Good Evening.
As we ponder the historic vote to create a new Governing body to oversee Scottish League football, I cannot help but wonder what brilliant minds will be employed in the drawing up of its constitution, rules, memorandum and articles of association?
Clearly, Messrs Doncaster, Longmuir and even Mr Regan as the CEO of the SFA will be spending many hours with those dreaded folk known simply as “ The Lawyers” in an attempt to get the whole thing up and running and written down in the course of a few short weeks.
In truth, that scares me.
It scares me because legal documentation written up in a hurry or in a rush is seldom perfect and often needs amendment—especially when the errors start to show! The old adage of beware of the busy fool sadly applies.
It also scares me because the existing rules under which the game is governed are not, in my humble opinion, particularly well written and seem to differ in certain material respects from those of UEFA. Even then, adopting the wording and the approach of other bodies is not necessarily the way to go.
I am all in favour of some original thought– and that most precious and unusual of commodities known as common sense and plain English.
Further, the various licensing and compliance rules are clearly in need of an overhaul as they have of late produced what can only be best described as a lack of clarity when studied for the purposes of interpretation. Either that or those doing the studying and interpreting are afflicted with what might be described as tortuous or even tortured legal and administrative minds.
If it is not by now clear that the notion of self-certification on financial and other essential disclosure criteria necessary to obtain a footballing licence (whether European or domestic) is a total non-starter — then those in charge of the game are truly bonkers.
Whilst no governing body can wholly control the actions of a member club, or those who run a club, surely provisions can be inserted into any constitution or set of rules that allows and brings about greater vigilance and scrutiny than we have at present—all of course designed to do nothing other than alert the authorities as early as possible if matters are not being conducted properly or fairly.
However, the main change that would make a difference to most of the folk involved in the Scottish game – namely the fans— would be to have the new rules incorporate a measure which allowed football fans themselves to be represented on any executive or committee.
Clearly, this would be a somewhat revolutionary step and would be fought against tooth and nail by some for no reason other than that it has simply not been done before—especially as the league body is there to regulate the affairs of a number of limited companies all of whom have shareholders to account to and the clubs themselves would presumably be the shareholders in the new SPFL Ltd.
Then again to my knowledge Neil Doncaster is not a shareholder in The SPL ltd– is he?
I can hear the argument that a fan representative on a league body might not be impartial, might be unprofessional, might be biased, might lack knowledge or experience, and have their own agenda and so on—just like many chairmen and chief executive officers who already sit on the committees of the existing league bodies.
Remember too that the SFA until relatively recently had disciplinary committees made up almost exclusively of referees. I don’t think anyone would argue that the widening of the make up of that committee has been a backward step.
However, we already have fan representation at clubs like St Mirren and Motherwell, and of course there has been an established Tartan Army body for some time now. Clubs other than the two mentioned above have mechanisms whereby they communicate and consult with fans, although they stop short of full fan participation– very often for supposedly insurmountable legal reasons.
As often as not, the fans want a say in the running of their club, but also want to be able to make representations to the governing bodies via their club.
So why not include the fans directly in the new set up for governing the league?
Any fan representative could be someone proposed by a properly registered fan body such as through official supporters clubs, or could be seconded by the clubs acting in concert with their supporters clubs.
Perhaps a committee of fan representatives could be created, with such a committee having a representative on the various committees of the new league body.
In this way, there would be a fan who could report back to the fan committee and who could represent the interests of the ordinary fan in the street in any of the committees. Equally such a committee of fans could ensure that any behind the scenes discussions on any issue were properly reported, openly discussed, and made public with no fear of hidden agendas, secret meetings, and secret collusive agreements and so forth.
Is any of that unreasonable? Surely many companies consider the views of their biggest customer? This idea is no different.
Surely such a situation would go some way towards establishing some badly needed trust between the governing bodies and the fans themselves?
If necessary, I would not even object to the fan representatives being excluded from having a right to vote on certain matters—as long as they had a full right of audience and a full right of access to all discussions and relative papers which affect the running of the game.
In this way at least there would be openness and transparency.
In short, it would be a move towards what is quaintly referred to as Democracy.
Perhaps, those who run the game at present should consider the life and times of the late great Alexander Hamilton- one of the founding fathers of the United States of America and who played a significant role in helping write the constitution of that country.
Hamilton was a decent and brilliant man in many ways—but he was dead set against Democracy and the liberation of rights for the masses. In fact, he stated that the best that can be hoped for the mass populace is that they be properly armed with a gun and so able to protect themselves against injustice!
Sadly, Hamilton became embroiled in a bitter dispute with the then Vice President of the nation Aaron Burr in July 1804. Hamilton had used his influence and ensured that Burr lost the election to become Governor of New York and had made some withering attacks on the Vice President’s character.
When he refused to apologise, the Vice President took a whacky notion and challenged him to a duel! Even more whacky is the fact that Hamilton accepted the challenge and so the contest took place at Weehawken New Jersey on the morning of 11th July 1804.
The night before, Hamilton wrote a letter which heavily suggested that he would contrive to miss Burr with his shot, and indeed when the pistols fired Hamilton’s bullet struck a branch immediately above Burr’s head.
However, he did not follow the proper procedure for duelling which required a warning from the duellist that they are going to throw their shot away. Hamilton gave no such indication despite the terms of his letter and despite his shot clearly missing his opponent.
Burr however fired and hit Hamilton in the lower abdomen with the result that the former secretary to the treasury and founding father of the constitution died at 2pm on the twelfth of July.
The incident ruined Burr’s career (whilst duelling was still technically legal in New jersey, it had already been outlawed in various other states).
In any event, in Hamilton’s time full and open democracy in the United States of America would have met with many cries of outrage and bitter opposition. Yet, today, the descendants of slaves and everyone from all social standings, all ethnic minorities and every social background has the constitutional right to vote and seek entry to corridors of power.
In that light, is it really asking too much to allow football fans to have a say and a presence in the running of a game they pay so much to support?
Sam says:
June 18, 2013 at 5:48 pm
StevieBC says:
June 18, 2013 at 5:34 pm
————————————————-
Why should they be tactful? Or not disclose their statements for a public report?
BBC Scotland has told it like it is.
LNS is the problem not BBC Scotland.
=================================
“LNS is the problem not BBC Scotland.” – Agreed.
“Why should they be tactful?” – BBC Scotland ‘maybe’ required to make a tactful clarification of their statement.
StevieBC says:
June 18, 2013 at 5:34 pm
” It just seemed that their wording – in a publicly available document – could have been more tactful – but would still get the message across.”
—————–
I’m sure HirsuitPursuite brought this to the fore previously. If the BBC can see clearly what HP seen then perhaps they feel sufficiently confident to say it as it is. We’ve been rubbishing the verdict (ecobhoy has made us wary of doing likewise to LNS) for months so perhaps we’re not the only people who recognise the inconsistencies.
