info then Celtic can make a decision as to if and how it should proceed with the matter.

My credo in a situation like this is not to give any leeway to a slippery character or room for manoeuvre. Ask the straight simple question and take it from there once the basic position is established.

Never jump fences too soon and never ever jump fences you don’t need to especially if you don’t know what lies in wait on the other side.

About the author