The Immortality Project – or – Death and Denial – Guest Post by Humble Pie
Death has a tendency to put everything else into perspective.
My family recently suffered a bereavement. It wasn’t a sudden death but it was still far too quick and far too soon for any of us to get our heads around. As our loved one’s illness progressed, each of us, in our own way, began to prepare for the inevitable. In the end, whilst it was not unexpected, it was nevertheless very traumatic, for everyone concerned.
Grief is a strange and often debilitating set of emotions. Even now, a few months on, when the intense sadness and tears have given way (mostly) to disbelief, we still find it hard to fully comprehend what has happened. We might never completely ‘come to terms’ with that fact, however, we do accept that it DID happen, much as we all wish that it hadn’t.
Many of you will be familiar with the Kubler-Ross model of the five stages of grief; Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Well, I am aware of having experienced each of these stages over the last year, as well as a couple of others which I wasn’t prepared for (a lot of personal reflection, a little guilt and a not insignificant amount of pain).
It seems to me that the Rangers supporters have been purposefully ensnared in an interminable cycle of the first two stages of KR; alternating between the denial of the death of Rangers and anger at what they feel has been done to their beloved club then back again to denial. This, as any first year psychology student will tell you, is a very unhealthy state of mind which, if not addressed, can quickly lead to physiological and behavioural problems.
At its lowest level, for example, people throughout the ages have continued to set places at the dinner table for their long-dead loved ones. They know in their hearts that the person has died but are comforted by the familiarity of doing the same things that they have always done. However, in extreme cases people have even kept and maintained the actual cadavers of the deceased, dressed them, talked to them and watched TV with them, in a state of absolute denial.
In archaeology, accepting and recognising the inevitability of death through conducting ceremonial burial services is considered to be one of the very first signs of a civilised people. You see, grief is a uniquely human and cathartic process i.e. it can produce ‘a feeling of being cleansed emotionally, spiritually, or psychologically as a result of an intense emotional experience’.
In short, grief is ultimately a good thing which leads you through a series of natural psychological steps towards acknowledgement of an unalterable situation, allowing you to take stock, re-evaluate and start to move on with your own life in a positive way.
That is what should have happened with the fans of the old Rangers.
Instead, this ‘never-ending cycle of the undead’ was positively encouraged by those many unscrupulous individuals who saw a way of making a fast buck from maintaining the ‘Then, Now and Forever’ illusion. Worse still, this resurrection fantasy is being facilitated by the very people whom we have entrusted to stop this kind of thing from happening in the first place. If only the SFA or the MSM had told them the truth, they might have had a chance to actually face up to the situation.
Unfortunately, these two bodies were so complicit in Rangers demise, so right up to their necks in the brown smelly stuff, that they were too afraid to face the inevitable anger which would have rightly come their way. So, they made up grim fairy tales to feed to the bereaved souls about non-existent ‘holding companies’, the ethereal ‘club’ which transcends death and by suggesting that it is ‘all a matter of opinion’.
Ernest Becker, in his 1973 Pulitzer Prize winning book ‘The Denial of Death’, posits that “human civilization is no more than an elaborate, symbolic defence mechanism against the knowledge of our own mortality”. This fear of death acts as an emotional and intellectual response to our basic survival instincts.
‘By embarking on what Becker refers to as an ‘immortality project’, in which a person creates or becomes part of something which they feel will last forever, the person feels they too have become part of something eternal; something that will never die, compared to their physical body that will die one day’. When this ‘immortality project’ is threatened it leads inevitably to fear, depression, loss of identity and sense of purpose.
In that case, the initial reaction of the fans to the imminent demise of Rangers was entirely predictable and understandable. “No way, this can’t happen to us, we are the people”. However, as soon as the full realisation of their club’s inexorable slide into liquidation began to sink in, came the expected anger. But towards whom should their righteous wrath be directed?
“Who did this to us, who are these people?” they cried. “Not I”, said Sir Murray of the Mint, “for I was duped”, “Nor I”, said President Ogilvie, “for it was never my role”. “Nor I”, said Mr Smith, “for I never knew nothing or nothing”. “Not us”, squealed the media monkeys in unison, “for that’s what we were told”, “Nor us”, said the SPL “it was nothing to do with us”.
“Who then?, we demand to know who these people are”, howled the horrified hordes. “T’was the Whyte knight”, they all concurred, “he alone caused this calamity”. “And the bampots”, sneered the slimy slug. “And the taxman”, puffed the pundits. “And the unseen hand of Mr Lawwell”, whispered the bilious bears from the safety of their den.
There were even those who tried to warn them, not least Hugh Adam, Phil Mac and RTC but they didn’t want to know. Even when their very own Messrs Green and Traynor spelt out, in no uncertain terms, that liquidation meant the death of their club, still they chose wilful ignorance. The MSM, with access to the same information, encouraged them to keep their heads firmly ensconced, ostrich stylee, on the banks of that ironically blue and white river in Egypt. Which just goes to show ‘you can lead a lamb to knowledge but you can’t make it think’
The point though is that the Rangers fans have heard the truth and once you have heard something you cannot unhear it. Even if you reject it, even if you deny it, it gnaws away at the back of your mind, infecting your subconscious.
Almost a year ago, I posted the following on TSFM. http://theinternetbampot.wordpress.com/2012/09/ in which I postulated that the SFA were too frightened to say anything which might imply that The Rangers were a new club.
Looking back at that post, I am amazed at how little the landscape has changed.
A year on and it has become apparent that the corporate cancer that destroyed Rangers has continued to metastasize in its new host. Charlotte’s revelations may have shown us that the rabbit hole goes much deeper than we first suspected. However, in my humble opinion, the information provided has only succeeded in ‘poisoning the well’ and deflecting attention from the main culprits in this disaster. Layer upon layer of complexity has been added to an already opaque story and the majority of her utterances appear designed to engage the more enquiring minds on this forum and consume their excess mental energy.
I know that some people are bored with this ‘debate’ but, to my mind, the single most important step for the redemption of Scottish football is the fan’s acceptance that The Rangers, who currently ply their trade in the SPFL First Division, are a new club. Once they have accepted that then everything else that they perceive has happened to them will begin to make sense. They will see that rather than everyone having a fly kick at them when they were down, most were actually trying to help them. It will also dawn on them that the very people who have been telling them that there is an anti-Rangers conspiracy against them are actually the same ones who are screwing them over.
Rangers were not relegated to div 3, The Rangers applied as a new club and were granted entry into the bottom tier of Scottish football. They are not banned from European competition, merely ineligible as a new club without the requisite financial ‘history’. Any reference to ‘rulings’ from ECA, ASA, the BBC Trust and any internal or so-called ‘independent’ enquiries are completely irrelevant, as none of these bodies are the final arbiter in this case. Scots Law is clear that there is no distinction between club and company after incorporation, when the company dies the club dies with it. That is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.
Sooner or later The Rangers fans are going to realise this fact and when they do, there will be hell to pay. Until they do, their new club can never become truly cleansed. Only then can they move on and only then can they join together with fans of other clubs to root out the real cancer at the heart of Scottish football. That’s why the MSM and the SFA are still petrified to say anything. In the meantime the real creators of this disaster are sneakily positioning themselves further and further away from the scene of the crime.
I am sure the majority of us would happily accept a new Rangers, cleansed of its financial, emotional and supremacist baggage. A club that all decent Rangers fans could support without feeling any guilt about Rangers downfall or that they were being taken for mugs. The prospect of a new dawn in Scottish football, where sporting integrity took primacy and clubs lived within their means was very real. However, as usual the SFA couldn’t miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
The truth is that Scottish football is in the state it is in, not because Rangers died but because those with the power and mandate to effect the prognosis sat back and did nothing. I am sure that they believe that ‘time heals all wounds’ and that the longer this injustice is allowed to stand the more likely it will be accepted by the man in the street. No doubt the authorities feel it is in the national interest to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’. However I cannot accept this. I believe that it is vital that we are able to face up to reality so we can move on for the benefit of all football supporters.
Scottish football is at a crossroads right now, I think we all feel it. Rampant corruption has become so mainstream that many of our fellow supporters have began to accept this as the norm. However, it just doesn’t sit right with me and I suspect that many regular contributors and readers of this blog feel likewise.
We have quite lost our way and we live in a society which spends vast amounts of money paying people like Jack Irvine to ensure that we stay lost. The mainstream media treat us like little imbeciles and demand that we conform to their assumed ‘professional superiority’. The PR machine plays up to our stereotypes and feeds our fantasies while the poorest people pay to swallow their poisonous propaganda and relentless trivia.
So what can we do ? Clearly, battering out a few blog posts and strongly worded letters to the various authorities involved has been rewarded by the square root of FA.