Cortes, it would allow someone to confirm that creditors have at least made enquiries/ objections to the apparent, and or alleged, continuation of RFC. Following the Airdrie example, I am sure there was a due liquidation process, however by renaming to a Airdrieonians is there now scope for creditors to offer objections on the grounds of phoenix?
Sportsound now. John Robertson asked panel how can Tyncastle be valued at £5 million when Charles Green acquired Ibrox, Murraypark and Albion car park for £5.5 million. SILENCE. No attempt at an answer.
Whilst we are discussing BBC Scotland, according to Chris McLaughlin, Hearts may seek a CVA or a “creditors voluntary agreement”, if they go into administration.
This guy is chief sports correspondent for our national licence funded broadcaster. Despite everything that went on last year, when everyone in the western world became familiar with the phrase “Company Voluntary Arrangement”, Chris still does not know what the initials CVA stand for. Ignorance of biblical proportions.
I despair, I honestly do.
Seems to me that BBC Scotland in attempting to defend it’s reporting has actually strayed into a deeper error by stating: “Lord Nimmo Smith’s reasonings were included in a report for an independent commission they are entirely his view, albeit one based on extensive legal experience. His reasonings do not represent the view of company law.”
As far as I remember the September Hearing was the full tribunal which meant it wasn’t just the view of LNS but of the three members of the Commission. So it most certainly wasn’t ‘entirely his view’.
The view of the Tribunal was also based on the SFA and SPL rule books and not on the Companies Act or of any other act which regulates commercial activities. The BBC also give no indication as to how they reached the conclusion that LNS “reasonings do not represent the view of company law.”
Did a journalist decide that or was any legal advice taken and, if so, why have they not included that opinion in their case. A very poor show from BBC Scotland IMO.
I also am quite disturbed to see allegations of corruption bruited against not only LNS but seemingly the whole legal establishment. Cheap talk is easy but it’s much harder to actually specify in what way LNS and other senior legal figures were corrupt.
I really would be interested in hearing that argument as opposed to what looks to me like a fit of pique because the LNS Decision wasn’t what some people wanted. Corruption allegations against our Justiciary are extremely serious but I would take up the cudgels to expose it if another poster can provide me with a scrap of evidence of such disgraceful behaviour.
I await with interest to see if anyone has any evidence and until then will abide by that essential element of Scots Law: ‘Innocent until proven Guilty’.
Charlotte educating the `twits` on the real PR machinations – Denial responses as per –plus ca change 😉
Sam says:
June 18, 2013 at 5:19 pm
StevieBC says:
June 18, 2013 at 5:05 pm
———————————————————————–
But what’s libelous? if someone thinks Lord Nimmo Smith is a complete corrupt crook part of a wholesale corrupt Scottish Judicial system protecting a total corrupt Scottish Football Association, then they say it and stand by their thoughts.
========================================================================
I would observe on a site like this that if someone brands a senior member of the Scottish Legal system a ‘complete corrupt crook ‘ and part of a ‘wholesale corrupt Scottish Judicial system’ then they might be good enough to provide the evidence on which they base their view.
If they don’t or can’t then their statement is outlandish and not worthy of comment IMO. It is also actionable.
So who is ushering the Beeb down these corridors after all this time ,whats in the wind ,something must be going to hit and can we expect some kind of utterance from STV ,is the parent company about to hit the buffers and the two are now being touted as having the imbelical cord severed before the bad news has got to be reported,interesting times ahead
paulmac2 says:
June 18, 2013 at 5:45 pm
5
4
Rate This
manandboy says:
June 18, 2013 at 2:22 pm
…………………………………
“The BBC Trust – wouldn’t be another arm of The Establishment would it ?”
Lord Patten…….whilst his background confirms he is not permitted to be prime minister…
==================================================================
Nicely put Paul…and still on the staute book in 2013.!..But he has managed to ruffle a few Establishment feathers!
Gregory Ioannidis @LawTop20 19m
My Report also concludes that although the club could be a recognisable entity, it does not have the legal capacity for corporate separation
Gregory Ioannidis @LawTop20 12m
The rigour, intellectual precision, robustness and appropriateness of the research, do not leave any doubt that Rangers are now a new entity
It’s not really a brave thing to say.
They are right.
The club became the company became the PLC. They were one and the same thing when liquidation started. There was no holding company, that is a fantasy structure created after the event to try and convince the fans that the (non existent) holding company was liquidated and the club survived.
It was, is and always will be nonsense.
That structure actually exists now, the PLC owns the Ltd Company (club) and the Ltd Co could survive the death of the PLC. True but irrelevant, it was an entirely different corporate structure before.
So it’s not really brave to say it, it’s simply true.
Total PR disaster
And, PR = Spivs mouthpiece[s]
Join dots
I heard something on the way home, some insolvency expert on the BBC saying that UBIG may be trying to get BDO in as administrators, in spite of the fact that the club itself were trying to appoint KPMG.
I do not think that augers well for Hearts, if I heard it correctly. It sounds to me as if UBIG may be trying to protect their own interests ahead of the club. There was also the suggestion that as secured creditor they may be able to force this through in the Court of Session.
Apologies if I picked that up wrong, it was on t’radio and I was driving (badly) at the time.
twopanda says:
June 18, 2013 at 6:44 pm
Charlotte educating the `twits` on the real PR machinations – Denial responses as per –plus ca change 😉
===============================================================
Lovely to see the lid lifted 🙂
I was particularly interested in the comment: ‘Yes. Our web broadside will follow shortly’.
I really wonder exactly what that means.
Gaz says: June 18, 2013 at 7:24 pm
—————————————————-
It’s correct re the dispute about the appointment of administrators. I seem to have been here before, maybe around 16 month ago.. However, we have had stories from both the BBC and STV, saying that the Board, UBIG and Ukio all was their own appointees.
Obviously any party with a vested interest will want someone who they believe will best look after their interests. I’d hope that KPMG or BDO would be professional enough to act fairly on behalf of all the creditors as well as keeping the business going.
The down side is if their is some material difference between UBIG and the Ukio administrator on what they want from the administration which could affect or delay a CVA deal, assuming we get that far.
ecobhoy says:
June 18, 2013 at 6:37 pm
As far as I remember the September Hearing was the full tribunal which meant it wasn’t just the view of LNS but of the three members of the Commission. So it most certainly wasn’t ‘entirely his view’.
+++++++++
That is correct, I have checked my copy of the September decision, and it was a joint decision of the three panel members.
Best of luck to the BBC on this one- it’s a subject I have studiously avoided getting involved in for the last 6 months- the BBC will shortly find out why.
