Comment on Accountability via Transparency. by easyJambo.

    John Clark 15th May 2019 at 22:47

    You have an email.

    easyJambo Also Commented

    Accountability via Transparency.
    theredpill 22nd May 2019 at 11:32

    Some sites getting excited about this so I am posting to get the experts advice



    It's nothing to get excited about. The £3 million 2017 settlement agreement between TRFC and SDI sealed its demise.

    This is an extract from RRL's 2017 accounts:

    Going concern

    The company ceased to trade on 20 June 2017. and will remain dormant for the foreseeable future. The directors consider it inappropriate to prepare the financial statements on a going concern basis. Therefore, the directors have prepared these financial statements on a break-up basis as set out under the basis of preparation (note 1.2).


    Settlement agreement

    On 21 June 2017 an agreement was reached between the shareholders (being The Rangers Football Club Limited and SDI Retail Services Limited) (and their related parties) and the company in relation to a number of disputes and claims between the parties. This agreement represented full and final settlement and closure of all outstanding claims in existence. These had previously been referred to in the 2016 financial statements.

    Accountability via Transparency.
    John Clark 20th May 2019 at 22:58

    I am curious about the practicalities of 'bona vacantia'


    I have come across it before and it makes for an interesting personal story.

    I had occasion to look into the term a couple of years ago.  It involved a company called "Heart of Midlothian 2005"  It held 6.5m shares (just over 4%) in Hearts (Heart of Midlothian plc), but had just been dissolved.

    I already knew that HoM 2005 was the company that Romanov had used to acquire control of the club in 2005, although its holding had been diluted in the intervening years by a couple of debt for equity swaps involving Romanov's bank, Ukio Bankas and his holding company UBIG. HoM 2005 also ended up as a subsidiary of UBIG.

    I was curious about what happened to the shares HoM 2005 held in the club, as they hadn’t been accounted for in the documented share transfers at the time of the takeover. I found out that they would now be classed as "Bona Vacantia" and under the control of the "Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer" (QLTR). I actually considered making an offer to the QLTR for the shares, if I could get them at the same price as Ann Budge had paid for the Ukio Bankas and UBIG shares.  It would only have cost around £4,500, which I thought was a good deal to own over 4% of the club.

    With hindsight, I made a mistake shortly afterwards by submitting a question about the status of the shares to the Hearts AGM. A couple of days after the AGM I received confirmation from the club's financial director that the shares were held "bona vacantia" (which I already knew).

    My thoughts of owning a small but not insignificant part of the club were dashed a few weeks later when an unopposed petition was submitted to the Court of Session, on behalf of Ann Budge, seeking ownership of the HoM 2005 shares under the control of the QLTR.  

    I guess that she did have every right to take ownership of them as she had acquired the rest of the UBIG shares as part of the CVA that took the club out of administration. HoM 2005 being a subsidiary of UBIG may well have meant that she should have acquired their shares at the time of the CVA, depending on the terms of the offer made to UBIG. 

    However, when I look back, I wonder if it was me contacting the club that prompted Ann Budge to contact the QLTR in the first place.


    Accountability via Transparency.
    Ex Ludo 20th May 2019 at 19:34



    It's not really "oops". RRL being wound up was part of the deal that saw TRFC hand over £3m to Ashley to get out of the old contract.

    A dispute about the new contract, of which TRFC is allegedly in breach, is still going through the court system.

    Recent Comments by easyJambo

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    Bogs Dollox 2nd April 2019 at 18:51

    So despite my previous posts condemning the violent conduct of Morelos, Kent etc you can still ask me that question. Poor show on your part but for the avoidance of doubt, of course it's not sufficient provocation.


    All good, but why then did you post "……………….. we were discussing regarding Brown's unprofessional and unecessarily provocative behaviour. Why take the ball of the spot?" 

    My interpretation of what you posted was that you considered Brown was being provocative throughout the game and you linked his taking the ball off the spot as being an example of that.

    If that is all you meant then I agree with you. However if you view that Brown's antics justified some sort of a response from Rangers players, then I disagree.  If any of the officials saw Brown's "provocation" as anything other than minor, then I would expect them to take action. 