How can we make this an opportunity for growth rather than contributing to the destruction of Scottish football ? It is not good enough to tear down a system unless we have a better system to replace it. However, I believe that it is not the system itself which is broken. It is that those charged with administering the system are hopelessly corrupted, hugely conflicted and unable to apply their rules without fear or favour.
By their incapacity and inaction (wilful or otherwise) the SFA have facilitated a motley crew of various spivs, chancers and con-artists to glean the last few meagre pickings from the bones of the emaciated loyal supporters of this new club purporting to be the once mighty Rangers. They have permitted these ne’er-do-wells to collectively appropriate many tens of millions of pounds from the Rangers fans, the creditors and the public purse. They have already allowed this corporate malignancy to spread to a new host, ‘The Rangers’, and the absence of ‘moral hazard’ makes it more likely that the disease will continue to spread.
Benjamin Franklin once said, “‘Nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”
Someone else once said, “The wages of sin are death, but by the time taxes are taken out, it’s just sort of a tired feeling.”
I sense that we are all beginning to get tired of this. It is time to stand together, all football fans, face the facts and direct our anger against the officers of the SFA who have allowed this sham to develop into a catastrophe.
I have no doubt that my humble opinions expressed here will raise the ire of many deluded souls. However, I am comfortable in the knowledge that the only people who get mad at you for speaking the truth are those that are living a lie.
RIP Big Man.
paulsatim says:
September 8, 2013 at 10:07 pm
And here was me thinking the police monitored this kind of abuse! Must be too busy chasing down people with banners………….
john clarke says:
September 8, 2013 at 10:13 pm
Aide Memoire!
Seriously.
You must read some fecking tomes if you consider that an aide memoire.
Tif Finn says:
September 8, 2013 at 10:31 pm
“You must read some fecking tomes if you consider that an aide memoire..”
—–
With a memory like mine, I need every aide I can get!
But, as it happens, my current reading is the superb 828-page vol.1 of ” An Irish history of Civilization” by Don Akenson ( Hon Professor of Irish and Scottish studies at Aberdeen University)’
In which I learn that Sam Houston took a Cherokee arrow in his private particulars, and whenever he could, rode side-saddle!
Interesting tweet from Jim Spence
john clarke says:
September 8, 2013 at 10:40 pm
————————————-
Order of the Arrow
Program for: Boy Scouts, Venturers
Colonneh Lodge 137 is the Sam Houston Area Council’s Order of the Arrow Lodge.
SAM HOUSTON AREA COUNCIL. 2000-2010
The things these Texans get up to Ouch! 😳
jean7brodie says:
September 8, 2013 at 10:07 pm
4 2 Rate This
Tif Finn says:
September 8, 2013 at 10:03 pm
It is therefore entirely possible that another aspect of this disgraceful situation has now entered the public arena. Police corruption.
———————————————————————————–
Naw!!!!! Surely not! 😉
—————————————————————————–
It is all a cop out
john clarke says:
September 8, 2013 at 10:40 pm
Sam Houston took a Cherokee arrow in his private particulars, and whenever he could, rode side-saddle!
=========================================
How did “side saddle ” feel about this, presumably she was up for it.
I do apologise, but sometimes they are up there and have to be hit. That was a potential home run.
Carry on
just shatered
Keevins “holding membership of the SFA ”
I’m not sure but isn’t new club/team still an associate member? or did I miss that?
upthehoops @ 10.51pm
Is the pain of the truth increasing? 😕
Brenda
I believe it is.
I would be watching the domestic crime stats south of the river
William Wallace says:
September 8, 2013 at 11:06 pm
0 0 Rate This
just shatered
Keevins “holding membership of the SFA ”
I’m not sure but isn’t new club/team still an associate member? or did I miss that?
=================================================
Sevco Scotland was admitted to the Scottish Football League as an associate member on July 14th 2012. However, there is no such classification within the new league structure. The new club simply hold a share in the SPFL.
Rangers full SFA membership was transferred to Sevco Scotland on August 3rd 2012.
Sevco never was an associate member of the SFA.
Tif Finn says:
September 8, 2013 at 10:59 pm
‘..How did “side saddle ” feel about this, presumably she was up for it.’
—-
Sadly, old Sam was divorced by his teen-aged wife of 4 months when she complained to her rich, land-owning daddy that he( Sam) could not satisfy her any which way!
Jim Spence @bbcjimspence 1h
Fine night in Ciao Sorrento & Trades Bar Dundee. Now a defining week which may shake some people’s world to the core or mine. We shall see.
Expand
Hmmm I wonder what Spencey means by this tweet?
😉
Have to mention Newtz’s great contribution to the blog today. One of the difficulties for people who have been engaged in our main story is being unable to step back enough to see the big picture, but remain in close enough proximity to see the detail. Newtz has done exactly that, and he has managed to engage in that exercise without the use of any pejorative language or sideswipe.
I spoke to an MSM journalist over the weekend, who told me he didn’t read online blogs or forums because of the nonsense and rantings he believes they contain. I will urge him to have a look at an extract of today’s contributions.
Guys like Newtz, Echoboy, Barcabhoy, Slimshady, and Castofthousands (apologies for omissions) have acted as guides for those of us not so well equipped to navigate the maze of spivvery as they. I once thought Lord Denning a condescending old so and so when he argued that fraud trials should not be in front of juries. He still remains a condescending old so and so, but I am less inclined to disagree with that particular view, seeing the web of intrigue that has been spun in Scottish football these past few years and my struggle to keep abreast of developments and follow its perverse logic.
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
September 8, 2013 at 11:30 pm
‘…..Hmmm I wonder what Spencey means by this tweet?..’
—-
He has been asked , but has thus far not replied.
Tic 6709
With regards to the Mullah Graham if you think about it there have been several at Ibrokes but they should be referred to as Moolahs as they are only interested in the money.
At last it seems we will be doing the first podcast this week or the week after. Part of the content will be comparatively lighthearted. I am soliciting contributions for the Succulent Lamb “Fleece of the Month” award to the daftest journalistic effort in that period. Please contact TSFM directly on the contacts page or by PM.
Similarly, there are a few epithets and idioms which have been forged and copyrighted in the white heat of the TSFM furnace. Things like Slimshadys 54 series signature, or Red Lichtie’s Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath. Please submit your favourite copyrights by the same method as above.
john clarke says:
September 8, 2013 at 11:36 pm
1 0 Rate This
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
September 8, 2013 at 11:30 pm
‘…..Hmmm I wonder what Spencey means by this tweet?..’
—-
He has been asked , but has thus far not replied.
_________________________________________________
It’s ok John-I already know the answer… 😎
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
September 8, 2013 at 11:30 pm
Oh will you stop, I suspect you know perfectly well.
On an unrelated note re TSFM’s last. Criminal trials with regard fraud should not go before a jury. Certainly not one with the “not proven” verdict open to them. That is not condescending, it is simply acknowledging that some cases are simply too complex and convoluted for the figurative man on the Clapham omnibus to rule on.
Fraud cases should be decided upon using an entirely different system and should be heard in front of a panel of something like a Judge, QC and Accountant. Who can then deal with the technical aspects whether they be legal or accounting. To put these cases to 15 well intentioned people with little or no knowledge is madness.
We have precedent for this by merging the tribunal system (for civil cases) and summary proceedings (for criminal cases).
@ Phil
Jinx, I suspected you did.
Tif Finn says:
September 8, 2013 at 9:27 pm
If COPFS believe that someone has been getting confidential information from serving police officers then there is every possibility that person is in the possession of evidence of the commission of an offence.
So unless they can claim some sort of privilege, for example journalistic, then they would surely be a compellable witness and they can simply be told by the relevant Fiscal (or advocate) to provide that evidence.
================================================================
There is no journalistic privilege in the scenario that I am aware of and thinking of and was revealed in various CF emails and perhaps tapes. Indeed it could well be argued that there was incitement to corrupt public officials.
In any case all the efforts of a helluva lot of Scottish football fans appear to be on the brink of bearing fruit so let’s all ensure that a proper investigation is carried out and that it isn’t a whitewash. If that turns out to be the case then we have to get ready across every club in Scotland and every football supporter to demand a public enquiry.
This could well be a trigger moment similar to the fan action last year that halted the SFA, SPL and SFL in their tracks.
On the wider issue of journalistic privilege in a climate of major law and accountancy firms being investigated for the methods of investigations used to obtain information following Leveson and the press I think it’s worth pointing out that the rather nebulous concept of journalistic privilege doesn’t apply to PR creatures. All they can claim is client confidentiality and given the sleazeball clients many of them have then they will get dropped right in it.