As regards judicial corruption, I have posted on here regarding Lord Hodge many, many times. I doubt I convinced a single person of my view, so in the end I gave up on the topic. I have no direct evidence, of course, but I am entitled to draw conclusions based on his actions. This is not a court of law, but a forum for opinions. I base mine on what I perceive to be the facts. I might be totally wrong. I’ve never met anyone yet who was always right (but plenty who thought they were).
As regards LNS I have read your detailed analysis of the decision. I respect your opinion. I fundamentally disagree with it, because in my view LNS created an artificial concept of “sporting advantage” and from this an artificial distinction between sporting and non-sporting sanctions. We’ve been through all this before, but basically I conclude that LNS had an agenda at the outset to come up with a financial penalty and nothing else. You have faith in the integrity of the judiciary, and disagree. That is surely healthy? Two contrasting views, honestly held? Some people are very cynical (present!) while others still have some faith in the “system”. These are aspects of human nature, like optimists and pessimists, introverts and extroverts. No need to get disturbed about it, is what I’m really trying to say.
easyJambo says:
June 18, 2013 at 7:33 pm
==========================
Apologies if you think I am being pedantic (I am), their job is not to keep the business going it is to keep the company going.
If they fail in that then their job is to get the best result for the creditors. It is my guess that is why the creditors want their own person in place. As you sy to look after their interests.
A lot of it is irrelevant though. If their is a secured creditor they will get their person in place and they will run the administration.
It is really important to remember that it is the Lithuanian liquidators who are acting, not the UBIG (sorry if I got that wrong) board. Given that they are at the liquidation stage then, if they operate a similar system, it is their job to get the best result for the UBIG creditors.
What Hearts need to hope for is that coincides with the club being saved, rather than it being liquidated.
That in my opinion is the reality of the situation, hard as it might be to consider. As you say, why would it even get to a CVA. There is a company with a fixed charge and a floating charge and another with a floating charge. In reality, before a CVA is even considered they would have to drop those charges or write off the debt. I’m not convinced the people currently running UBIG and Ukio will do that.
neepheid says:
June 18, 2013 at 7:39 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 18, 2013 at 6:37 pm
‘You have faith in the integrity of the judiciary’
===========================================================
Actually I have no more faith in individual members of the Justiciary than in any other group of people because they are only human and subject to all the failings that brings. My point is that if I thought a Judge was corrupt I would clearly and publicly state it and the reasons why I held that opinion. I would invite legal retaliation to provide a public arena to air my views if there was no other way of getting my message out there.
However, I happen to believe it’s just too easy for some people to mouth off without a shred of evidence and I actually believe that constitues an infringement of basic legal principles and Human Rights. I do not place you in that category as you are prepared to argue your position. As to LH I have no view either way and like many others am awaiting developments and I believe that delays by LH might very well be beyond his control.
.
Listening to BBC Scotland Sportsound tonight I was encouraged by what the Hearts chap involved in the supporter buyout lobby had to say about the SFA and their lack of probity.
We have seen that all over the place. The Bryson interpretation on the LNS enquiry, The UEFA licence of 2011 and no doubt more.
I think he called for an enquiry (but maybe I got over excited) but the pressure will mount for SFA reform. We must keep it up by all means possible.
I’ve linked to this before but it is the sort of reforms needed at the SFA to alter the culture.
http://celticunderground.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=693:sfa-reform-one-down-three-to-go&catid=45:season-2010-2011&Itemid=80
twopanda says:
June 18, 2013 at 3:57 pm
Rate This
__
Worthwhile going back – `Official` Creditors Reports 5 April 12
Excerpts:
Note 5.2 – “An agreement was reached in principle with LBG in April 2011 in respect of the debt that LBG required to be settled upon completion of a sale.”
[what was the `agreement` on sale completion – and why noted as `in principle` ?]
So an `in principal` `agreement`? was known aforehand by all parties?
Not the way one finalises a deal for 20m plus – is it?
———–
Liberty Capital agreed a deal with LBG to repay Rangers debt upon their completion of the purchase of Rangers. The deal would have been agreed “in principle” because it still required Liberty to complete the purchase. If they hadn’t then the Liberty/LBG deal would not have gone again.
Liberty/CW would have had to have been sure LBG would accept repayment terms before it/he bought the club, so it makes complete sense that the the terms of that would have been agreed in principle before the purchase went ahead. There would be no other way to do it.
Judges can make mistakes, they are people and no matter how experienced they are they can make mistakes.
They also make determinations based on the evidence placed before them and within the context of what they are ruling on.
If anyone thinks a Judge has made a mistake, they may be right. However there is also the possibility that based on the evidence before them, and in the context they are making their ruling it is a correct determination.
None of the above needs to involve corruption.
Judges can be corrupt, they are people and no matter how experienced they are they can be corrupt.
Gaz says:
June 18, 2013 at 8:01 pm
1 1 Rate This
Judges can make mistakes, they are people and no matter how experienced they are they can make mistakes …
———-
Indeed Gaz. I am far from convinced that the Pan Am 103 bombing trial and subsquent appeals saw Scottish justice at its finest.
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
June 18, 2013 at 7:38 pm
ecobhoy says:
============================================================
I’m not sure if I am to take the links as evidence of corruption and if that’s the case then please advise exactly what alleged corruption took place and who the guilty party/parties are.
But it’s a small world because I have been using Fettesgate and the Magic Circle in my arguments here over the fact that stolen documents can be reported on despite some fellow posters arguing that isn’t the case. I am not implying that the CF material is stolen btw but merely pointing out that the SMSM has had no qualms previously in using such material.
Both the Police HQ break-in and what followed are interesting from a number of angles and I do have some knowledge of both but although criminality was involved I don’t know of any alleged corruption of the Justiciary that wasn’t investigated and IMO any allegations based on Blair Wilson’s ravings and attempts to escape punishment weren’t credible. However the problem with conspiracy theories is that some people will always believe them no matter what evidence exists to the contrary. But it’s a Free Society,
Actonsheep says:
June 18, 2013 at 8:00 pm
Leaving? – CW with little working capital from day one was the `deal` – `and no other way to do it`?
– but the bank paid regardless?
Please elaborate
Castofthousands says:
June 18, 2013 at 5:30 pm
15 3 Rate This
TW says:
June 18, 2013 at 5:12 pm
“I haven’t a clue what they mean. Can anyone spell it out in an easy-to-understand summary?”
——————-
I’ll have a bash TW. I only glossed over the BBC report but my thinking is this.
BBC say the club and company are effectively the same thing. In the report they accepted that when talking about football only stories they just refer to ‘Rangers’ to keep it simple. When referring to matters outwith the field of play, they may use ‘old Rangers’ and ‘new Rangers’ to differentiate between the two different incarnations. They said that because this stuff is a bit complicated they may have strayed over the line a couple of times and perhaps mentioned old/new Rangers when maybe (arguably) just ‘Rangers’ would have been sufficient. They didn’t do it deliberately to confuse the public, it was just a minor misjudgement. Fundamentally the BBC recognise there is a distinction between the two incarnations and will continue to recognise this distinction outwith the actual field of play.
