Time to Ditch the Geek Show


Fleshing out the tweeted reports,let me report as follows: The Petitioners …

Comment on Time to Ditch the Geek Show by John Clark.

Fleshing out the tweeted reports,let me report as follows:

The Petitioners were represented by Mr James McNeill, QC, with Ms Almira Delibegovic-Broome, with 5 other folk.

The Respondent (Mr King) was represented by the Lord Davidsonof Glen, QC, with 2 others assisting.

There were three Press people , and eJ ( in the morning only) and me and one other member of the public in the afternoon, until two other young men came in towards the end of the day.

On the  way in this morning there ws a BBC cameraman, set up to take a picture of King if he appeared in person. ( I spent a minute or two giving the chap a history lesson on the saga, and the BBC’s less than glorious part in it). And, of course, King did not appear.

Mr James McNeill QC finished his case at about 3.00 pm after a ten minute comfort stop. He finished by observing that the ‘order’ being sought is not a punishment but enforcement of a requirement of which King was aware, and is not lacking in fairness, practicality or utility.And it is necessary to go back to the importance of the message that the Court sends out. He said the The Takeover Panel Executive, the Committee Hearings, and the Takeover Appeal Board are charged with maintaining proper regulation of Takeovers: the Court needs to be cautious, and he discerned no reason why the Court should not make an order that Mr King make an offer…We do not know, he said, how many people have been disadvantaged, disenfranchised, but….

Mr Davidson, began his submission at 3.00 pm, after there had been a ten-minute comfort break.

He referred to Mr McNeill’s remark about how many had been disadvantaged and disenfranchise, saying that a message could equally well be sent out to the effect that 65% of shareholders were NOT disenfranchised,nor are they locked into control.The idea that shareholders cannot sell their shares is nonsense.

He then turned to Section 955. He observed that the Court can make any order. The words used in the section are “….May make any order.” The Court has discretion in the matter…

Judge: Mr McNeill did  the Court had no discretion, just that the Court cannot NOT make an order..

Mr Davidson: If Parliament were going to impose on the Court they would have done so, and not used the word ‘may’.

An order would not be efficacious, because the Respondent has no funds.

Further, the Respondent is a separate person from the Trust.
And the ‘offer’ price of 20p is too low.

In  relation to funds, there is  conflict’ If we lookat the Affidavit and the Sovereign trust letter, Kig had no claim on the trust set up after the ” settlement ” with SARS.All the assets are the Trust’s.

The Petitioner does not care if King does not have cash.But  under the Rules (Rule 9.5) ” consideration for the offer must be made in cash..”, and the offer document says ” if the offeror is other than a company the offer document must contain a description of how the offer is  to be financed”

Again, Rule 24(8) ‘cash confirmation’ requires that the offer documents must have  certificate that resources are available.

How can this be done, if there are no resources.

So, if an order is made, the offer cannot be made under the rules, and then if the order is made and cannot be complied with , there would be ‘contempt’.

The Court should not order when it knows it cannot secure compliance.

Mr Davidson referred to the Court’s power Not to make an order that forces someone to be in contempt.

He read from another [judgment? I missed the reference]about the effect on third parties .

He then reminded the Court that the objective is to achieve “equality of treatment of shareholders” , not pushing King into ‘contempt’.

He referred to a judgment of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords where Lord Hoffman observed that “one is not obliged in every case to quosh a decision..”, inferring that one was equally not obliged to exercise a power, where circumstances would make the exercise of that power pointless.

And that, he said, is where we are:it would be pointless to make an offer. The point of the Code is not to be unnecessarily burdensome, but to benefit the shareholders. If no benefit can be achieved, there is little point!

As for the price of 20p, the current price is 27p
Judge: is the question of price relevant?
Mr Davidson: Yes.But what is the point of making an offer that no one in his right mind….
Judge: But say someone like Ashley or someone wants just tom get out, and is ready to pay…
Mr Davidson: i’d need to see evidence…
Judge: But no one knows what shareholders will do.
Mr D: But the Panel knows the answer, they know that the price is 27p. There is no evidence that there are shareholders champing at the bit, ….to sell at 20p. The evidence is other!
Judge: There’s nothing in the Code that says it has to be an offer that might be accepted!
Mr D: The Panel has to think of the consequences, it doesn’t have to do it. And one has to have regard to funds. Is there another way of securing compliance?
Mr Davidson made reference to a previous decision by the Panel in which the ‘concert party’ satisfied the Hearing that they had simply not known anything about the 30% rule, when they unwittingly acquired a 50% share in a takeover.The judgment in that case was Not to force them tomake an offer, but to sit down and discuss alternative ways of complying.
The same, said Mr Davidson, could have been done here.
Judge: Mr King was reminded of the 30% but went ahead anyway.

