Comment on Accountability via Transparency. by John Clark.

    StevieBC 26th May 2019 at 16:13

    '..Following my accurate assertion that Clarke would never take on the Scotland job…'


    Resign! Resign! a la  JJ ( see eJ's post at 16.29 today)broken heartbroken heart

    No, don't! Only kidding: you were expressing your own opinion.

    Whereas JJ ( as I understand from eJ's post) self-confessedly relied on a fact from an unreliable source. ( JJ blocked me years ago!)


    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

    In Whose Interests
    Big Pink 15th October 2019 at 23:35

    ' John C
    Sadly the BP residence is leasehold '


    Jings, crivvens and michty me! broken heart


    In Whose Interests
    Homunculus 15th October 2019 at 20:46


    *September 19 2019

    Metro Bank has warned it could face a “significant” bill after regulators widened their investigations into a £900 million accounting scandal'

    Metro announced in January that they had "adjusted the risk weighting of certain commercial loans secured on commercial property and certain specialist buy-to-let loans that had the combined effect of increasing our Risk-weighted assets"

    As I understand it, the amount of capital and cash reserves a Bank is required to keep on hand is closely related to the risks that are attached to their varied types of assets. And, it seems, it's the bank itself that decides what level of risk there may be!

    So, an official in my bank might decide that the risk of lending me £100M  to allow me to buy Big Pink's Lanarkshire mansion to support my plans for making money by renting it out to fabulously wealthy football players is no risk at all: because the money will come in, I shall pay off the loan and interest thereon no bother.

    So the amount that my bank has to keep in cash to cover the risk of me defaulting in my repayments of the loan is nowhere near enough to cover its ass if I do default, and if an unrealistic valuation of BP's mansion had been decided on( deliberately or not) to allow the bank to lend me the £100M.

    I assume therefore that the FCA investigation is into the question of whether there were very naughty deeds of minimising 'risk',thus leaving oodles of cash free for other purposes [not necessarily for illicit purposes (such as lining the pockets of individuals in making sweet deals for clients and themselves)], but consequently exposing the bank to the danger of not being able to meet its own liabilities if the estimates of risk were badly unrealistic.

    I attended a trial once, a number of years ago, where a guy who hadnae two pennies to rub together and had had to 'borrow' money from a guy who had been accused of fraud, testified that he , a finacial consultant,had writtten a 'letter of comfort'  as to the accused's financial standing and probity, to those who were thinking of lending the accused a substantial sum of money!

    That episode (on top of the RBS Goodwin ,the knight stripped of his knighthood while other knights  seem to be exempt from public censure and keep their 'honour' in spite of spitting in the eye of the Monarch by practicing deceit upon Her tax assessors and gatherers) causes me to laugh at the sub-species of human being such people are, hold them in absolute contempt, and wish them every failure financially-and gaol if appropriate.

    Naturally, I pass no comment on the situation at Metro Bank, who swear to cooperate fully with any investigation into the £900M blackhole.

    And, of course, I fully accept that I am not anything other than a questioner

    as well as being someone whose own experience tells him that bodies such as the SFA and the FCA appear not to like  questions being asked of them!

    I am  beginning now to think that I have grounds for asking my MP for some help in getting the FCA to reply to my query about their authorisation of the IPO Prospectus.

    But that is for another day.


    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.



    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?