-/-/-/-/-/-/-//-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-//-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/
Is this football’s attempt to become more complicated than cricket?
Gaz says: June 18, 2013 at 7:44 pm
—————————-
There is still a lot of confusion around with the two Lithuanian companies.
STV have reported that it is Ukio who want BDO and the Board wanted KPMG
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/hearts/229815-battle-underway-to-be-named-administrators-of-heart-of-midlothian/
BBC have reported that UBIG want BDO and the Board want KPMG
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22953448
Who is right? My guess is that STV have it right and the BBC have it wrong (again). Why? Well, the STV article quotes a Lithuanian administrator who is looking after Ukio, while UBIG is not (yet) in administration.
Current position
Ukio (in liquidation) – 29.9% shares, £15M debt, first ranking standard security over Tynecastle and a floating charge
UBIG (pending administration) – 50% shares, £10M debt lowest ranking floating charge.- Board resigned en masse in March.
Hearts (pending administration) – probably over £30M in debt including £5M+ unsecured creditors
ecobhoy on June 18, 2013 at 9:33 am
9 5 Rate This
fara1968 says:
June 18, 2013 at 7:56 am
I’m sorry but in this day and age in all careers you now have to diversify to be good at what you do, right or wrong employers expect this from you.
===================================================================
I’m afraid that I don’t agree with you on the diversification aspect of sports reporters being able to carry out complex investigative reporting on a major long-running story which involves politics. finance and legal issues…………………
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I’m not asking them to be financial or legal experts but talking to their co workers who do work in these fields and attaining a basic grasp of what is going on would be a good start. Alex Thomson said as much to Hugh Keevins when he appeared on Radio Clyde.
Anyhoos the main point I was making, and I probably didn’t do it very well, was that the standard of sports journalism in Scotland is not as good as I think it should be. Lest we forget, the very same journalists can have selective amnesia when it comes to things financial and legal. Think of it this way, ask a Scottish sports journalists why they didn’t pick up earlier on the goings on at RFC that led to its collapse and they will almost all tell you that is not their area of expertise so they missed what was happening. Ask them now if newco and diedco are sameco and to a man they will say sameco, so they have suddenly became corporate law experts. An oxymoron mixed in with a big pile of brown stuff me thinks.
easyJambo says:
June 18, 2013 at 8:36 pm
Going by your figures the unsecured creditors are likely to get squat.
The owners are also the main creditors (two hats) and will get any money which can be raised, whether it be through an asset sale, sale of their shares or both.
Bottom line, it seems likely that the people who owned Hearts will get any proceeds of it’s sale or sale of it’s assets, and everyone else will get nothing
I cannot see HMRC be happy if that happens.
TW says:
June 18, 2013 at 5:12 pm
———————————–
I think they meant that company was died then so were the club; new company therefore new club. Conflicting references between club and company to placate the bears who had unwittingly developed necrophiliac club tendencies.
fara1968 says:
June 18, 2013 at 8:39 pm
ecobhoy on June 18, 2013 at 9:33 am
9 5 Rate This
fara1968 says:
June 18, 2013 at 7:56 am
I’m sorry but in this day and age in all careers you now have to diversify to be good at what you do, right or wrong employers expect this from you.
===================================================================
I’m afraid that I don’t agree with you on the diversification aspect of sports reporters being able to carry out complex investigative reporting on a major long-running story which involves politics. finance and legal issues…………………
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I’m not asking them to be financial or legal experts but talking to their co workers who do work in these fields and attaining a basic grasp of what is going on would be a good start.
=====================================================================
The problem with the Rangers story is that by and large it has been left to sports reporters who have little grasp of legal or financial issues and I think that has been a deliberate management ploy to be able to wash their hands of the politically more ‘difficult’ issues.
In a busy newspaper office there actually isn’t a lot on inter-reaction between staff in different sections and even in the pub the department lines are quite fixed. It’s more to do with the nature of the job and AT isn’t really a typical example as he is an excellent all-rounder and his own boss to a large extent. Keevins is just something else yet again and least said about him the better.
You’re right our sports coverage tends to be poor and IMO relies on getting fed titbits from agents trying to talk-up their players. The reason sports journos don’t do anything that will annoy a club is because they will be barred pure and simple and cut-out the loop. It’s also well understood that anyone caught helping them out is likely to feel a cold wind as well.
It used to be good when sports reporters were on the same wage levels and were genuine mates and went clubbing and partying together. Then the players became millionaires and moved on and slowly the sports guys lost their sources and they’ve been scrabbling about like headless chickens for years now serving up dross which readers accepted. The internet is killing that and it’s one of the major reasons for plummeting circulation.
If a sports journo picks-up a bit of dirt one someone at a club it’s passed to the news department to deal with and I have heard many tales that when the news reporter goes to doorstep the ‘target’ then they aren’t in their usual haunts and presumably have been tipped-off that something’s on the go. It’s not hard to figure out who blew the whistle.
With the Rangers story they knew fine well what was going down before the collapse and were furiously playing pass the parcel so as not to be left holding the ticking bomb.
As to oldco and newco never mind diedco it’s all too difficult and it isn’t a conspiracy of favouring Rangers – it’s just much easier in every way to say sameco and then they neither need to understand nor explain. They don’t want to be in the same place BBC Scotland ended-up. It’s just a basic survival instinct kicking-in and maybe not acceptable but understandable.
StevieBC says:
June 18, 2013 at 2:16 am
General observation re: obsolete print media.
======================================
It’s widely accepted that the newspaper industry is in terminal decline.
Print media will be replaced by online content eventually.
From a Scottish sports reporting perspective we have observed that the Scottish MSM is woefully inadequate. Nothing gives me confidence that this will improve in future.
We have also observed that the information gap has been – at least partially – filled by the Internet bampots – and the added bonus is that this has facilitated interesting and engaging discussion between football fans of diverse teams – i.e. not just the Glasgow teams.
So my point is that there seems to be a gap in the market. The Internet bampots currently have a credibility advantage over the print MSM wrt Scottish football. So could TSFM fill that gap?
Why wait for the MSM PR-fed nonsense to dictate online readership for Scottish football fans?
———————————————-
This argument is reinforced by the fact that a lot of publications have removed the “comments” facility that once accompanied their web page.
It strikes me that they are in fear of being “shown up” by internet bampots on their own paper’s site. What’s more, this “riddy” is offered in real time.
The bampots have already argued the points that the papers are late in offering and have the relevant responses to hand.
