Two wrongs and a right

By

Haywire, LUGOSI, and Jingo.Jimsie: many thanks for the references to …

Comment on Two wrongs and a right by John Clark.

Haywire, LUGOSI, and Jingo.Jimsie: many thanks for the references to Mariella.Quite an accomplished girl, and from the photo, quite a looker.

John Clark Also Commented

Two wrongs and a right
Regular posters and contributors to the SFM may remember that in October last year I wrote to Mr McRae, President of the SFA.I posted the text of my letter on 28th October (page 4 on the “Whose assets are they anyway?”, archived October 2015).
I had not received a reply or acknowledgement by 12th December, so I sent a reminder.
I received a reply to that reminder ,dated 16 December 2015, in which Mr McRae apologised for not having responded to my previous letter, and invited me to come and see him.
We arranged that I should visit him at Hampden on 19 January 2016 at 2.00 p.m.
Following the meeting, I wrote a summary of the conversation. I emailed that summary to Mr Darryl Broadfoot, Head of Communications, asking him to check whether my recollections were accurate, because I would be posting the summary on SFM.
I have not had a reply and I think I have waited a fair enough time.
So, here is the summary of an approximately 45 minute conversation.
I should first make it clear that Mr McRae said that he had no recollection of airing any of the views I had had relayed to me.
I should also say that I made it clear that while I contribute to SFM, I was not there as ‘officially representing’ SFM, although what I would say broadly reflected the view of many. ___________
“Note of informal meeting between [me] of Edinburgh, and Alan McRae, President of the SFA, with Darryl Broadfoot , Press Officer, at Hampden park, 2.00 pm Tuesday, 19th January.
Background:Mr [me] had written to Mr McRae in October 2015, to ask whether Mr McRae had really ( as had been reported to [me]) aired the following opinions: a) that Rangers FC were not Liquidatedb) that Rangers FC were put down to the third Division c)that Rangers FC were bought by Charles Green andd) that the team currently playing out of Ibrox Stadium and calling itself The Rangers Football Club Ltd is one and the same as the club known as Rangers Football Club, which is currently in Liquidation.
Mr McRae, through Mr Broadfoot, went through the points one by one.
On point one, There was no difficulty in agreeing that RFC had been Liquidated. That was accepted as a matter of fact.
On point two, Mr [me]argued that Mr Green’s new club had had to apply for league and SFA membership, and were therefore admitted as a new club to Scottish Football and allowed into SFL Third Division. They had as an emergency measure been granted conditional membership, and had had to seek the Administrators’ and Football Authorities’ agreement to the use of certain RFC(IL) players who had decided either to sign on with the new club, in order to play their first game as a new club. They were ‘put in ‘the Third Division as a new club, not as an existing club being relegated.Mr McRae , through Mr Broadfoot, argued that ‘put in’ and ‘admitted to’ are pretty much the same thing. The legal advice obtained was that Mr Green’s new club was not a new club, and the Authorities were stuck with that.Mr [me] referred to the 5-way Agreement, and made the point that two entities other than league or SFA representatives were signatories to that agreement: RFC(IL) and Mr Green’s new club. The two could not be one.Mr Broadfoot said that that was a matter of opinion. Mr [me] said that it was rather a matter of fact.Likewise, on the third point, there was disagreement. Mr Broadfoot, for Mr McRae, argued that Charles Green bought the club ( and Mr McRae personally added ‘and the “goodwill”’). Mr [me] pointed out that Mr G had NOT bought the club out of Administration, as had happened with other clubs, but merely had bought the assets of a former club that was NOT able to bought out of administration and was consequently Liquidated.
Mr Broadfoot said that Celtic and Rangers supporters might continue to disagree but that could only be expected. Mr [me] pointed out that this was not at all a Celtic-Rangers supporters’ issue, and that the Scottish Football Monitor , for instance, represented the views of supporters of many clubs.He further made the point that many sports administrative bodies had come under the spotlight in current times and people were naturally concerned that the governance of football should be above suspicion: and that substantial numbers feel that the Football Authorities have been at fault, in permitting a new club to claim to be an old club and pretend to the honours and titles etc etc.
Reference was made in the passing to some allegations that had been made that certain evidence relating to the Discounted Option Scheme had been withheld from the LNS commission, which occasioned Lord Nimmo Smith to be misled; and to the apparent negligent performance of the SFA administration under the previous President, who, both on account of his personal knowledge of the use of the DOS by Sir David Murray, and of his personal later receipt of an EBT , might reasonably have been expected to ensure a thorough and diligent examination of the information provided by clubs about payments to players. Mr Broadfoot ruled out discussion of the first of these matters because there was no evidence , and the second matter was also ruled out because, he asserted , the previous president is a man of the highest integrity. Mr [me] replied that work was in hand to provide to obtain evidence, and that the question of negligent performance of duties was not a question of ‘personal integrity’.
Mr Broadfoot opined that the future would show whether Scottish Football supporters were really concerned about the old club/ new club debate, if huge numbers turned their backs on the game.Mr [me]replied that a sport based on a false proposition, on what could be seen as a lie, no matter on what pragmatic reasons,would certainly wither if and when people thought the sport could be rigged.
Mr [me]was asked if , coming from Edinburgh, he was a Hibs or Hearts supporter., or perhaps a Celtic supporter. And whether he was going to tonight’s game. He replied that he was, as his name suggests , of Irish extraction and perhaps conclusions could be drawn. He would not be going to tonight’s game. And his interest in the present matter was rather more academic and objective than partisan.
The meeting ended cordially at about 2.45.pm “
_________________
I think I can say that Mr Broadfoot , opening the meeting, explained that for “purposes of this meeting, he was the SFA.” Mr McRae’s personal contribution to the conversation was therefore very little more than mentioned above, Mr Broadfoot doing most of the talking.
I will say further that I spoke to BP, and consulted one or two other posters before I went to the meeting, in order to make sure that my general understanding both of the principal events of the ‘saga’ and of the thrust of most of SFM’s contributors , who are drawn from supporters of many clubs,was sufficiently sound.
I give it as my opinion that I may have been invited to a personal meeting only because it might have been thought in some quarters that I was in possession of an electronic recording of what I told Mr McRae that he was reported as having said.And, finally, I declare here that my note of the meeting was written within two hours of the meeting, and reflects the substance of the conversation. It is exactly the note I sent by email to Broadfoot, except that I corrected a typo in the spelling of Darryll (I had ‘Caryll’), and have omitted my own surname. I also’justified’ the text.