Mr Davidson:Not everyone has a grip on the Code:did King know what he was doing?
Judge: to some extent he does just go ahead!
Mr davidson:…… If he understands what is meant..
Judge: In the other case, the Court was satisfied that the people did not understand
Mr Davidson: What he is being asked to do is tell shareholders ” dear shareholder, I’ll give you 25% less than the going rate, which I have no funds to do….”
Judge: Do I have to take into account….this is not a Court of Appeal.
Mr Davidson: king is not the Trust..
Judge: You are saying that the Petitioners are not paying heed to Trust law, and that King is was merely running around [ wihout actual authority] simply trying to influence the trust ..
Mr Davidson’s fina lpoint for the day was to re-assert that the Court does have the discretion NOT to make an order.
Court rose at 4.00 p.m, to convene again at 10.00 .a.m. tomorrow.
This is perhaps too long to remain as a post-maybe the mods might want to shift it elsewhere for reference?

John Clark Also Commented

Time to Ditch the Geek Show
An excerpt from ex-PM Gordon Brown’s book[‘My Life, Our Times’]:*

“It cannot be right that Fred Goodwin walked away with all his past bonuses untouched, a reported tax-free lump sum of £5M and even after he agreed to halve his pension it still was said to amount to £300.000 a year”

Quite. But at least he  was publicly dishonoured by being stripped of his knighthood.

We know of another knight who
cheated Scottish Football for a decade or longer by breaking rules about  disclosing all payments made to players,

cheated the tax-payer by using an unlawful tax avoidance scheme for years and years ( and singing dumb about it for fear that HMRC might find out and/or that his football rule-breaking  would be spotted and condignly punished  [as if!!] ,

saved his own personal business by in effect laying the groundwork for the death of a famous football club,

but who still parades as a respected member of  society unstripped of his knighthood, and essentially unpunished for his cynical, anti-social, anti-sport, dishonourable behaviour.

And one might,all things considered in due proportion, expect that Mr Brown might have had something to say about that.

King might be ‘cold-shouldered’ by the Finance community in fullness of time.
Some knights should be cold-shouldered socially.
* From Scott MacNab’s piece in today’s printed version of “The Scotsman”

Time to Ditch the Geek Show
AuldheidOctober 30, 2017 at 14:58
‘…SFSA‏ @scottishfsa 6h6 hours ago More Just to confirm there will be no further interaction between us and two point one ‘
I cannot begin to say how glad I am at that, because I am very keen on the SFSA as a truly independent football supporters association.
I will be attending the Firhill gathering to learn what the academic- led , professional survey has discovered , and how that information will be used to shape the administration of Scottish Football along customer-related lines  with proper accountability to us all for ensuring the integrity of the sporting competitions and  an  administrative level playing-field.
And I would encourage existing members of the SFSA to try to attend Firhill, and for any readers of the SFM blog who are not already members to sign up straight away for membership-it’s free!

Time to Ditch the Geek Show
TrisidiumOctober 30, 2017 at 02:31
‘…News that the SFSA has partnered with Two Point One..’
Who the heck are Two Point One? 

I’ve never heard of them/it.

But if they are of the ‘Big Lie’ tendency, the SFSA has shot itself in the foot for ‘partnering’ with them, as far as I’m concerned.

Essentially, all the cosmetic improvement in the functioning of Scottish Football that the SFSA might succeed in achieving will be meaningless if the Big Lie which in effect denies the very essence of sporting competition,is allowed to continue.

Partnering with those who are prepared to foster and promote the Big Lie has to be a no-no.

Recent Comments by John Clark

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
My brother and I, auld men now that we are, meet occasionally for a pint or three.
We tend to pay homage to our late dad by visiting one of the pubs he used as a young man afore the war ( he lived in digs near Partick Cross) , or one of the pubs he used when we were kids during his working life at what  used to be Glasgow Corporation Tramways Parkhead depot,  or the pub he used in Tollcross in his retirement days.
So I feel for the patrons of what had been Annie Miller’s pub in Ropework lane.
If and when the new owners of the premises tart it up gaily as a feeder bar for their adjoining sauna, I expect that it will no longer be a ‘Rangers’ pub,a place of shared enjoyment of football memories and celebration of former days of glory.

Like the historic Rangers Football Club, Annie Miller’s is dead. Ceased trading in 2016. No longer exists as a ‘Rangers’ pub, any more than the Rangers Football Club of 1872 exists as a professional football club entitled to a place in Scottish Football.
That’s the reality.
There isn’t even a ‘Scottish Football Pubs Association’ prepared to create and propagate a lie  that ‘Annie Miller’s’ lives on, there have been no white or green knights/knaves rushing in to found ‘continuity Annie Miller’s’, no running-dog SMSM types betraying their avocation by propagating untruths……and.no convicted criminals begging, borrowing and making false promises about good times to come if only other folk will produce the readies…
Annie Miller’s is dead and gone.
Only a lie sustains TRFC Ltd.
And those who drank in Annie Miller’s know that.
And the evil men of the SMSM and the SFA know it, too.
May 2018 see them confounded, and their untruths exposed.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FinlochDecember 30, 2017 at 20:42
‘…Craig took a Corinthian and undisciplined club going nowhere fast, rooted it into a previously ignored community and has achieved some incredible health and social goals deep into that community using football as glue.’
Beautifully expressed, Finloch.