That’s why a PR practitioner must never become the story but sometimes an over-inflated ego or just plain old age can start to dull the wits and you end up in the soapy. I wonder if ScotPol have any contacts in South Africa?
ecobhoy says:
September 8, 2013 at 11:57 pm
I was just making the point that there are certain privileges which may preclude someone being forced into providing a witness statement. I was not suggesting that would be the case in this instance.
If it was a former Police Officer obtaining information from serving Police Officers which seems to be the suggestion then it is the serving Officers who are the issue and the person who got that information from them should be compelled to give evidence that he/she got it.
If necessary that person can be precognosed (sp) under oath as I understand it. In effect placed under oath and interviewed by the PF or their representative. However that would be rare and normally not necessary. The witness would simply have a witness statement taken from them. Not giving that statement isn’t an option unless they can claim a privilege, hence me referring to the possibility.
Newtz (or anybody else) 29th May, original Placees:
“Margarita Trust (now to be registered in the name of ATP Investments Limited) 2,600,000 shares”
There are a couple of SEC filings and, depending on whether you use upper or lower case for ATP three separate Singapore addresses but not much else.
Who are these people?
Tif Finn says:
September 7, 2013 at 6:09 pm
Zilch says:
September 7, 2013 at 5:47 pm
That seems like a pretty fair summing up to me, based on what we have seen, heard and been told.
I am quite sure that BDO and HMRC are very interested in an organised scheme designed to defraud the creditors of the old Rangers.
It seems that Mr Green has now walked away with his cut, I don’t imagine Mr Whyte is best pleased.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No point in imagining if Whyte is displeased if the underlying assumption is that Green and Whyte had a rift at some point. Maybe they didn’t and maybe there is more than one cut.
Slightly OT, but I hope the mods will indulge me.
Guy I knew many years ago, a very close friend with whom I lived the rock’n’roll dream, and his brother, were big Rangers fans – and Catholic. His dad who he had lost when he was just a kid had been a Rangers man, and my friend, like most of us do, followed suit despite the knowledge that his dream of pulling on the blue jersey could never come true.
In those days, that was a rare occurrence, although my later experience of teaching in RC schools tells me that it is no longer so rare.
The point is that this guy, despite staying right across the road (literally) from Celtic Park and attending a faith school in Cranhill, remained a Bear throughout his teens and twenties.
However when he married, he told me if he ever had a son, he himself would become a Celtic fan so his own boy wouldn’t have to put up with the crap he used to take at school as a Rangers fan! I lost contact with my friend many years ago, so I don’t know if he ever had that choice to make, but there is a sadness in that dilemma.
But again to return to the point, his experience taught me not to be judgemental about the choice folk make when they align themselves with a football team. Like my friend, who was one of the most decent and intelligent people I have ever met (and clearly not anti-Catholic), there are thousands of Rangers fans who, despite the baggage the club travelled with, just loved their team because, well it was their team, and not necessarily because of any convergence of ideals.
Consequently I am also reluctant to join in when on occasion there are attempts to portray Rangers fans as a single homogenous body. There are tens of thousands of decent, respectable, caring folk who call Rangers their team. We see them all the time on here as well. Despite the commendable efforts that TSFM has made to encourage the diversity of opinion that comes with more Rangers-minded folk on the blog, this is a hard place for a Rangers fan to be.
I admire those like the Glen and Ryan Gosling who state their opinions and try to steer clear of the spats. They clearly understand that there is anger towards Rangers for their behaviour in the past. I hope our collective tolerance and understanding of their situation will encourage more of their ilk to participate here.
I am not from a cultural place with an easy pathway to RFC, but if I can marry into a family of tories without violence becoming a part of my daily life, I reckon I can cut a Bear or three some slack 🙂
Rabo Karabekian says:
September 9, 2013 at 12:23 am
Sorry but what has religion got to do with this blog.
After this is all over one way or another Craig Whyte will come out with a Best Seller
come on you bhoys in green. Suggestions for the name of this best seller ???
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2013/apr_may.pdf
I must admit I hadn’t really taken much notice of the BBC Trust’s adjudication before.
“Common approach”?? Really??? Did UEFA or the SFA (the Scottish footballing authorities) give a statement to BBC to the effect that the club & company are separate entities? If so, where is the definitive statement to back up this assertion.
Surely they could not have been swayed by Sevco’s, D&P’s and the SPL’s approach who are all quite transparently motivated.by commercial considerations? Surely they would not seriously consider any of these bodies as authoritative and/or free from bias?
“Its operations were unaffected”?? Have they really not looked into this at all?
So the old club ceasing to operate and losing its place in the SPL did not affect its operations?
If the SFL members had accepted Sevco as the original Rangers FC, it would have been granted full member status. How does the new clubs admission as an associate member of the SFL fit in with the same club theory?
If Sevco was the same club as the original Rangers, it would not have had to TRANSFER the SFA membership between the old club and the new club.
The BBC Trust committee really hadn’t done their homework.
TSFM says:
September 8, 2013 at 11:35 pm
“Lord Denning a condescending old so and so, He still remains a condescending old so and so” 😛
Alfred Thompson “Tom” Denning, Baron Denning, OM, PC, DL, KC, commonly known as Lord Denning.
Alas the noble Lord, has gone the same way as RFC(PLC), this last 14 years (1999) at the ripe old age of 100.
ianjs says:
September 9, 2013 at 12:45 am TSFM says:
September 8, 2013 at 11:35 pm
“Lord Denning a condescending old so and so, He still remains a condescending old so and so” 😛
Alfred Thompson “Tom” Denning, Baron Denning, OM, PC, DL, KC, commonly known as Lord Denning.
Alas the noble Lord, has gone the same way as RFC(PLC), this last 14 years (1999) at the ripe old age of 100.
____________________________________________________________________________-
Yes ianjs, my reference to the present tense is because despite his demise, he still annoys the hell out of me
Rabo
A bit close to the wind on account of the flack that will be flying as a result of your tale of west coast life. I take the point about not judging people, and I admire you implicit support for Ryan due to the harsh treatment he was subjected to, but I don’t think we are really ready for that kind of grown up discussion.
HirsutePursuit says:
September 9, 2013 at 12:40 am
A bit like the original decision of the ASA, taking the word of those being investigated as “fact”!
HirsutePursuit says:
September 9, 2013 at 12:40 am
‘..The BBC Trust committee really hadn’t done their homework.’
—–
In pretty much the same way that the Advertising Standards Authority simply accepted what they were told, without investigation.
Got there before me,paulsatim!
JC, LOL!!
As long time readers of this and RTC may know, my friend’s father bought 4 debentures for himself and his 3 sons.
He definitely knows TRFC are a new club as TRFC refuse to honor the terms of the debenture.
Maybe the Trust would like his opinion…..
The withdrawal of the ASA’s original decision – and the new club’s subsequent agreement to “amend or withdraw” the disputed claims in future adverts may not be insignificant.
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications.aspx?SearchTerms=rangers#2
Feeling a change in the air from the MSM, maybe sevcos last website statement was a lie / dig / threat too many.
Twitter has the same feel as before LNS and FTT verdicts, lets hope next week brings a more suitable outcome.
TSFM says:
September 9, 2013 at 12:54 am
‘…he still annoys the hell out of me….’
—–
Et quidem recte! ( You’re quite right to be annoyed)
As my hero Cicero might have said.
Denning has been defended on this blog ( or was it on RTC?-where’s that aide- memoire when you need it?) on the grounds that his infamous pronouncement (that it was better for innocent people to go to jail than for the English Courts to be called into question!) was made when he was a dithery dotty old man.
No.
His utterance betrayed his complete lack of objectivity and impartiality when it came to applying the law in the case of people whom HE had pre-judged on the basis of race and nationality and fundamental personal prejudice.
Whatever ‘good’ he may have done in life, whatever the level of legal brilliance and honour he attained ,was destroyed and set at nought by that utterance, in much the same way that, for example, Mr Farry’s and Mr Dallas’s ‘good’ works were destroyed by their personal prejudicial actions when they eventually came to light.
Exiledcelt says:
September 9, 2013 at 1:14 am
‘..He definitely knows TRFC are a new club as TRFC refuse to honor the terms of the debenture. ‘
—-
You know, in all this saga, this is the first time I’ve really realised that there are people who are not just ordinary creditors like newsagents, printers, city councils, police forces and ambulance services, and so on, but people who had actually put their personal good money into RFC as an investment and who were two-fingered by the deliberately contrived Administration and criminal sale of the assets their money had helped to create and sustain.
I don’t know how many debenture holders there were. But can they all be happy that the people who have nullified their debentures are continuing to claim to be the club which issued the debentures?
