0
    0

    Comment on Accountability via Transparency. by John Clark.

    easyJambo 17th May 2019 at 22:17

    '..and the absence of an appeal process is a disgrace.'

    ===============

    I agree, and I am truly amazed that there isn't one!

    John Clark Also Commented

    Accountability via Transparency.
    Ex Ludo 24th June 2019 at 09:24

    '….I would not be surprised if FIFA get a bit jealous and also build a shiny new symbol of wealth '…

    +++++++++++

    Your post prompted me to have a look ( not that I'm anything other than almost completely financially ignorant!) at FIFA's Annual report for 2018 at this link

    https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/fifa-financial-report-2018.pdf?cloudid=xzshsoe2ayttyquuxhq0

    They could quite easily afford to blow a couple of hundred million quid on a vanity building project!

    ( I suppose, incidentally, that all the senior bods are covered by some form of directors' indemnity insurance?)

     


    Accountability via Transparency.
    StevieBC 23rd June 2019 at 15:35

    "…..He is limited to Bosmans and loanees to improve his squad, and deliver silverware. ..'

    +++++++++++++++

    I wonder does he know and appreciate how financially strapped TRFC Ltd is? Does he know even as much as we on SFM know about the finances, thanks to the efforts of several posters who know about balance sheets?

    Would any one of us apply for a job at Ibrox,  in the knowledge that TRFC  is living from hand to mouth, and faces having to meet some serious damages claims, which might well swallow up such UEFA money that they might receive this coming season?

     

     


    Accountability via Transparency.
    Corrupt official 22nd June 2019 at 20:20

    '..Dead clever these lawyers….'

    +++++++++

    Are we speaking of William McCormick QC, who appeared for  King and Murray ( and TRFC and Rangers Retail) before Mr Richard Millett QC(sitting as a Deputy Judge of the (English) High Court on 22 March 2017?

    Para 28 of the judgment after that hearing has this:

    "Even by this early point it ought to have been obvious to all Defendants that Mr King and Mr Murray's positions as directors of the Company were hopelessly conflicted. On the other hand, the positions of the SDI-appointed directors to the Company's board were more closely aligned with the interests of the Company. It may very well have been the case that the business of the Company relied upon relationships with other entities in the Sports Direct group which were disadvantageous to the Company. That is a point of which Mr King makes much in his evidence, and much was made by Mr McCormick QC in his submissions on behalf of the Defendants. However, even if that were so, it ought not to have disabled the Company's board from seeking to uphold the IPLA and thereby protect its sole asset and revenue stream. The relevant comparator was between an allegedly disadvantageous IPLA and no IPLA at all, and ergo no business at all for the Company. "

    It doesn't seem too clever to me to be defending two members of the Board of Rangers Retail Ltd who, as also being directors of TRFC Ltd, were  acting (via boycott-support and purported termination of the deal that TRFC Ltd has with Rangers Retail ) not in the interests of Rangers Retail [ as they had a fiduciary duty to do] but in the interests of TRFC Ltd. 

    If it ought to have been obvious to King and Murray that they were 'hopelessly conflicted" how much more obvious ought it to have been to 'one of Her Majesty's Counsel, learned in the law'? broken heart

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


    Recent Comments by John Clark

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    Up betimes this morning, civic duty performed an hour ago, and I will be travelling into Glasgow a little later for a Wetherspoons' lunch and a few beers with a couple of former colleagues and friends of some 48 years.

    As I open my 'Scotsman', I nearly choke on my coffee and bruschetta as I read this sentence on the leader page, in red ink:

    " …..Our job at the Scotsman is to report the facts and demand the truth"

    I have absolutely no confidence that a newspaper which tells lies in matters of Sport (eg that TRFC of 2012 are RFC of 1872 and entitled to the honours and titles of that club which, being now in Liquidation is unable to participate in Scottish Football) will tell the truth in the much more important business of national Politics.

    The 'Scotsman' continues "  We have survived for more than two centuries precisely because we can be trusted. And every day we endeavour to retain that trust."

