0
    0

    Comment on Accountability via Transparency. by John Clark.

    Cluster One 26th May 2019 at 17:46

    '…Is there no one in this ibrox saga that has not been in court for one reason or another.'

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

    I am given to understand that Mr Hughes' lawyers appealed to His Honour Judge Drew to have the charges dismissed , and he ruled in their favour on 15th May 2017. Hughes' damages claim has moved quicker than some others!

    Echoes of the kind of cocked-up prosecution work that we have seen in recent times, with hints of police stupidity or worse in the gathering of evidence, and ,at best ,ineffective/incompetent Crown Office lawyers/prosecutors!

    Lord knows, it's difficult enough to secure convictions even when cases seem to be well -supported by indisputable evidence, properly gathered and assembled and presented, and actually get to trial! 

    To handle basic procedural  matters so badly as to leave a judge with no option but to dismiss charges so that a case doesn't even get to trial is, frankly, unforgiveable.

    [ not that I have an opinion on Mr Hughes : there is nothing to have an opinion on, since no one has charged him with any offence!] 

     

     

     

    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

    In Whose Interests
    I jetted in this morning from Newark Airport, after a couple of interesting and enjoyable weeks in Pennsylvania, and it's good to be back in the same time zone.

    Section A3 of the Take-over Code [  the full text of the code is at this link  http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/code.pdf?v=1Apr2019] describes the companies, the transactions and persons who are covered by the Code.

    My reading of that section is that the cold-shouldering of a director or a company is only in relation to those transactions that are in connection with a take-over bid by one company of another, or by the directors of a company trying to get an increased control of the company by the issue of shares.

    That's disappointing, because I would wish that anyone 'cold-shouldered' should be seen as being an utter pariah, completely excluded from using any financial services in connection with his business or operating in any commercial business whether as owner or director.

    Reading the Code is not easy for people like me who  knows hardly anything about Companies and shares and the 'market' , so I may be wrong in my reading of the Introduction, Section A3.

    But I think that whatever we think, the people who move in that world of business and shares and take-overs crap themselves at the prospect of being 'cold-shouldered'- so it must have some significance as a penalty, branding the person as an untrustworthy person in whose good faith one would be a mug to rely on in any business connection.

    Further, it seems clear to me that  even to sit round the same Boardroom table with a person ordered by the FCA to be 'cold shouldered' would suggest that one is of the same low-life stamp of lying, untrustworthy business man.

    Perhaps the RIFC plc Board members have thicker skins than I?

     

     


    In Whose Interests
    Homunculus 13th October 2019 at 21:31

    '.. Maybe Rangers would be as well if things had been done properly.

    —————————–

    Yes.

    All legal truth and sporting truth and practical reality and Liquidation-precedent were on the side of the Governance body.  RFC of 1872 had died, as other football clubs had done, but rather more shamefully and in disgrace.

    But it's certain that few 'old Rangers' fans would have been permanently lost if the SFA had insisted that CG's new creation could not be allowed to make the ridiculous claim that it was the 'old Rangers'.

    There was undoubtedly a partisan desire on the part of the SFA Board strong enough to make it prepared to throw out sporting integrity, truth and common sense and create a monstrous lie under the specious pretence of the  supposed commercial interests of the game!

    The questions raised by the Res12 issue and the refusal to have that thoroughly and independently investigated reinforce the suspicion that the SFA was not only corrupt in the matter of the Liquidation and its consequences, but had already been corrupted by sliding monies to the ailing RFC of 1872, monies to which it was in no way entitled, some time before.

    It is now simply the case that the Governance body simply cannot get itself out of the mess its cowardice and partisanship created.

    It must come clean and face up to the truth openly and honestly, come what may.


    In Whose Interests
    Which is the more grave offence-to break the 'non-statutory' rules of the TOP, as Mr King did, or for a lawyer declared by a judge to have lied in Court?

    The TOP has taken action against King but only after a lengthy period. Will it be a similar length of time before any body (eg the Law Society of Scotland?) or even the Courts take action against the lying lawyer?


    In Whose Interests
    Finloch 11th October 2019 at 17:00

    '.. Our system is broken and we don't seem to have anyone with the wherewithall to see what to do about it ..'

    —————————————————-

    Yes, Finloch, it's pretty evident that for whatever reason or reasons , Scottish Football in terms of the National team and international competitions, has been on the decline for decades.

    I don't think there are any grounds for believing that before 2012 there was the same fundamental rotteness at the very core of our Sport's Governance body that became evident in the nonsense of the 5-Way Agreement.

    But I think I can safely say that a governance body as rotten and deceitful as the SFA has been since 2012  when it abandoned the very idea of sporting integrity by crediting a brand new club with the sporting achievements of a dead club cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the Sport it governs.

    Let the SFA come clean,  let the record books and all public reference to TRFC make it clear that that club is NOT RFC of 1872, square up to the sporting truth, and we can all get behind (a newly constituted )Board in the search for remedies to halt the decline and reinvigorate our Sport.

    Fundamentally, who would give a serious  toss about our international standing when domestically we have a rigged game that has nothing to do with 'sport'?


    In Whose Interests
    The mills of the TOP/FCA may not grind exceeding small like those of the Deity, but they grind small enough!

    Reading King's statement makes me really wonder whether the man is all there, mentally,  since to me he seems to be detached from reality.

    Lord forgive me, but I am reminded of some of the stuff the Nazi war criminals like the at least half -mad Rudolf Hess would come out with!

    No shame, no contrition, but self-justification ,self- glorification, .self-vindication and contemptuous dismissal of the opinion of the rest of the sane world.

    I think he needs help!