Why are they not spitting blood at the bloody gall of it all?
Tif Finn says:
September 9, 2013 at 12:10 am
ecobhoy says:
September 8, 2013 at 11:57 pm
I was just making the point that there are certain privileges which may preclude someone being forced into providing a witness statement. I was not suggesting that would be the case in this instance.
If it was a former Police Officer obtaining information from serving Police Officers which seems to be the suggestion then it is the serving Officers who are the issue and the person who got that information from them should be compelled to give evidence that he/she got it.
=========================================================================
Journalists have absolutely no privilege and that includes no protection for sources. All that a journalist can do is refuse to answer or co-operate and that can end-up in a conviction with fine or imprisonment.
In that respect journalists are no different from any other member of the public and to be honest why should they be when you see what can happen to some whistlerblowers.
I once met a guy at a press function and was introduced to him by name which I won’t use but he was the chief reporter at a paper. As the night progressed with only a few libations 😉 I heard one of his colleagues refer to him as ‘porridge’ and being the curious type I asked why and was regaled by a marvellous tale of how he had ended-up in jail for refusing to reveal his sources. I hasten to add it was his colleague who told the tale.
But till I changed job I gave him the odd phone call when I picked-up a tasty story because people who are prepared to suffer for their principles should always be rewarded in my book. The man I talk of is probably long-dead and tbh I doubt if many of the younger replacements nowadays would last 10 seconds before spilling the beans.
On the second point I think the problem for either the retired or serving officers is the possibility that they were offered inducements by way of cash or kind to procure the information by a civilian and whether a journalist or not then they face a very serious charge akin to corruption – I am out of date with current phraseology I’m afraid.
ecobhoy says:
September 9, 2013 at 2:04 am
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Long day for you on here chief- What paper did you work for?
John Clarke – correct – no one is shouting out loud but there has been a few mumblings on the TRFC blogs
Background
…….are offering 6807 bonds, costing between #1000 and #1650, to their supporters and the business community to raise more than #8.5m towards the #12.5m cost of the new three-tier stand development.
……………Participants will be guaranteed a seat in the top deck of the new main stand, and the priority right to purchase a ticket for their seat for every Rangers first-team match as well as first refusal on any other qualifying Ibrox event, including non-sporting attractions
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/rangers-ask-fans-for-8-5m-to-refurbish-main-stand-at-ibrox-1.574756
….The club’s unsecured creditors, who were owed more than £55m, included more than 6000 fans who bought £7.7m worth of debenture seats. One of them, sadly, was Jim’s dad.
“My dad passed away in July 2011. He had been an agent at Rangers Pools, and when Murray still owned the club my dad bought a debenture seat in the stadium’s club deck for £1500. It’s really a seat for life, and you get your name on the back.
“Back in the 70s he also bought 10 shares at £10, an investment of £100. That then was diluted to a penny a share under Murray.
“In his will he left his debenture seat to my oldest son, and his other four grandkids got shares.
“But all of these investments disappeared when the club went into administration.”
“My dad’s seat has gone now, though we’ve never really been told anything in writing.
“It’s obviously not a huge sum of money, but from my dad’s point of view it was really just something to remember him by, and it’s been wiped out
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/rangers-one-year-on-how-a-lifelong-fan-saw-the-clubs-dramatic-fall-115583n.20203999
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=253263
(edited for bad language)
I’m a bond holder and I received an email from the club telling me basically this is the last season my seat will be kept for me, I never got involved in the creditor stuff ,I never wanted a penny from the club all I wanted was a guarantee my seat that I bought and paid for was mines for life, I phoned the club this afternoon to ask them to clarify were i stood in regards me still owning my seat and to my utter disgust the plonker I was dealing with from customer services had the cheek to tell me I bought the seat from the old co and the newco wasn’t honouring the deal,what the **** my own club using old co newco s***,to say I’m offended at the clubs stance is an understatement.why is the club not honouring the deal with bond holders?
email sent – http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=253263
My friend was only a big game supporter and only went for Euro nights and games against Celtic/Aberdeen and SCs etc – so without them he wouldn’t be going anyway. Still….6000 Bears know that Jim Spence is correct…………plus anyone who had RFC shares………..
John Clarke – some Bears know Jim Spence is right – about 6000 of them at least….
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/rangers-one-year-on-how-a-lifelong-fan-saw-the-clubs-dramatic-fall-115583n.20203999
The club’s unsecured creditors, who were owed more than £55m, included more than 6000 fans who bought £7.7m worth of debenture seats.
One of them, sadly, was Jim’s dad.
“My dad passed away in July 2011. He had been an agent at Rangers Pools, and when Murray still owned the club my dad bought a debenture seat in the stadium’s club deck for £1500. It’s really a seat for life, and you get your name on the back.
“Back in the 70s he also bought 10 shares at £10, an investment of £100. That then was diluted to a penny a share under Murray.
“In his will he left his debenture seat to my oldest son, and his other four grandkids got shares.
“But all of these investments disappeared when the club went into administration.”
“My dad’s seat has gone now, though we’ve never really been told anything in writing.
“It’s obviously not a huge sum of money, but from my dad’s point of view it was really just something to remember him by, and it’s been wiped out.”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/rangers-ask-fans-for-8-5m-to-refurbish-main-stand-at-ibrox-1.574756
Rangers ask fans for #8.5m to refurbish main stand at Ibrox
BILL CAVEN
Thursday 31 May 1990
RANGERS Football Club yesterday turned to their fans to help finance a multi-million pound reconstruction and refurbishment of the main stand at Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow.
The Premier League champions are offering 6807 bonds, costing between #1000 and #1650, to their supporters and the business community to raise more than #8.5m towards the #12.5m cost of the new three-tier stand development. The remainder will come in a grant from the Rangers Development Fund, and from the club’s own resources.
The club launched a similar venture last year only to abandon it a few months later.
The changes, which will make Ibrox all-seated, comply with the legislation demanded in the recent Taylor Report.
The latest debenture bond scheme has been formulated with the help of leading financial, business, and legal advisers. Advice was also sought from the Scottish Rugby Union which introduced a comparable scheme at Murrayfield.
As the announcement was being made, it was revealed that the Glasgow club had offered a 10% stake worth #3m, plus interest, to their shirt sponsors, Scottish Brewers. The company has until November 14 to decide whether to take up the option struck during negotiations over a #5m sponsorship deal.
A Rangers’ spokesman last night denied that the details of the deal had been hidden away in the bond document, saying: ”The information is there quite clearly in the document, and is an option which Scottish Brewers have. There has been no attempt whatsoever to conceal it.”
Launching the new debenture issue, Mr David Murray, chairman of Rangers Football Club, explained that it was designed to keep the club at the forefront of Scottish and European soccer by providing the finest stadium possible.
By inviting fans to invest in the club’s future, the bond scheme would allow Rangers to complete the development of Ibrox Stadium, started 14 years ago under the auspices of Willie Waddell, while at the same time provide financial backing to manager-director Mr Graeme Souness to buy new players.
”It has always been our intention to provide our supporters with the finest stadium possible. The Rangers bond gives us the mechanism to make that dream a reality,” Mr Murray said.
Revealing that the club’s overdraft had been reduced to #2m, he added: ”This method of financing the reconstruction of the stand will ensure that Rangers can continue to make money available to Graeme to invest in the best available players and keep the club at the forefront.”
Participants will be guaranteed a seat in the top deck of the new main stand, and the priority right to purchase a ticket for their seat for every Rangers first-team match as well as first refusal on any other qualifying Ibrox event, including non-sporting attractions.
Bondholders who decline to take up their season ticket option will still be able to benefit as the club will sell it and split any premium equally. Ticket prices will be linked to other parts of the stadium.
Mr Graham Watson of Noble Grossart, sponsors of the issue, said that Rangers had placed great emphasis on their financial advisers to ”look after the fans”.
He explained: ”The club instructed the advisers to make the bond scheme acceptable and affordable to all supporters, and we have tried to do that.”
To ensure that happened, Mr Watson continued, Rangers had negotiated a preferential rate personal loan scheme with three Scottish banks to allow fans to invest in the debenture issue. Under this arrangement, it could cost around #40 month.
Applications for the 6807 bonds, on offer from today, will be treated on a first come, first served basis. While bondholders will be able to pass them on down the generations, they will also be able to dispose of them through a specially organised secondary market.
To help market the debenture scheme, Rangers will be spending #300,000 on an advertising campaign.
Work on the development, which will eventually increase ground capacity to 48,000 and rake in an additional #1.8m, will begin shortly and involve the minimum of disruption. It is expected to be completed by the end of next year.
