Comment on Accountability via Transparency. by John Clark.

    StevieBC 24th May 2019 at 10:53

    '..And, knowing what we know now, TRFC will not receive the favours as easily as Rangers did either.'


    I fear you may be too optimistic in that regard, StevieBC:

    TRFC Ltd are already favoured by being allowed to claim falsely to be the same club as Rangers FC (IL) ( now called Rangers 2012 ) ,and allowed to trade on that name  and claim the sporting entitlements and achievements. 

    The football club  whose shares were purchased/swapped for shares  put on offer in the Initial Public Offer of Rangers International FC plc were the shares in The Ranger Football Club Ltd and NOT those of the liquidated Rangers FC of 1872( which, in liquidation, had no place in the market!)

    I believe the IPO was fundamentally flawed in that in my opinion it  mislead prospective investors by implying that the company in which they were invited to invest by RIFC plc was the original and genuine Rangers FC founded in 1872.

    The prospectus glides over why it is 'TRFC Ltd ' all of  a sudden, and uses 'Rangers' in two different contexts, and expressions such as  'the assets and business of the club' ,in such way as to imply without positively stating as a fact-(which would have been deliberately untrue) that TRFC Ltd is the same Rangers, bought out of Administration as  going concern ,and that Rangers 2012 (IL) is somehow not the Rangers of 1872.

    It is a brilliantly deceitful use of language, and, although effective, its effectiveness cannot remove the underlying con!

    The SFA that allowed that Prospectus to go unchallenged, the SFA that devised and created the 5-Way Agreement, thirled itself for ever by secret Non Disclosure Agreement to keep schtum about the whole deception.

    And, sadly if not surprisingly, we have no reason to believe that any new Board will have members brave and honest enough to let the truth, the simple truth, be declared: that TRFC Ltd has no title to claim to be the Rangers of 1872, and therefore cannot possibly be allowed to continue to claim to be so.[

    Personally, I dream of the day when some big shareholder of RIFC plc shares raises an action about the Prospectus and how it was written, having believed from the Prospectus that he was actually buying shares in the most successful club in the world, only to find….

    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


    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

    Bad Money?
    Life is full of more or less remarkable coincidences. 

    looking at the High Court of Chancery rolls list for tomorrow I came across this entry:

    "The Rolls Buildings,

    Hearing Room 2


    Tuesday 16 July 2019

    At 12:00 PM


    BL-2018-002250 DESMOND v Whyte and another "

    Please someone tell me that these are not Dermot Desmond , majority shareholder and Board member of Celtic ,  and Craig Whyte last owner of the original Rangers Football Club of 1872?

    That really would be a coincidence!


    Bad Money?
    "Always being honest, that is the most important thing."- so says that diving, cheating Neymar, who no more would understand the concept of fair play in sport than our unprincipled  SFA.

    But at least he's only a player, not the Governance body of a sport.

    Bad Money?
    easyJambo 13th July 2019 at 23:49

    '..Is Edusport seeking to transfer its SFA membership to a new club/company?'


    Naughty, naughty, eJ!.broken heart

    I think it must simply be that while the Edusport Academy Ltd is an incorporated business  it's spin-off football club was an unincorporated body, which I believe is permissible. Certainly, it's as 'Edusport Academy' that the club will be playing its fixtures in the coming season.

    It presumably makes sense now to think about separating the football club from the Academy by becoming a distinct legal entity by incorporation ( as it did for many of our venerable clubs which played competitively for some lengthy periods of time before they wised-up to the desirability of becoming limited companies). 

    Since incorporation cannot be backdated, I imagine the club will seek incorporation as 'Edusport Academy' and simultaneously change its name. It would be the same club, and entitled to its full history and record of sporting achievements. 

    I wish it well, even if  I don't much like the new name!


    Bad Money?
    easyJambo 13th July 2019 at 23:49

    '..I'll put out the possibility of a "new club" participating in the Lowland, South of Scotland and U20 leagues this season…'


    By Jingo, eJ! 

    You must be the 'go-to' guy when it comes to the world of Scottish football!

    Hands up anybody else who knew of Edusport!

    Is it just me who's feckin ignorant of these things?heart


    Bad Money?
    OttoKaiser 12th July 2019 at 10:57

    '..Now, when did the bold Craig sell those shares!?'


    Round about 22/02/2012 according to 

    "Rangers owner Craig Whyte sells off 102 years of Ibrox history by dumping shares in Arsenal

    James Traynor

    • 07:22, 22 FEB 2012
    • Updated02:36, 3 JUL 2012"

    So, without a legitimate licence (in my opinion) and in breach of other UEFA club competitions (like holding shares in another club) it's only right that Maribor denied them any more money from their cheating.