They really don’t like it “up ’em” do they? 🙂
ohhappydayz says:
June 18, 2013 at 6:35 pm
33 3 Rate This
Sportsound now. John Robertson asked panel how can Tyncastle be valued at £5 million when Charles Green acquired Ibrox, Murraypark and Albion car park for £5.5 million. SILENCE. No attempt at an answer.
——————–––———————————————————————————————————————–
Ohhappydayz, where would you rather site your new supermarket or how would you want to market your site to the supermarkets? ASDA in Govan or Waitrose in Embra?
Re-the decision today over upholding of complaints against BBC Scotland.
A quick review of Twitter tonight only confirmed what we already knew. Being ‘entitled’ to say Rangers are the same club is clearly of more importance than the non payment of tens of millions of pounds in tax and other bills in the name of that club. Those views are particularly strong among the so called more intelligent of their followers, most of whom are aligned to the ‘respected’ Rangers Standard.
In terms of the BBC decision, I guess the response from BBC Scotland would have to be passed by their lawyers before being released. My profession is not law but it appears those of that ilk who advise BBC Scotland are quite clear in their view that Rangers Football Club and the Company were one and the same.
upthehoops says:
June 18, 2013 at 9:25 pm
It really isn’t a hard one, from a corporate structure perspective.
If Rangers had a holding company, or a company which owned it, or a company which it could be considered a subsidiary of it was MIH.
The corporate structure would be MIH (holding company) owned RFC PLC (club).
It is pretty much the same as we have now RIFC PLC (holding company) owns RFC Ltd (club).
If we are to accept that there was a holding company arrangement then that was MIH, as the major shareholder. That was no liquidated, it is still here it was RFC PLC (the club).
The liquidation of the holding company myth was created to placate the fans. They believed it because they desperately wanted to. Rangers fans can believe that it is the same club if they want (and live with the morality of shedding tens of millions of debt, including social taxes) but there is no real basis for it in our legal system.
It is a fantasy, a fairytale, a nonsense.
“The rigour, intellectual precision, robustness and appropriateness of the research, do not leave any doubt that Rangers are now a new entity”
Let’s all give it up for Gregory the Greek! 🙂
ecobhoy says:
June 18, 2013 at 6:37 pm
“Seems to me that BBC Scotland in attempting to defend it’s reporting has actually strayed into a deeper error by stating:..His reasonings do not represent the view of company law.””
————————
As I said above, HirsuitPursuite posted previously that company law would not recognise the differentiation between club and company. This had been a long running discussion going way back to when the LNS enquiry was first instigated I think. It is a very bold statement by the BBC. It sits within a long and detailed analysis of the complaints being made against them. I would be surprised if the BBC had not taken advice before making such a statement.
Of course SFA and SPL rules may place a different interpretation on matters. However the BBC distinguished bewtween the onfield Rangers entity and the off field old/new Rangers. Their logic may be that if they are talking about off field matters (i.e. business), then it is not footballing interpretations that apply but legal ones. Time will tell, for surely if they have made a misjudgement then it will be challenged.
I’m trying to get my head around something.Those in the know please help.
CG stated he’d be selling “transferring” shares to the Viz guy,approx 700k.
On 13th June K Prior bought 785,740 shares.
We speculated this this was Charlies but a delayed transaction for the same date shows another sale of 725,740.a difference of 60K shares.Has Charlie flogged just over 1.5m shares?
I meant to ask this earlier but since then,another sale of 468,705 dated Friday(53p) has appeared along with an undesignated deal for 180k shares on the same date.
Over 2m shares sold in the past 3 working days with the 6 mnth lock in due to end tomorrow.
I’m only asking the guys on here who follow the AIM market what they think.
twopanda says:
June 18, 2013 at 8:27 pm
——–
The deal was Liberty agreeing to pay off Rangers LBG debt if they acquired Rangers. It was an agreement to pay the bank, not for the bank to pay anyone. It was agreed in principle because Liberty wouldn’t pay Rangers debt if the acquisition didn’t go through.
Of course Liberty weren’t really paying anything, more Ticketus were, but thats another matter entirely.
selfassessor says:
June 18, 2013 at 9:23 pm
8 0 Rate This
ohhappydayz says:
June 18, 2013 at 6:35 pm
33 3 Rate This
Sportsound now. John Robertson asked panel how can Tyncastle be valued at £5 million when Charles Green acquired Ibrox, Murraypark and Albion car park for £5.5 million. SILENCE. No attempt at an answer.
——————–––———————————————————————————————————————–
Ohhappydayz, where would you rather site your new supermarket or how would you want to market your site to the supermarkets? ASDA in Govan or Waitrose in Embra?
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
I would be a real happy shopper in Govan, but maybe a wee secret shopper in Embra
Folks,
I am happy to have a debate about corruption – including the football authorities and the judiciary. However anyone who wants to make a direct accusation of corruption of any member of the judiciary, will I hope confine that to a forum for which he or she is personally responsible. But definitely not here.
Any such accusations without any sound basis in FACT will be removed.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
June 18, 2013 at 9:49 pm
The people who got their shares for 30p or whatever making their profit you think.
Not doubling their money as CG promised, but still not a bad return.
The only people to lose out likely to be those who bought the shares at 70p a pop, or the normal fans as we call them. The people who bought in purely as an emotional investment, sold a dream which no longer existed.
Gaz says:
June 18, 2013 at 9:39 pm
Rangers fans can believe that it is the same club if they want (and live with the morality of shedding tens of millions of debt, including social taxes)
=======================================
Seriously, I have yet to encounter a Rangers fan, player, ex-player or club official that cares a jot about the social taxes that were dodged, or that it affects in any way they are the most noble, honest, and dignified club around. That is what I see hear and read, in my working life, in the pub, in newspapers, blogs and phone-ins. It is breathtaking arrogance.
Next seasons fixtures have been leaked from the TV companies
Celtic V Hibs [Sky]
Motherwell V ICT [bt vision]
Rangers V Hearts [History Channel]
I’ll get ma coat
re the BBC statement
My take on is that
We the BBC know and always did know that it was a new club ,but it’s the gers were talking about here not Airdrie or Gretna so give us a break .How could we possibly have said they were a new club .
Maybe a tad short but I think the gist is correct
Castofthousands says:
June 18, 2013 at 5:51 pm
‘.. If Charlotte, whoever she is wants to shower us with interesting pieces of information then I’ll put up with the ignomony of being called a fool when it turns out she is CW.’
——
I’ll go along with that.
The story for us is not CW or SDM or any other ‘Rangers’ person but the allegations that the football authorities broke their own rules in order to accommodate them all, variously:
by Trying to save the old club from death,
by ‘making’ a new club ‘the old club’ ( without insisting that they accept the tax and other civic liabilities of the dead club)
by bringing on a hurried restructuring ( which, admittedly I don’t fully understand, but which brings the new club under the same general roof as the ‘senior’ clubs)
I have, of course , an upright citizen’s desire to see the betrayers of RFC put in jail.