The new top deck of the main stand, housing the 6807 bondholders, will be created first before the existing main stand is cleared and modern seating introduced.
The distinctive red brick facade will be retained, protecting an ”exclusive” concourse offering an upmarket food court.
HirsutePursuit says:
September 9, 2013 at 12:40 am
12
0
Rate This
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2013/apr_may.pdf
The Committee noted, however, that the administrators of Rangers Football Club plc, its liquidators and those representing the Scottish football authorities had taken a common approach when explaining how the football club had been affected by this process. The Committee believed that these groups had made clear that in their view the club was a separate entity from these two companies and that its operations were unaffected by either its previous owner being placed into administration or its sale to a new company
I must admit I hadn’t really taken much notice of the BBC Trust’s adjudication before.
“Common approach”?? Really??? Did UEFA or the SFA (the Scottish footballing authorities) give a statement to BBC to the effect that the club & company are separate entities? If so, where is the definitive statement to back up this assertion.
Surely they could not have been swayed by Sevco’s, D&P’s and the SPL’s approach who are all quite transparently motivated.by commercial considerations? Surely they would not seriously consider any of these bodies as authoritative and/or free from bias?
“Its operations were unaffected”?? Have they really not looked into this at all?
So the old club ceasing to operate and losing its place in the SPL did not affect its operations?
If the SFL members had accepted Sevco as the original Rangers FC, it would have been granted full member status. How does the new clubs admission as an associate member of the SFL fit in with the same club theory?
If Sevco was the same club as the original Rangers, it would not have had to TRANSFER the SFA membership between the old club and the new club.
The BBC Trust committee really hadn’t done their homework.
============================
The SFA can say what they like about the nature of Rangers as gone and what took their place but does the paperwotk back it up?
Is McCulloch’s registration with the same club for example? Is his contract with the same club? If its the same club why were players allowed to walk away?
A telling example of how football saw Rangers will be in the SFA’s records in the form of the Legal Declaration which is a kind of undertaking clubs or companies responsible for a football club have to sign to get clearance from UEFA to play in Europe when they qualify. Clubs as defined in Art 12 of UEFA FFP
Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant
1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible
for a football team participating in national and international competitions which
either:
a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated
league (hereinafter: registered member); or
b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football
company).
Those clubs falling under 12 (a) sign a declaration under Article 43
Those clubs where a contractual relationship exists between a club and an operating company have to comply with Article 45. See
http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf for details.
Thus the SFA and Rangers will know if both saw Rangers as a club as UEFA defined the situation.
The BBC should be asking the SFA to clarify their position in respect of UEFA FFP principles and what Article, 43 or 45, Rangers complied with in 2011 the last time they were in Europe.
Auldheid says:
September 9, 2013 at 4:44 am
==================================
One of the arguments put forward by the still the same club brigade is that UEFA still see them as the same. I do not recall UEFA ever making such a statement and I am unable to find any such statement. Is this just another lie that has now become accepted as the truth?
upthehoops says:
September 9, 2013 at 7:19 am
Auldheid says:
September 9, 2013 at 4:44 am
==================================
One of the arguments put forward by the still the same club brigade is that UEFA still see them as the same. I do not recall UEFA ever making such a statement and I am unable to find any such statement. Is this just another lie that has now become accepted as the truth?
==================================
I think this is a hybrid myth 😆
One the one part it is composed of those confusing the ECA with UEFA and on the other an inability to understand the coefficient rankings. I have some sympathy with the latter as I struggle myself but one thing I do know is that an alive and well club contributes to the rankings and one in Rangers’ position eventually drops off the rankings in its oldco form although it can reappear as a separate newco.
If I’ve got that wrong then I’m not surprised 😆
Drew Peacock says:
September 9, 2013 at 2:18 am
ecobhoy says:
September 9, 2013 at 2:04 am
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Long day for you on here chief- What paper did you work for?
======================================================
I sometimes deal with things in different timezones which can be a pain and make for a long day but I managed a few interludes yesterday with a bit of socialising thrown in as well
Sorry what do you mean what paper? There are media charity and award nights and the organisation I worked for often took a table and being regarded as a raconteur and a bit of an all-round wit (and on occasion half-wit good for a laugh) I was No 1 choice to represent the company because no one else wanted to go. However I did meet quite a few journos.
But I think it’s a bit off to request who my employer is even though your basic assumption is wrong ❗
Looks as though The Herald is firmly in the grip of the PR machine with this late running of the original Spence story:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/bbc-says-sorry-over-spences-rangers-comments.22092189
If 400 of them have complained then we should all be writing in support of Spence whether we agree with the old club died or not scenario. This is an attempt to muzzle free speech and it has nothing to do with Rangers but has a wider political and sectarian agenda.
I wonder how many of the 400 actually pay for a TV licence or even watch or listen to the BBC – the Darkside sites are full of statements explaining how to avoid paying your TV licence and their hatred of the BBC.
Most of the complainers will be Mickey Mouse with false addresses and names and we see how this was organised to cheat Parliament with their HMRC Petition until the Speakers Office cottoned on and had the IT department investigate. The hits dropped immediately after reaching almost 40,000 in weeks and over the last 8 months has only added about 500. These people have no respect for democracy and the right to express an opinion contrary to their entrenched and permanently fixed aggression to all who are not the deluded and have a mind to think.
‘The Committee noted, however, that the administrators of Rangers Football Club plc, its liquidators and those representing the Scottish football authorities had taken a common approach when explaining how the football club had been affected by this process. The Committee believed that these groups had made clear that in their view the club was a separate entity from these two companies and that its operations were unaffected by either its previous owner being placed into administration or its sale to a new company’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The SPL and the SFL certainly took a common approach. The Rangers applied for an SPL share. Why? Because, as a new club, it didn’t hold one. The application was denied.
The Rangers tried to weasel its way into SFL1. The application was denied.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/bbc-says-sorry-over-spences-rangers-comments.22092189
BBC says sorry over Spence’s Rangers comments
Martin Williams
Senior News Reporter
Monday 9 September 2013
THE BBC has apologised after receiving over 400 complaints about BBC Scotland presenter Jim Spence who referred to Rangers as “the old club that died”.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Do I hear Jack’s footsteps in the background ?
newtz says:
September 8, 2013 at 4:31 pm
WHAT CAN I SAY NEWTZ – YOU ARE THE MAN ❗
Apologies to everyone else for shouting but I really have to acknowledge the contribution made by newtz which is outstanding.
————————————————————————————————————————————
Agreed hard work and excellent contribution,
manandboy says:
September 9, 2013 at 8:09 am
3 0 Rate This
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/bbc-says-sorry-over-spences-rangers-comments.22092189
BBC says sorry over Spence’s Rangers comments
Martin Williams
Senior News Reporter
Monday 9 September 2013
THE BBC has apologised after receiving over 400 complaints about BBC Scotland presenter Jim Spence who referred to Rangers as “the old club that died”.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Do I hear Jack’s footsteps in the background ?
————-
It looks like today’s news but it isn’t. This is a few days old. It’s recycled fish&chip paper 🙂
Is Jim Spence off to look for work?
___________________________________________________________________________
Jim Spence @bbcjimspence 3m
Day off today, so about to get on my bike and do what Norman Tebbit suggested.
___________________________________________________________________________
What happened to the BBC growing a pair???
TSFM says:
September 8, 2013 at 11:35 pm
I spoke to an MSM journalist over the weekend, who told me he didn’t read online blogs or forums because of the nonsense and rantings he believes they contain. I will urge him to have a look at an extract of today’s contributions
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
While you are urging your journo to look at some of our contributions, remind him that many of us don’t read much of the MSM because of the nonsense and rantings we believe they contain.
Danish Pastry says:
September 9, 2013 at 8:48 am
manandboy says:
September 9, 2013 at 8:09 am
3 0 Rate This
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/bbc-says-sorry-over-spences-rangers-comments.22092189
BBC says sorry over Spence’s Rangers comments
Martin Williams
Senior News Reporter
Monday 9 September 2013
THE BBC has apologised after receiving over 400 complaints about BBC Scotland presenter Jim Spence who referred to Rangers as “the old club that died”.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Do I hear Jack’s footsteps in the background ?
————-
It looks like today’s news but it isn’t. This is a few days old. It’s recycled fish&chip paper 🙂
________________________________________________________________________________________
StevieBC posted the response from the BBC quoted in this article around 3 days ago. An agenda driven article :slamb: :slamb: :slamb:
Most of the complainers will be Mickey Mouse with false addresses
——————————————————————————————————-
Ecobhoy, ‘MICKEY’ mouse? No chance! 😈
” I am sorry if you were offended by this.”
