Whose assets are they anyway?

Avatar By

Serendipity. This very morning I was to be found on Princes …

Comment on Whose assets are they anyway? by John Clark.

This very morning I was to be found on Princes St , beneath the other Walter’s monument ( Sir W Scott, that is), extolling that great man’s heroic efforts -which perhaps led to his  early death) to clear his debts rather than opt for ‘bankruptcy’.
I have just looked up what ‘bankruptcy’ -personal bankruptcy- actually is.
“Bankruptcy is a legal status that usually lasts for a year (see ‘How long does bankruptcy last’ below) and can be a way of clearing debts you can’t pay. When you’re bankrupt, your non-essential assets (property and possessions) and excess income are used to pay off your creditors (those you owe money to). At the end of the bankruptcy period, most debts are ‘discharged’ (cancelled).”
All other things being equal, and fair dos, allowing for circumstances in particular cases, that to me equals any dirty cheating liar’s ‘get-out-of-debt- free’ card.
Not that I would really advocate a return to throwing people in jail for debt ( although, in some cases, maybe…..!).
But for the debts to be cancelled  after  year?  A shyster’s charter, that seems to me.
What kind of society do we put up with, that these people who deliberately screw the rest of us, should go unpunished in any terms that mean something to them?
Sir Walter Scott’s sense of honour and decency made him work like a Trojan to preserve his good name. Today’s scoundrels are incapable of that give two fingers to such notions of decency.
Worse, they are more likely to be praised and honoured, possibly with the big ‘K’, for their dishonesty  and ‘financial cleverness’.
May they in every appropriate and  highly individualised, way reap the just punishment that their sheer arrogant rottenness and deceitfulness truly deserves.
Bad cess to all such.

John Clark Also Commented

Whose assets are they anyway?
Smugas 13th November 2015 at 1:49 pm
‘..Sorry John, but can you elaborate?’
Just to acknowledge your query, Smugas, which you answered before I saw the question!

Whose assets are they anyway?
tykebhoy 13th November 2015 at 10:49 am #
“……The giveaway is the elephant in the room which I strongly suspect was a James Doleman aside rather then anything mentioned in court.”
I’ve only just read this post, tykebhoy. You won’t mind, I hope, if remove the grounds for your suspicion!
My notes record the following:
Mr Brown as saying    “..the elephant in the room is….”
I am feeling just a tad too risk averse to give the  fuller context ( as far as I understood it) could  in which he made this remark, given the terms of the order restricting  reporting .
Counsel on either side themselves frequently indicated that they were very mindful of the need to avoid saying anything that could conceivably be thought to bear on the criminal charges facing certain parties!

Whose assets are they anyway?
I’ve just been looking at my notes of yesterday’s ‘legal debate’.
Would it be helpful to others if I give this little snippet?
In the context of a reference  to  ” CEO of the Rangers FC” and “CEO of the Company”
Mr Woolffe:  ” … the defenders distinguish between RFC and the corporate identity. SevcoScotland only acquired the Rangers Football Club on 14th June 2012 by virtue of….so it is only from then..”
Judge Doherty :” No contract of employment with the Rangers Football Club?”
Mr Woolffe: “No”

Judge D: “How would you describe the club in legal terms?”
Mr Woolffe: ” An association..[hesitates, pauses]..the key point is timing … In Schedule 3 of the agreement [ edit: I don’t know which agreement was being referred to]  it speaks of the Rangers football club ( without ‘Ltd’) 14.6 2012 when SevcoScotland acquired Rangers FC…….”
As I’ve said before , without having sight of the text of any and all documents and papers that are referred to  it is very difficult to be sure of the significance of any particular document and where it sits in the discussion.
But I think that snippet suggests what some posters have already discussed,  a main line of argument being followed namely, the point at which an individual could be said to have been the CEO of an organisation in terms of any rights to be indemnified by that organisation.
[Not that it’s particularly or necessarily relevant in connection with this post, but I’m mindful of the reporting restrictions. James Doleman knows his way in these matters, whereas I might say something because I don’t know enough to see  how it might be seen to connect to ‘forbidden’ material.]

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