I’d much prefer to see the really really bad betrayers of all of Scottish Football put there first!
And if Charlotte’s got the stuff to do that or the next best thing, then I wouldn’t care if she turned out to be SDM or any other.
Actonsheep says:
June 18, 2013 at 10:00 pm
I don’t think that was the deal at all. Wavetower did not pay off the debt to Lloyds, they had it assigned to them and paid the equivalent to effectively “buy the debt”, thus keeping the floating charge in place.
Rangers, as was, moved from owing £18m to Lloyds to owing £18m to their owner (Wavetower).
Moving the debt and re-assigning the floating charge was the whole point, not paying off the debt.
Remember, Craig Whyte had two hats, owned Rangers and was also the main creditor with the floating charge over the assets.
For me the real story in all this is still and always will be SDM-CW-TICKETUS-OCTOPUS
So CF if you can pin these four down with any info in your possession then we may clear the fog slightly .
re the bbc statement
do they now think that the Sevco fans are grown up enough to handle the truth or is there something in the pipeline
Hmmmmmmmmm
Gaz says:
June 18, 2013 at 9:39 pm
Gaz got to disagree with you.
RFC did indeed have a holding company.
I believe it was called Wavetower.
Unfortunately for ‘The Rangers’ fans that particular company did not go into administration and as far as I know still does exist.
RFC of course passed from MIH to Wavetower where it slipped into administration and ultimately liquidation.
It is my belief that Chas Green was promised SPL football and that was part of the switcheroo by the ‘Great Administrator’. That is why he stated on camera that liquidation would be the end of the ‘istory. To crank up the pressure.
The media themselves were only to happy to buy into this myth partly because of collapsing sales, partly because they desperately required the ‘Old Firm’ tag to survive, and partly because, with regards to RFC, that is what they do best.
When the whole plan collapsed they desperately needed something to get the fans on board. Somewhere I believe there was some meeting or a plan hatched where the ‘holding company’ phrase was agreed. Even though that particular entity was still alive and well unlike the corporate corpse swinging in the air.
Remember the fans were desperate to believe so they would gladly buy into this idea and repeat it infinitum. After all that is what the RFC support do best; be told, repeat, and believe.
Gaz says:
June 18, 2013 at 10:33 pm
Rate This
———
You’re right of course. But i wasn’t going into fine detail, just pointing out to two panda what deal they were referring to, and it was standard practice to agree to such a deal in principle if its dependent on other factors.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18813407
Sevco were accepted into the SFL on 13th July 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/143196212/SFA-Articles-of-Association-2009
You will note that:
1. The “club” holds SFA membership
2. A “club” shall be a registered SFA member automatically through membership of a league.
3. A registered SFA member (“club”) shall not be a member of more than one league
4. Sevco Scotland became an association football club with registered membership of the SFA on 23rd July 2012..
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsID=10252&newsCategoryID=1
So, on 27th July Sevco Scotland were registered members of the SFA by dint of their earlier admission to the SFL and as Rangers FC were still holding membership of the SPL, they were registered members and full members of the SFA.
Therefore, by a simple reading of the relevant SFA Articles, Sevco Scotland became a “club” on 23rd July 2012 at a time when the SFA recognise that Rangers FC still exist as a “club” and were themselves SFA members.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=3218&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10287
On 3rd August 2012 the full membership held by the “club” Rangers FC plc (renamed RFC2012 plc) was transferred to the new “club” The Rangers Football Club Ltd (formally Sevco Scotland Ltd).
Note: Lord Nimmo Smith’s determination was made on Neil Doncaster’s definition of what it is to be an SPL “Club”. This effectively transposed the word “brand” for “club” and describes a “Club” as licensed franchise within the SPL.
As Sevco Scotland Ltd are not and have never been a “Club” (in SPL terms), the LNS decision is of no real consequence to the debate around the SFA’s definition of a “club”.
It is simply beyond debate that the SFA have always recognised an incorporated “club” to be an “entity with legal persona”.
It is beyond doubt that the SFA recognise the club that played under the “Rangers” brand in season 2011/12 as a separate entity from the club that played under the same brand in season 2012/13.
Confliction prevents them from clearly saying so.
BBC Scotland were 100% correct with their statement.
Castofthousands says:
June 18, 2013 at 9:47 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 18, 2013 at 6:37 pm
—————————————————————————————————————–
I have undernoted the salient bit of my earlier comment as the shortened version in your post doesn’t adequately reflect my position I’m afraid.
I note you say: ‘I would be surprised if the BBC had not taken advice before making such a statement’. They may well have taken advice but on such a critical point of their case I am very surprised they haven’t spelt out what advice they took as every other cough, spit and f*rt is covered.
However I will again state that I don’t think they took legal advice and my reasoning for that is I doubt if there is a Glasgow lawyer working for the Beeb that is unaware that the LNS judgement wasn’t his alone, as claimed by BBC Scotland, but that of a tribunal.
By the same token I don’t believe any lawyer would be unaware of the footballing rules basis used by the LNS Commission on the club/company issue as opposed to company law.
And another reason that I don’t think a lawyer was involved is the phrase: ‘His reasonings do not represent the view of company law.” As I said earlier he wasn’t there to apply company law but his reasoning actually examined the position under company law and can be checked at page 17 of the September 2012 Commission Reasons which states: ‘This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not’.
It just seems impossible that a lawyer, even a very junior one, could have misunderstood the remit that the LNS Commission was working under which was not to reflect the view of company law but football rule books. And just to make sure he covered all the bases LNS specifically mentioned the position under company law.
For all these reasons I can only say that if a lawyer actually gave advice it’s time BBC Scotland found a new one who isn’t asleep on the job.
UNDERNOTED
Seems to me that BBC Scotland in attempting to defend it’s reporting has actually strayed into a deeper error by stating: “Lord Nimmo Smith’s reasonings were included in a report for an independent commission they are entirely his view, albeit one based on extensive legal experience. His reasonings do not represent the view of company law.”
justshatered says:
June 18, 2013 at 10:50 pm
Gaz says:
June 18, 2013 at 9:39 pm
Gaz got to disagree with you.
RFC did indeed have a holding company.
I believe it was called Wavetower.
Unfortunately for ‘The Rangers’ fans that particular company did not go into administration and as far as I know still does exist.
RFC of course passed from MIH to Wavetower where it slipped into administration and ultimately liquidation.
=========================
That is an excellent point.
My apologies.
Take my post and change MIH for Wavetower, who changed their name to something like The Rangers Group Ltd.
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
June 18, 2013 at 10:21 pm
‘..’ll gladly give up my right to reply to stay within the remit of the blog..’