=====================================
This is what the BBC have said.
Not that we’re sorry for what was said but we’re sorry if you were offended.
Different thing altogether.
I suppose we’ll find out soon if the BBC will defend Jim Spence(as they should) against TRFC and their lawyers,if TRFC have actually instructed their briefs to slap the BBC down,
I know they said they would but it wouldn’t be the first time they’ve misled folk.Nothing like a good scandal to deflect attention.
Any sign of the annual return,accounts,date for the AGM/EGM? yet.
Paul McConville @Paulmcc12 1h
Charlotte Fakes and the Data Protection Act – Part 1 – Is Charlotte’s Web Broken? http://wp.me/p1Adbc-14q
Sorry to re-visit discussion from last Friday when things have moved on so markedly but, as Adam may have said, I was away without access to the Internet.
Anyway in response to my post asking people not to generalise and condemn all Rangers supporters as bigots (and yes the 500 million comment was ironic Ecobhoy, sorry you missed it) we get this from
MoreCelticParanoia:
September 6, 2013 at 4:25 pm
(part of a longer post, my edit)
“Sorry, but if you swim in a swamp you will get dirty and I would find the “don’t tar them all with the same brush” more convincing if I could see any evidence of a genuine effort to clean up their act. Exponentially more energy is expended in whattaboutery and absurd victim mentality. The fact is, RFC is a brand with a level of toxicity, and for very good reason, whether you as an individual are the most moral upstanding person in society. If you identify yoursef with RFC you are attaching a portion of this reputation to yourself, whether you like it or not, so if you are so concerned how about actually doing something about it instead of trying to deflect by accusing others of making generalisations they didn’t actually make?”
===============================================================================
MCP, I don’t identify myself with RFC, never have done, never will do. You’re not the first to assume that I am a Rangers supporter because I’ve aired an opinion that doesn’t fit with their view.
It’s a shame that the single most important reference point for some continues to be the “them” and “us” of G51 and G40 rather than the health of Scottish football and the fair and honest application of its rules.
A littel bit off topic but a wee bit of light heartedness nonetheless. I had the pleasure of sitting down to watch the new Star Trek – Into Darkness movie over the weekend. Its basicaly a re-telling of the Wrath of Khan storyline from Star Trek II. However my mind drifted back to that movie where Spock died but transferred his chakra to Dr McCoy and was then miraculously resurrected through the use of the Genesis device and mystical Vulcan rituals. He of course claims he is the same Spock but I think he should henceforth be know as The Mr Spock. Also, going back to the new film. There is a scene where the two Spocks are on screen at the same time. I couldn’t help but have a chuckle at the correlation with events in Scottish football.
TSFM says:
September 9, 2013 at 12:54 am
Yes ianjs, my reference to the present tense is because despite his demise, he still annoys the hell out of me.
😆 😆 😆
Some Snipets from a thread on FOLLOW FOLLOW in relation to why the Airdrionian situation is different to the Sevco situation.
I’m still Laughing!
——————————–
Clydebank were also liquidated around the same time and Airdrie basically bought Clydebank and changed the name to Airdrie Utd. The SPLF website is wrong because it should have Airdrie’s founded date listed as the Clydebank one.
———————————
It’s not that hard to understand. Rangers football club, all its assets and licence was Transferred to the new company. Same stadium. same players, same badge, same supporters, same training ground, SAME SFA LICENCE!!!
Airdie FC ceased to exist, so the assests and licence were Not Transferred!! Airdie came back as Aidrie Utd and took Clydebank’s licence after Clydebank went under.
——————————–
The actual process Rangers went through was pre-pack administration. Airdrie were liquidated. They applied to the SFA for NEW membership but Gretna beat them to it. Airdrie then bought Clydebank and were promoted a division in the process.
“A pre-pack is the process of selling the assets of a company immediately after it has entered administration. It is sometimes the case that the previous directors or management purchase the assets of the company from the administrator and set up a new company.
This process has advantages in that it enables the administrator to realise a greater amount for the assets due to business continuity and the goodwill of the company are preserved. The employees of the company are also usually transferred to the new company preserving jobs.
A recent example of a pre-pack is the sale of the assets of Cobra Beer to Coors immediately after Cobra Beer entered administration. This allowed the brand to continue, save jobs [4] but also leave suppliers out of pocket by an estimated £75 million.”
The fact there was the option for staff to TUPE shows that the business continued in Rangers case. So even if they go down the “club=company” route they fail.
Our original SFA membership was transferred from old to newco also.
——————————————————————————
Simple really, Airdrie went out of existance, the football club wasn’t bought out of adminstration, a group of businessmen bought Clydebank, changed their name to Airdrie United, and latterly Airdrieonians there was no transfer of their football club share between operators.
We never went out of existance. The football club was purchased out of administration and seemlessly changed parent companies (operators) and we’re still going strong.
——————————————————————————————
newtz says:
September 8, 2013 at 4:31 pm
——————————————————
Truly superb post and excellent contribution , very well done 😎
theoldcourse on September 9, 2013 at 11:04 am
3 0 Rate This
———-
Aye, but which Spock played against Brechin? 😀
Btw, Wasn’t Leonard Nimoy playing The New Spock’s dad?
TallBoy Poppy says:
September 9, 2013 at 12:17 am
———————————————————–
From public source –
“THE CAYMAN ISLANDS is a major money laundering center which
ranks sixth among the world’s banking centers, has 23,500
registered corporations and 548 banks which hold assets of
some $400 billion, but only 26,000 inhabitants. All but four
of the 50 most important international banks in the world are
represented here, but, of the 548 banks, only 68 have offices
and staff in Georgetown. The vast majority have
“representative offices” or “brass plate offices,” and some
exist only on paper.
The Cayman Islands thrive on the offshore banking industry.
Its inhabitants enjoy one of the highest per capita annual
incomes ($20,000) in the Western Hemisphere. The Islands’
tax-free status, and very tight bank secrecy laws, make the
Caymans an attractive tax haven for many corporations.
Although London appoints the Islands’ governors and the
British Foreign and Commonwealth Office controls the Caymans’
foreign policy, the Bank of England (Britain’s central bank)
has no direct control over Caymans’ financial regulations.
SINGAPORE is a major financial center and ranks among the top
five foreign exchange centers in the world. The presence of
dozens of offshore banks, the stability of the economy and
government, bank secrecy and the strength of the Singapore
dollar would appear to make this an attractive target for
money launderers. U.S. authorities suspect that significant
narcotics money laundering has occurred but the Monetary
Authority of Singapore (MAS) disputes the contention.
MAURITIUS is concerned about the potential for money-
laundering in the nascent off-shore banking industry and has
assigned a high priority to obtaining foreign assistance for
monitoring such activities and developing legislation for
preventing abuse of the banking system.”
Danish Pastry says:
September 9, 2013 at 11:25 am
theoldcourse on September 9, 2013 at 11:04 am
———-
Aye, but which Spock played against Brechin?
Btw, Wasn’t Leonard Nimoy playing The New Spock’s dad?
—————————————————————————————-
No he’s the same Spock but from a different timeline in the future. In the first of the Star Trek reboot movies The Mr Spock pursued a Romulan villian from the future back in time. The Romulan was trying to destroy the Federation before it was created. The Mr Spock managed to prevent this but was unable to prevent the destruction of Vulcan meaning he could not return to his own time. He chose to stay in the past alongside his younger self. By using this method the franchise was able to re-create itself with a whole new cast of characters. Now where have we seen that before….
theoldcourse says:
September 9, 2013 at 11:35 am
Danish Pastry says:
September 9, 2013 at 11:25 am
theoldcourse on September 9, 2013 at 11:04 am
============================================
5 Star T’wreck!
I’ll get my phaser.
theoldcourse on September 9, 2013 at 11:35 am
2 0 Rate This
———
I see. ‘Spock Prime’ eh? It’s the kind of thing Bill Miller could have come up with (I confess, I was more concerned about the fate of The Scotty), especially since Khan had been put into a cryogenic incubator. I believe Miller was also concerned about a black hole. This is spooky.
Gavin Gunning – trial by TV/Lunney
SO, i see Gavin Gunning has been given a……3 match ban after his hearing. Isn’t this exactly what he was offered and rejected?
So, given there is no additional punishment, are we now saying that everyone should challenge any punishment “offered” as it won’t be increased even in the case of a frivolous appeal?
Pretty inconsistent and weak set of rules there – as i’m sure most people who refuse the sanction offered get an increased one if they appeal it.