Two wrongs and a right
And, for such amusement as it may afford on a Sunday evening, having mentioned one author of former times, I must mention a modern author -an Australian- who was speaking on the radio book programme hosted by Mariella Frostrup who has a most seductive voice ( no idea what she looks like!). This author, quite a young-sounding female whose name escapes me ( possibly surnamed James), came out with this phrase: ” If we paid more attention to the radical particularities of observed phenomena..”.
For the rest of my short journey, I wondered whether, in discussing the O’Halloran business, we perhaps had not been paying close enough attention to such ‘radical particularities’. 2021
I wondered if we had not properly factored in the phenomenon of Mr Wright’s successes, and the possibility that he might very well tell his Board that if O’Halloran is allowed to walk for peanuts, he’ll walk as well.And if he tells his Board that, I’m pretty sure he will be listened to.


Two wrongs and a right
I fiddled about and found this: (and the word spelled ‘caution’ is pronounced as ‘cayshun’ in the language of the law.
From :’
‘ACT OF SEDERUNT (SHERIFF COURT ORDINARY CAUSE RULES) 1993 No.1956 (S.223)
SCHEDULE 1
Initiation and progress of causes
CHAPTER 27 CAUTION AND SECURITY’

Failure to find caution or give security27.9. Where a party fails to find caution or give other security (in this rule referred to as “the party in default”), any other party may apply by motion-(a) where the party in default is a pursuer, for decree of absolvitor; or(b) where the party in default is a defender or a third party, for decree by default or for such other finding or order as the sheriff thinks fit…….’
I would take it from that that if you don’t pony up, you lose!


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