___
It is important to stay broadly on topic, and, although the crime of ‘murmuring the judges’ was removed from the statute book some time ago, one still has to be careful about making particularised observations about judges being less than of the highest probity and integrity.
it would be helpful for us, however, if some general explanation could be given as to why the Judiciary refuses to agree that Judges should have a ‘register of interests’, like MPs etc., or be required to declare, like police officers, whether they are members of ‘secret’ societies.
For, speaking In the abstract, and in the purely hypothetical case that a judge, as a private citizen, may have monies invested in, say, a sporting club, one might surmise that he/she would be encouraged in his/her desire to recuse himself/herself from any Court case involving that club, if it were plain to the public that he had a personal interest in the case.As they do, if, for instance, a relative or friend or some such, is to appear before them
My simple mind cannot square such refusal with the oft-stated desire for ‘transparency’ in every other walk of public life.
I have previously argued quite strongly that our Scottish judiciary, when exercising their judicial functions, are absolutely professional , if for no other reason than the desire to be seen as great readers and interpreters of the law.
i confess that I wobbled a bit.
But I have since taken on board the wise observations of one or two posters who referred to the fact that any judge can act only on what is put before him. And if the ‘prosecutor’ doesn’t in fact prosecute, but falls in with the defendant’s story, then there’s really not a lot that the judge can do!
HirsutePursuit says:
June 18, 2013 at 10:55 pm
BBC Scotland were 100% correct with their statement
======================================================
BBC Scotland stated: ‘“Lord Nimmo Smith’s reasonings were included in a report for an independent commission they are entirely his view, albeit one based on extensive legal experience. His reasonings do not represent the view of company law.”
‘They are entirely his view’ – WRONG they were the view of the 3 members of the Commission.
‘His reasonings do not represent the view of company law’ – Smoke and mirrors. The Commission remit wasn’t to represent the view of company law but the football rule books although company law was considered as explained in my post above.
jonnyod says:
June 18, 2013 at 10:48 pm
‘..re the bbc statement
do they now think that the Sevco fans are grown up enough to handle the truth or is there something in the pipeline….’
———-
It would be nice to think that BBC Scotland generally is quietly acknowledging that the ‘Rangers’ story is essentially a business story rather than a ‘sports’ story, and should have been handled as such from the off.
As to there possibly being something in the pipeline, my money would be on AT picking it up before the BBC!
But then I am biased against the BBC , as having been, and continuing to be, an arm of ‘imperial England’!
Or is that too much for a quiet Tuesday night! 🙂
Castofthousands says:
June 18, 2013 at 5:51 pm
————————————
CoT
I remain intrigued that Murray changed his name on all directorships last May from ‘Sir David Murray’ to plain old ‘David Murray’ and no one has ever picked it up and commented on it (other than me ad nauseam)
But the more germane point is that it is simply inconceivable that Murray and Dickson Minto (“the pre-eminent Scots law firm”), and Lloyds with their legal advisers, had not done a full due diligence process on Craig Whyte, including the source of his funds to pay off Lloyds. Murray had been banging on for years about how he would only sell to the right person.
What needs to be answered is one simple question “Mr Murray, when did you first meet Craig Whyte?” or, alternatively, “Mr Whyte, when did you first meet David Murray?”
Gaz says:
June 18, 2013 at 10:17 pm
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
June 18, 2013 at 9:49 pm
The people who got their shares for 30p or whatever making their profit you think. Not doubling their money as CG promised, but still not a bad return.
The only people to lose out likely to be those who bought the shares at 70p a pop, or the normal fans as we call them. The people who bought in purely as an emotional investment, sold a dream which no longer existed.
========================================================================
It’s actually worth remembering that I think, from memory, that at least £2 million shares were sold at £1 a pop before the flotation so those lucky investors have taken a really cold bath.
slimshady61 says:
June 18, 2013 at 11:43 pm
Castofthousands says:
June 18, 2013 at 5:51 pm
————————————
What needs to be answered is one simple question “Mr Murray, when did you first meet Craig Whyte?” or, alternatively, “Mr Whyte, when did you first meet David Murray?”
—————————————————————————————————————————
Might be a simple question but the answer could be complex as I expect at the very least there could easily be two different dates given 🙂
ecobhoy says:
June 18, 2013 at 11:05 pm
0 0 Rate This
==================================
LNS accepted a flawed remit that had already separated Club from company. It is not 100% clear that the reasoning you quote was his own reasoning or the specific advice he was given at the outset by the SPL lawyers.
He organised his enquiry as an adversarial process under which no-one was arguing against this separation theory.
He chose this system of “enquiry”. He could/should have pro actively led the direction of the enquiry rather than being spoon fed what others wished to tell him.
To separate club from company it was necessary to create a somewhat convoluted definition of “undertaking of a football club”. The fabrication created by the SPL is what he presented.
The SPL rules state that words and expressions should have the same meanings as those given in the Companies Act. No-one told him that. He therefore did not appear to consider it.
Since around the mid-1990’s “undertaking” in the case of an incorporated business is defined in the Act as “a body corporate”.
No-one argued within his adversarial process, that a “Club” according to the SPL’s own definitions was a body corporate.
The LNS commission did not find the truth. It simply made a determination based on the evidence put before it.
The criticism LNS and his co-members should bear is that the process was flawed. They should have recognised that the SPL could not commission the enquiry – in which they had a financial stake – and simultaneously act as the “prosecution”.
john clarke says:
June 18, 2013 at 11:14 pm
it would be helpful for us, however, if some general explanation could be given as to why the Judiciary refuses to agree that Judges should have a ‘register of interests’, like MPs etc., or be required to declare, like police officers, whether they are members of ‘secret’ societies.
=====================================================================
It’s actually an affront to society that such a Register doesn’t exist and there can be nor justification for its absence in this day and age.
I’ve just read few the past half a dozen or so posts – what an incredibly high standard of debate.
This really is a house of learning. Chateau to you all!!
slimshady61 says:
June 18, 2013 at 11:43 pm
‘..What needs to be answered is one simple question “Mr Murray, when did you first meet Craig Whyte?” or, alternatively, “Mr Whyte, when did you first meet David Murray?”’
——–
An earlier poster today reminded us that it had been previously reported on the blog that CW’s dad, (Thomas?), had a business premises( some kind of business involving steel, or scrap- metal) not too far from a premises owned /used by MIM ( Murray International Metals).
Not Impossible that a young creep on the make would have made an approach ( like calling to like?) to a ‘role model’ , perhaps on a visit by his hero/role model ( not as a Rangers man, but as someone who appeared to be a self-made millionaire )…..
Not impossible, either, that , like calling to like, a millionaire filed details of the young hopeful (with whom, we are told, he lunched many years later in Monaco) in his ‘sharp practices merchants’ file for future reference.
Or could I write a novel?