As for this post match process…..i’m pretty much against it, and i THOUGHT the SFA/FIFA were as well.
e are seeing several incidents of players being charged for events missed by the officials. Are we now saying that we CAN use video evidence? Isn’t this pretty inconsistent – not all games will be on TV (no cameras) or some will only be part of teh basic highlights coverage – so only 1 camera in the ground. Wasn’t the argument that TV replay evidence would undermine the official?
I don’t really care about the rights/wrongs of what happened here – we can all cite a hundred cases of an incident, missed by the ref, going unpunished.
The current system seems to be “if you are grassed up, it’l get reviewed”
this is a wholly inconsistent process, completely lacking transparency.
Either introduce video evidence and allow ALL incidents (caught by the ref or otherwise) to be re-assessed and punished as needed – or do none.
I think Lunney’s remit should stop at the kick off and final whistle of each game. That is the ref’s job.
Come on SFA, sort out your processes and try to be consistent/fair.
@JimDelahunt
Am old enough to remember when peeps were allowed opinions on Rangers & Celtic without having jobs on line. BOTH sides need to wake up.
1:26pm – 9 Sep 13
——
Not sure why both sides are mentioned, but at least is speaking out
Don’t know if Jim Spence looks in or not. If so, I have a number of fairly simple question I’d like you to ask the SFA.
When was the club currently known as Airdrieonians FC admitted as a member of the SFA?
Has there been an interruption in SFA membership of the club, formed in 1878 called Airdrieonians FC?
Has there been an interruption in SFA membership of the club, formed in 1965 formally called Clydebank FC?
Has there been an interruption in membership of the club once known as Airdrie United FC?
Has there been an interruption in membership of the club once known as Airdrie FC?
Has there been an interruption in SFA membership of the club, formed in 1881 as East Stirlingshire FC; but for one season played at Kilbowie Park and was known as ES Clydebank FC?
When was the club currently known as Livingston FC first admitted as a member of the SFA?
Has there been any interruption in SFA membership of the club, formed in 1943 (and granted membership of the SFA in 1973) formally called Ferranti Thistle FC?
When was the club currently known as Rangers FC admitted as a member of the SFA?
Has there been any interruption in SFA membership of the club, founded in 1873 and incorporated in 1899 called Rangers FC?
Is the continued use of particular name or the ownership/use of a particular stadium from which the member club plays, critical components of continued membership of the SFA?
What is the SFA’s official position on Lord Nimmo Smith’s opinion that the undertaking of a Club:
“…would at least comprise its name the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff and its ground, even though they may change from time to time.”
What is the SFA’s official position on Lord Nimmo Smith’s opinion that a Club has no:
“legal personality, separate from and additional to, the legal personality of its owner and operator.”
For the purposes of its articles of association and its rules, is the legal entity holding SFA membership and responsible for footballing operations regarded as an association football club by the SFA & UEFA?
For the purposes of the SFA’s articles of association and its rules, was The Rangers Football Club plc ( now RFC 2012 plc) ever an association football club holding full membership of the SFA?
For the purposes of the SFA’s articles of association and its rules, is The Rangers Football Club Ltd an association football club holding full membership of the SFA?
For the purposes of the SFA’s articles of association and its rules, is The Rangers Football Club plc the same association football club as The Rangers Football Club Ltd?
The HERALD getting it wrong Again :slamb: http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/bbc-says-sorry-over-spences-rangers-comments.22092189?_=f03ae99938d636c7924c6d5404c0e6491064ba01
The BBC only apologise IF YOU WHERE OFFENDED 🙄
paulonotini says:
September 8, 2013 at 8:06 pm
I took you advice and posted my compliaint:
___________________________________________________________________________
To: trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk
Subject: Coverage of Rangers Football Club, BBC Online
Dear Sirs,
With reference to your decision regarding the “Coverage of Rangers Football Club, BBC Online” detailed in the document:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2013/apr_may.pdf
… I feel that I must object to the conclusions reached.
Under Scottish Law, there is no differentiation between a football club and the company formed for the express purpose of managing and administering a football team. It would seem that the complainants views were upheld based upon the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECA) acceptance that there was a clear distinction between the company that ran Rangers Football club and the club itself but this is simply not the case.
In the appeal finding section in the document there are many examples cited of quotes indicating that the club is separate from the company however I should point out that all of these are from individuals and parties who have a vested interest in separating the club from the company for various commercial and financial reasons and appear to be using the BBC to perpetuate this stance. Further it is interesting to note that all of these quotes are from a point in time after Rangers Football Club failed to achieve a CVA and subsequently entered liquidation.
If you look at quotes from these same people/parties prior to the CVA, you will see a different and occasionally opposite point of view:
Charles Green – Ex-Rangers CEO
“all the history and tradition that we’ve been desperately trying to preserve would be just swept down the drain”
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4362942/Im-not-here-to-be-loved-Im-here-to-FIX-Rangers.html
Walter Smith – Ex-Rangers Chairman
“We wish the new Rangers Football Club every good fortune.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18503656
Duff & Phelps – Rangers Administrators
“The current club being liquidated, meaning a new club could be formed to inherit Ranger’s assets”
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/299754-dunfermline-have-problems-with-new-rangers-spl-entry/
James Traynor – Rangers Director of Communications
“No matter how Charles Green attempts to dress it up, a newco equals a new club”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/james-traynor-spl-will-not-be-able-1129166
While I could cite many more quotes given the time, I believe it is much more appropriate to provide you with the definition of a football club provided by the Scottish Football Association with reference to the UEFA definition:
Part 3 – UEFA Club Licensing
Section 3 – The Club as Licence Applicant and the UEFA Licence
3.1 Definition of Licence Applicant
3.1.1 The Licence Applicant may only be a football club, that is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity member of the Scottish Football Association (Full or Associate Member). The licence applicant is responsible for the fulfillment of the club licensing criteria.
This quite clearly states that the club is the legal entity, i.e. the company.
The football club formed in 1872 became a private company in 1899, and public company in 1982. Incorporation means that the club becomes a company. It is no longer, legally, a club, it is now a company. There is no legal distinction between the “company” and the “club.”
I posit that this means that the whole basis upon which the ECA decision was reached is fundamentally flawed. There is a new club and there is an old club and any journalist reporting on any story emanating from Ibrox should have the freedom to use these terms as appropriate where applicable.
I can understand that fans of the current The Rangers Football Club would wish to see their team as a continuation of the old one but there is no basis in law or under the regulations of the numerous footballing authorities within whose jurisdictions they fall that prevent use of these terms.
It must be taken into account that his is a highly emotive issue for many. The old club ran up debts of many millions of pounds and went into liquidation. Existing club creditors including the tax payer will get a pennies in the pound settlement at the end of the liquidation process and debenture holders will see their investment in the club reduced to nought. Where media coverage is given to the new club portraying them as healthy, debt-free and one of Britain’s largest and most successful clubs, then these people will rightfully feel indignation and their feelings should always be borne in mind.
The BBC is and must always remain an impartial organisation who are able to report facts as they appear to all their licence holders and not just one group who apply the most pressure.
Yours faithfully
JLeeHooker (used my real name)
Long post I’m afraid but I hope it provides some new material and tidies-up a lot of questions over Sevco 5088 although inevitably others are raised 😆
—————————————————————————————————————-
A desperate and long-running battle is being waged over control of Sevco 5088 Ltd which lies at the heart of the ‘WHO OWNS RANGERS’ riddle.
Attempts to send the company to an unmarked watery grave appear to have failed and the Registrar at Companies House has withdrawn documents from public scrutiny which attempted to remove two of the three directors controlling the company.
This story has enormous repercussions for the SFA and the future of Rangers; Ticketus; shareholders of Rangers International Football Club; a London court case next month; the BDO investigation into Rangers; the main players viz Charles Green, Craig Whyte and Aidan Earley. Pinsent Masons may also have cause to ponder their underwhelming private investigation at Ibrox especially when the dogs in the street – never mind the bampots and clatterers – know Whyte had nothing to do with Sevco Scotland. What, if anything, Pinsent Masons uncovered re Sevco 5088 and Whyte and the likes of Green and Rizvi remains a secret or in legal jargon ‘confidential and legally privileged’.
Many of my readers can join the dots and I will keep speculation to a minimum and attempt to provide facts sourced on official documents. As befits a skeleton story it’s very very scary. No zombies have been harmed in the production although hopefully some spivs might be mortally wounded but more important is the need to fully open the eyes of Bears to the dangers which face their club through a lack of transparency.