    Well, an empty boast if ever there was one! Rangers of 1872 died after 140 years, and died because it lied. 

    The 'Scotsman' is virtually on its deathbed, and its death will be hastened by its part in the propagation of the biggest sporting lie that Scottish Football has thrown up in its history.

    Speed the day.


    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    upthehoops 11th December 2019 at 07:19

    '…the SFA's own disciplinary process found a case to answer and now says it should now be handed over to CAS. That part the Celtic Board have never had an issue with.'

    +++++++++++++

     If my memory serves, uth, "..The part that the Celtic Board have never had an issue with "…..was the part that would not have caused them any problem!

    Celtic plc's attitude since 2013, and made crystal clear at the AGM last month (by Lawwell's affronted and needlessly aggressive "What are you suggesting?" question to a speaker from the floor) was and is  one of determined resolve to avert their eyes from the possibility that shareholders  might have been  shafted by dishonesty on the part of RFC of 1872 in collusion with  the Licensing Committee  and with the connivance of members of the SFA board . 

    Plenty of people believe there are serious questions to be asked and answers to be honestly and thoroughly sought.

    And  the SFA 's refusal even to begin to investigate does not provide much encouragement to believe in their commitment to Truth in governance.

     

     


    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    '.easyJambo 10th December 2019 at 20:44

    No, but I could give you odds that it’s betting!

    ______

    paddy malarkey 10th December 2019 at 21:14

    '..Chances are , you'd be right..'

    +++++++++++++

    Aye,very good, chaps!broken heart

    On that link provided by paddym there are I think five  players on charges of betting on football matches going back a number of seasons.

    I wonder what evidence the Compliance Officer has for any of these charges? Is it from whistle-blowers [no, not referees!] among their team-mates? Or the bookies that the charged players allegedly placed their bets with? Or self-confession? 

    I bet ye that in a fraction of the time that will be taken up by these hearings the President or CEO of the SFA could if he was so minded find out and tell us ,with proof , whether RFC of 1872 lied to either or both the Licensing Committee and UEFA.

    I suggest that their refusal to do so strongly implies that they believe revelation of the true facts will show the SFA Board up as scoundrels.

     

     

     


    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    On the business in Court Room 8 in Parliament House this morning:

    Mr McKinlay, Advocate representing Mr David Grier in his action for damages against the Chief Constable,  informed Lord Doherty that Parties had agreed the wording of an Order that, if his Lordship was content, they would ask his Lordship to grant.

    Basically, although Clark and Whitehouse are not party to proceedings in Grier's action against the Chief Constable, there's some stuff common to the separate claims of all three. The Order sought was an Order allowing the exchange of information ( e.g. witness statements) in  one or  both  of the Clark and Whitehouse cases that might have a bearing on the Grier case.

    Lord Doherty closely questioned Mr McKinlay about Mr Grier's consent to this,  and after a little bit of hesitancy while McKinlay spoke to his assisting solicitor, Mr McKinlay satisfied Lord Doherty that Grier was content.

    Ms Maguire QC representing the Chief Constable could at first only assure the judge that the Lord Advocate was content in relation to the Chief Constable's  case, and it took a smart phone call by her assisting solicitor to the Lord Advocate's office[ while Ms Maguire was addressing the judge] to enable Ms Maguire ( a tug at her gown and a hurried whisper) to confirm that the Lord Advocate gave his consent in relation to the Clark and Whitehouse cases.

    On the basis of this agreement,  Lord Doherty intimated that he would grant the Order sought.

    Proceedings lasted scarce a half-hour.

    eJ and Mulholland the free-lance journo were the only two lay persons present apart from me myself.


    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    paddy malarkey 10th December 2019 at 12:21

    '..We're back to company that owned Rangers '

    +++++++++

    How can these BBC people live with themselves, being party to such drivelling, untrue nonsense.

    May they (i.e the senior people who insist on broadcasting untruth) be regarded by all as little different from Dr Josef Goebbels in attitude.

    Certainly, that's how I regard them.

    If they can lie [ and it is a lie] and mislead about a matter of sport, what other lies might they be prepared to propagate?