HirsutePursuit says:
June 18, 2013 at 11:46 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 18, 2013 at 11:05 pm
===================================================================
There is much that you say which I disagree with but we are where we are on the outcome of the LNS Commission and I can see nothing that will change the outcome.
We also labour under the burden that the proceedings weren’t open to the public and that no transcript has been provided and I’m not even clear that one was taken. We also don’t have the closing submissions of Counsel which I have always suspected was to save face for McKenzie but I can only speculate.
You state: ‘The LNS commission did not find the truth. It simply made a determination based on the evidence put before it’. Well in my experience Truth is seldom found in legal or quasi-legal situations and it may be trite but I believe true that: ‘One person’s truth is often viewed as a lie by another person’.
I will agree with you that LNS made a determination based on the evidence put before it but where we might differ is that’s exactly what I expected it to do and also believed that that was the correct procedure. No one objected and not tonight as I can’t be gassed but tomorrow I will see what the rules of procedure state as to the way the Commission should have been conducted.
As I have said previously LNS was too wily an old bird to fall for the trap which seems to me to have been set for him. If he had fallen into it then Rangers would have appealed and won it hands down. Who knows perhaps that was the deep plot so that all the cr*p could be dumped on LNS.
But we’ll never know and I’m not into wargaming and fighting old battles – there’s plenty new ones ahead to look forward to 🙂
Broadswordcallingdannybhoy says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:00 am
‘.I’ve just read few the past half a dozen or so posts –’
——–
Broadsword,there was a very entertaining prog on Radio 4 today about ‘probability’ and ‘co-incidence’
If you were to tell me that you are a lawyer with Dad’s navy experience, I would be flabbergasted, and I’d be on to the professor guy who was expatiating on the subjects!
ecobhoy says:
June 18, 2013 at 11:05 pm
“They may well have taken advice but on such a critical point of their case I am very surprised they haven’t spelt out what advice they took as every other cough, spit and f*rt is covered.”
———-
Although I only gave the pertinent pages of the report a speed read I felt the BBC did limit their arguments to keep their decisions intelligible. They may well have gained legal advice. This would not surprise me considering their view was likely to be challenged by one side or the other. Law is based on precedent. BBC have in some ways set a precedent. In due course we will see if that view is challenged. I am not sufficiently well read in these particular matters to provide concise information. What I have seen suggests to me that the LNS enquiry decision to separate club from company was controversial from the outset and much debate ensued on here concerning the matter. HirsuitPursuite was kind enough to chip in some well structured research just prior to your post that reinforces my suspicions.
As I said I would be surprised if the BBC had not taken advice on this. Surely recent and past experience suggests that if there is a flaw in their reasoning it will be vociferously challenged. I am prepared to await the outcome of any such challenges when the position will surely have been clarified.
john clarke says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:16 am
=====================================
If you are using your real name – you might have worked beside me in May.
Are you a ‘sensurv’ ?
slimshady61 says:
June 18, 2013 at 11:43 pm
“I remain intrigued that Murray changed his name on all directorships last May from ‘Sir David Murray’ to plain old ‘David Murray’”
—————
I picked you up wrong slim. I didn’t realise (S)DM had made this change. It is a very interesting observation and I will bear it in mind.
On the due diligence, I strongly suspect you will have done much intercourse on this point from RTC onward and take on board your standpoint.
It then begs the question, why would Charlotte assert that (S)DM did not know about Ticketus involvement with CW. At least that is how I read her last post on here.
Charlotte, we find it difficult to accept that (S)DM did not know about Ticketus involvement in CW’s takeover of Rangers. Can you please clarify this.
Castofthousands says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:23 am
ecobhoy says:
June 18, 2013 at 11:05 pm
“They may well have taken advice but on such a critical point of their case I am very surprised they haven’t spelt out what advice they took as every other cough, spit and f*rt is covered.”
===================================================================
As I said I would be surprised if the BBC had not taken advice on this. Surely recent and past experience suggests that if there is a flaw in their reasoning it will be vociferously challenged. I am prepared to await the outcome of any such challenges when the position will surely have been clarified.
=========================================================================
I’ve spelt out why I feel that legal advice wasn’t taken and so far I haven’t noticed anyone actually disagreeing with my specific reasoning. It’s really funny the way the paragraph I have been highlighting sits like a tramp surrounded by a host of well-groomed and polished companions.There must be a reason but so far it eludes me.
The only challenge I see from Rangers fans IMO will have nothing to do with that paragraph but on losing their bias complaints. But that’s up to them.
Charlotte Fakeovers says:
June 18, 2013 at 2:54 am
“Octopus knew the deal would fall through if Murray became aware that Ticketus were providing the bulk of the takeover funds.”
———————
Charlotte, this statement does not tally with the understanding of many blog contributors. You have provided the ‘Dont tell Murray’ and ‘What Murray knew’ correspondence but these do not appear conclusive. Is there any further information that would substantiate your assertion. Or perhaps I have misinterpreted you. Some clarification would be much appreciated.
Was Murray’s ignorance just a front to protect him from claims of collusion or was it for real?
Castofthousands said moments ago on June 19, 2013 at 12:35 am
It then begs the question, why would Charlotte assert that (S)DM did not know about Ticketus involvement with CW. At least that is how I read her last post on here.
Charlotte, we find it difficult to accept that (S)DM did not know about Ticketus involvement in CW’s takeover of Rangers. Can you please clarify this.
——————————————————————————————-
All I meant to convey was that if SDM/MIH became aware that Ticketus was the primary funding source and that others knew about this, then the Wavetower/Octopus deal was in danger.
Murray would not have been able to claim he had been duped had the source of funding been common knowledge amongst the city folks.
Broadswordcallingdannybhoy says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:35 am
‘..If you are using your real name – you might have worked beside me in May.
Are you a ‘sensurv’ ?.’
——-
Sadly, no. And sadly no.
It would have been a marvellous coincidence if you had indeed been my former shipmate, who in a radio exercise used ‘broadsword’ to my ‘danny boy’, using Richard Burton-like accent. Happy days!
Charlotte Fakeovers says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:50 am
“Murray would not have been able to claim he had been duped had the source of funding been common knowledge amongst the city folks.”
——————
Thanks Charlotte. That makes it much clearer and more congruent to the general understanding.
ecobhoy says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:38 am
“I’ve spelt out why I feel that legal advice wasn’t taken and so far I haven’t noticed anyone actually disagreeing with my specific reasoning.”
———————
Your reasoning that the BBC had not taken legal advice was on the basis that they atrtributed the LNS interpretation of the club/company distinction as being his alone whereas (as confirmed by another well read poster) it was in fact the opinion of the tribunal.
I see the logic in this but for me it is not clinching. The BBC may have referred to LNS singular for simplicity. I do not think you can extrapolate that BBC did not seek legal advice solely based on their failure to associate the whole tribunal with the LNS interpretation.