Sevco 5088 Ltd was the company which paid £200k for exclusivity to make the ‘binding offer’ for the business and assets of Rangers Football Club from administrators D&P but I will begin the story some time after the company’s birth and later return to the early days in search of elusive answers
The Rangers AIM flotation prospectus is silent on the pivotal role played by Sevco 5088 which after initially acquiring exclusive rights to purchase the assets of oldco Rangers signed a three-way agreement with D&P (administrators of Rangers 2012 Plc) and Sevco Scotland Ltd to ensure transfer of the assets to the latter company. The Prospectus however airbrushes out this key Sevco 5088 contribution by stating that on 14 June 2012 TRFCL acquired the business and assets of Rangers. Poor old Sevco 5088 was relegated to a minor mention as a ‘related party’ because Charles Green an RIFC director and shareholder was claimed to be ‘the sole shareholder’ in Sevco 5088. Green was supposed to list companies of which he was a director in the AIM prospectus but failed to disclose that interest in Sevco 5088 and it had to be corrected by a later AIM announcement.
Just a week after the RIFC December 2012 flotation Charles Green, listed on Companies House at that time as sole director of Sevco 5088, signed a form on 27 December 2012 instructing Companies House to strike-off Sevco 5088 using the solicitors Field Fisher Waterhouse (FFW), Vine Street, London. Companies House listed the propsal on January 7 2013 and the London Gazette carried it a week later. Then the company’s Registered Office was switched on 12 April 2013 from FFW at Vine Street to another London address associated with Craig Whye who was also posted at Companies House as a director of Sevco 5088 along with Aidan Earley on the same day.
The director appointment forms submitted to Companies House declared that Earley and Whyte were appointed Sevco 5088 directors on 9 May 2012 and each signed their appointment form which were countersigned by Charles Green.The striking-off instruction for Sevco 5088 required a minimum of 2 directors to sign if a company had three directors but only Charles Green signed it which is only allowable in a sole director company. The spaces for additional director signatures were marked with an ‘X’.
Reaction followed swiftly only four days later on 16 April 2013 when Companies House received electronically transmitted directorship termination instructions for Craig Whyte and Aidan Earley although the instructing party wasn’t identified. Curiously, both directorships were terminated from 9 May 2012 although their directorships only became public on 12 April 2013.
Two director termination forms, for Earley and Whyte, arrived at Companies House next day on 17 April 2013 submitted by FFW and signed by Charles Green and FFW also submitted a change of registered office address form, again signed by Charles Green, switching it back to FFW at Vine Street.
But the FFW Vine Street musical chairs had another whirl on 19 April 2013 when the Registered Office was again transferred back to the London address associated with Craig Whyte. On the same day Charles Green resigned as CEO of Rangers amidst a backdrop of allegations over his links with Whyte and Sevco 5088. This resulted in RIFC making an announcement on AIM on 22 April stating that Sevco 5088 was a subsidiary of RIFC on 7 December 2012 when the company’s AIM admission document was presented.
Stung by further media speculation, RIFC made another statement to AIM two days later on 24 April to refute claims that Sevco 5088 was controlled by Law Financial Limited or the Worthington Group Plc. RIFC described Sevco 5088 as an inactive subsidiary which was and is defunct and non-trading. RIFC alleged that Sevco 5088: ‘Would have been struck off by the Registrar of Companies had false claims of directorships not been filed recently at Companies House’ and added: ‘Sevco 5088 was not the acquisition vehicle which purchased the assets of Rangers Football Club.’ Both announcements to AIM were handled by CENKOS the broker and Nomad for RIFC who have now departed the scene.
The AIM statement is carefully worded and tries to avoid the man-traps that surround the removal of Sevco 5088’s legally binding exclusive right to purchase the Rangers assets and business and the transfer of these rights to Sevco Scotland by mysterious alleged Sevco 5088 ‘directors’.
In spite of the AIM bluster the December 2012 Sevco 5088 strike-off move by Charles Green was suspended by the Registrar at Companies House on 4 May 2013 after an objection was received which may well have come from Whyte and Earley or possibly Law Financial or Worthington and this was re-confirmed on 9 August 2013. In between times the Registrar – on 3 July 2013 – authorised removal from Companies House Public Register of the four directorship termination instructions wrt Earley and Whyte dating from 16 and 17 April 2013.
So what is actually happening? Let’s go back to the beginning when Sevco 5088 was incorporated in Cardiff on 29 March 2012 and the formation agent became a director and a £1 subscriber share was issued to 7Side Secretarial Ltd. On 3 May 2012 The agent stood down and was replaced by Charles Green but there is no indication in public records that the £1 subscriber share changed hands from 7Side Secretarial Ltd. This seems at odds with RIFC’s AIM claim that Sevco 5088 is a subsidiary company when Companies House records show the shareholding held by another company. This is also at odds with the Rangers AIM Prospectus which claims Charles Green was sole shareholder in Sevco 5088.
Sevco 5088 is also well overdue in making its Annual Report due on 26 April 2013 and which would detail the shareholding. Of course if the company had been struck-off as requested by Green then the need to make the return would have sunk beneath the waves without a ripple just like poor old Sevco 5088 was meant to after completing its top-secret mission.
The critical TRFCL Board meeting of 31 October 2012 – whose minute was publicly released to the internet by CF – was attended by: Malcolm Murray (seemingly cast as ‘Daniel); Charles Green and Imran Ahmad in person and Brian Stockbridge by conference call.
The Board noted that Sevco 5088 had entered into a binding offer letter with D&P on 12 May 2012 to purchase Rangers by a CVA or failing that to acquire the assets and business of Rangers by an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) and on 14 June 2012 the APA was completed after the HMRC ruled-out a CVA. Prior to completion of the APA various ‘original placees’ had invested cash in Sevco 5088 and were to be issued placing shares in that company because their investment was conditional on Sevco 5088 completing the APA as the ‘purchasing entity’. I don’t have written proof if any of this placing cash was remitted to D&P prior to 14 June and wonder if anyone can assist on this point.
The Board noted that prior to 14 June 2012 these ‘original placees’ had given oral consent to the ‘directors of Sevco 5088 to switch their cash and placing letters to Sevco Scotland. The directors aren’t named; no written agreement appears to exist; and the ‘switch’ dates aren’t given. The ‘original placees’ and shares held were: Margarita Trust ( 2.6 million); Norne Anstalt (1.2 million); Putney Holdings Ltd (700K); Elias Kaisar (100k); Jean T Haddad (250k); Blue Pitch Holdings (4 million); Glenmuir Ltd (1 million); Ian Hart (290k).
The Board noted that a few days prior to 14 June ‘the directors’ of Sevco 5088 apparently decided to set up Sevco Scotland Ltd (the predecessor company to TRFCL) to acquire Rangers and the TRFCL Board meeting of 31.10/2012 minutes that Sevco Scotland entered into the APA and acquired Rangers (with Sevco 5088 and D&P parties to the APA in addition to Sevco Scotland ‘to provide written consent to the change of acquiring entity’.
So we have repeated references to ‘the directors’ of Sevco 5088 and yet there was only the one director – viz Charles Green – shown in Companies House records up until April 2013 when Earley and Whyte went public. But they weren’t publicly notified as directors at the time of the Board meeting on 31 October 2012 and indeed in a statement to AIM on 24 April 2013 RIFC described the Earley and Whyte directorships as ‘false claims’. So who are these mystery Sevco 5088 directors repeatedly mentioned in the TRFCL Board minute?
And why if Earley and Whyte had falsely claimed to be directors wef 9 May 2012 did Charles Green issue termination notices of their directorships and state the start date for them was 9 May 2012? Surely the correct step would have been to state there was no start date because they weren’t legally directors and I am surprised that FFW appears to have let this go.
The TRFCL Board minute of 31/10/2012 said ‘the directors’ of Sevco 5088 had agreed the Board structure and shareholding of Sevco Scotland would be the same as Sevco 5088. In terms of public notification that appeared to be the case from 29 May 2012 until 28 June 2012 when Green was the sole director of Sevco Scotland and also publicly appeared to be the sole director of Sevco 5088. But on 29 June 2012: Murray, Ahmad and Stockbridge all became directors of Sevco Scotland but this wasn’t replicated in Sevco 5088 unless there were three other directors who hadn’t been made public.
A curious reference to Founder Shares is noted in the TRFCL 31/10/2012 minute that 2,199,900 shares were allotted to Charles Green in Sevco Scotland but that shareholding isn’t publicly replicated in Sevco 5088 so where is the ‘mirroring’ of shareholding in the two companies?
Is there any trace of the mystery Sevco 5088 direcors? CF has provided documentation that purports to show that a Board Meeting of Sevco 5088 took place in London on 9 May 2012 which saw Earley and Whyte installed as directors of the company from that date and that Green would resign his directorship at a date chosen by Whyte and Earley.
Serious questions remain to uncover the real reasons behind the ‘switcheroo’ and its legality which will only be established IMO when all the veils are removed.