Football as a glue of ‘community’

Of community trust,

of basic honesty,

of the  Corinthian spirit,

of sporting integrity….

and of all the virtues that the SFA has so spectacularly abandoned, in its determination to insist that Charles Green’s Sevcoscotland is entitled to call itself the Rangers of 1872

That such an incredibly monstrous perversion of truth of any kind, never mind sporting truth, is being, and has been for 5 years, propagated by our Football Governance body and supported by the SMSM is stark evidence of a deep, deep corruption at the heart of our sport, and, worse, at the very essence of our ‘free’ Press.

in this little country of ours.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
And since I’m talking to myself while all you guys and gals are snoring your heads off, can I just mention that in the local newspaper this morning there was a piece about school sports.

It seemed to be about the ‘pick’ of the best players.

I didn’t have time today to read the whole thing ( and it’s too late to disturb the household to go looking for the paper!) but it seemed to be related to the use by ‘soccer’ teams of the American  Football  concept of who gets to pick the best player in the ‘draft’.

I have only the haziest understanding of that concept.

But in so far as it might relate to attempts to create genuine ‘sporting’ , on-field, equality of talent, it must have something to recommend it.

Even the Americans realise that in order to make money out of sport,there has to be some concept of genuine ‘sporting competition’

Auldheid reminded us, quite movingly, of the joyous nature of our game as we all experienced it.
We all knew instinctively what was fair, and what wasn’t.
Remember how our street game teams were picked?

The two ‘captains’ tossed for first choice.Whichever won the toss would pick the ‘best’ player. The other guy would pick ‘the second best’ and so on.

And, if it appeared that there was an imbalance ,or if there was an odd number of players, then it would be agreed that a ‘John Clark’ would play the first half for one side to give them the extra man, and the second half for the other side, to try to be fair in the use of that useless lump!

( who, I may say, was actually quite good at lifting the wee ba’ from the street up onto the pavement, one hand on the lamp-post outside the Thomson’s house on Cuthelton Street, and bringing it to the goal at the lorry entrance to the Domestos depot ( formerly Donald Clarke’s steel kind of place, which in 1947 sirened One o’Clock,with the siren they used ‘during the war!’)

And it is these kinds of memories that fuel my contempt
contempt for the cheating bast.rd of a knight of the realm who killed the RFC of my day

contempt for the SFA who, like some referees,not only did not ‘see’ that cheating but went further and assisted in that cheating

And who continue to propagate the lie that the football club that cheated its way to death by Liquidation is somehow the same club as a five year old creation that they themselves have lied into existence.

And as for the the whole lot of the successive boards of either Sevco 5088, Sevcoscotland, The rangers football Club Ltd, RIFC plc  how can they be described otherwise than as  scavengers of carrion? Feeding as they do on the dead flesh of a once proud football club?

It gars me greet…
Quietly and solemnly, into my glass of “Goose IPA, 5.9%, made from hops from Idaho” ( And actually quite surprisingly pleasant, reminiscent of McEwan’s pale ale.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
It’s 11.43 pm in Scranton,PA,  and we have just come back from being wined and dined  in tremendously good company in a friends-of-the-son’s home.

I am therefore in a cheerful frame of mind. (Mind you, sitting in the back seat of the car I had one of those A9 moments of absolute fear, when the driver overtook another car on a blind bend, before I realised we were still on a dual carriageway!)….

For one reason or another, it suddenly strikes  me that I don’t actually know ( or remember) when it was that the concept of ‘transfer windows’ was introduced, or why it was introduced.

On the face of it, it’s as much of a restriction of ‘trade’ on ’employers’, as the pre-Bosman situation was on freedom of employment was on ‘workers'(players).

Is there a decently worked out rationale for the concept?

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
easyJamboDecember 27, 2017 at 17:49
‘..I think that the document will only be a restatement of the resolutions that were approved at the AGM (Resolutions 10 & 11).’
You’re perfectly right, of course, eJ: it was only the official recording  of the AGM resolutions.

I think I for one (in my general ignorance) tend to think that any plc of which a director has been taken to the Courts( in an unprecedented action by the Takeover Panel) would have every form or document that it submitted to Companies House rigorously examined, cross-checked, double-checked, treble checked ,even, in a way that ,for example, the SFA does not do with documents submitted to it by its trustworthy gentlemen members.

The Takeover Panel has a lot riding on how the Law stands in its approach to the Panel’s need for support in their regulation of rogues in the market-place.

So I tend to look at anything touching on RIFC plc that seems even a wee bit different as something worth exploring.

Largely tongue-in-cheek, of course: -we’re not likely ever to be told anything confidential by CH! But if they say something will appear, and then it doesn’t appear when promised, then it allows one to ask why. Keeps them on their toes!

And we know that when even the gentlemen of our free Press are not above behaving with less than complete honesty when it comes to TRFC Ltd/RIFC plc  there may (God forbid!) exist a ‘protective of companies’ mindset in CH, rather than a ‘get the baddies’ approach.

Who knows?

About the author