    All I pointed out was that the action of delaying a restart is common-place throughout a game.  Celtic had just scored late in the game. It's hardly a surprise that they would do anything thereafter to slow down the game. The reaction was completely disproportionate to Brown's "provocation".

    Some players do seek to wind up their opponents and provoke a reaction. It is part of the game, sometimes physical like  an "accidental" elbow in the ribs or standing on a player's foot at a set piece, or it can be verbal like slagging off a wife/girlfriend.

    There are a couple ways to get even. You can do it physically by perhaps leaving a foot in at the next tackle, or much more effectively by demonstrating that you are a better footballer than them. What you don't do is to retaliate at the time. More often than not you will be one that gets done for it.

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    Bogs Dollox 2nd April 2019 at 17:10

    Jingso.Jimsie2nd April 2019 at 16:46   

    All of that is utterly irrelevant to what we were discussing regarding Brown's unprofessional and unecessarily provocative behaviour.

    Why take the ball of the spot? 


    I'm certainly no lover of Scott Brown, but are you suggesting that taking the ball of the spot was in some way sufficient provocation for being punched in the face?

    Taking the ball off the spot is simply a means of delaying the restart of the game, just as happens multiple times during every game, either kicking the ball away (even a few yards), picking the ball up – retreating into a defensive position – then releasing it, or standing over the ball to prevent a quick free kick.

    I'd guarantee that both sides demonstrated similar behaviour many times during the game, but only one resulted in a punch being thrown.

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    A motion in a court case that we haven't been following too closely will be heard by Lady Wolffe next week.

    Thursday 4th April Starred Motion Between 9.00am and 10.00am

    CA31/17 The Football Co (Scotland) Ltd v Glasgow City Council – MacRoberts LLP – Glasgow City Council (Corporate Services)

    This case relates to the damage done to the electronic advertising hoardings at the 2016 cup final. The last hearing that I attended saw GCC apparently agree a settlement figure of £300k. I don't know what this hearing is about, but it could just be a dispute about apportioning legal costs rather than a complaint about non payment.

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    JC and I attended a hearing of the Inner House of the Court of Session this morning in the cases of Whitehouse and Clark against Police Scotland and the Lord Advocate, in front of Lord Carloway, the Lord President, and two other judges.

    The hearing was ostensibly a procedural one in advance of an appeal by Whitehouse and Clark against Lord Malcolm's ruling from the autumn that the Lord Advocate had immunity in common law from any claims against him for any actions taken or sanctioned by him.  The basis of that decision was the precedent set in the case of Hester v MacDonald in 1961.

    I would have thought that the prospect of overturning such a decision would be a difficult one, but we found out today that Whitehouse's team had obtained a Crown Office email which dates from before their arrest/indictment, but the contents allegedly suggest that the the Crown knew that there was no evidential basis for the arrest of Whitehouse and Clark. However, just four days later the pair were detained.

    Lord Carloway accepted that the document could be used in the appeal hearing. He granted the Lord Advocate six weeks to respond to the disclosure of the "new" email. He went on to confirm that the appeal would be heard on 9 September by five judges, following a submission by Heriot Currie, QC for Whitehouse. Both parties were set a limit of using 10 authorities for the appeal. I understand that precedents from previous UK, US and Canadian cases will be referenced.

    The fact that it will be heard by as many as five judges suggests to me that the Court views the matter very seriously in what could be a landmark case, if the precedent set in Hester is to be overturned or set aside.

    It was also revealed in court that Whitehouse has initiated a complaint of criminality against unnamed individuals, in addition to his damages claim. I could probably guess that certain police officers will be be identified in the complaint.

    The 100,000 documents / emails acquired from Craig Whyte's server were also mentioned, so I guess some may surface in the appeal.

    The further these cases run and get into legal arguments and principles they are probably getting less relevant to SFM, but the link to the demise of the Oldco during the administration period and what happened thereafter still remains. 


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    Imran Ahmad is the latest to take action against the authorities for his wrongful arrest in connection with the Oldco/Newco debacle. (Green, Whitehouse, Clark, Grier and now Ahmad)


    I'd expect that if the first judgement goes against the police, then a series of out of court settlements will follow. However, if the first ruling goes against the claimants, then it could be that all five actions could fail for similar reasons.