Comment on Accountability via Transparency. by John Clark.

    To what extent is the SFA a public body whose decisions are potentially subject to Judicial Review as to whether they were fairly arrived at by due process under their own rules?

    Or a private body whose decisions may 'have  a sufficient public element, flavour or character to bring it within the purview of public law' [Dyson,LJ]

    I think Bonnyrigg Rose might well find some support for seeking Judicial review of  what on the face of things looks like a  quite unjust and arbitrary use of power, arising from a sudden change , backdated as it wee, in the criteria for membership of the Lowland League.

    [  I am prompted to mention this because I see that Halliday in the 'Scotsman' today has a wee piece about the SFA's decision, in which he concludes " Rules are rules, but the SFA surely needs to re-examine and reshape criteria which are stifling the very ambition it is supposed to be encouraging']

    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?
    Allyjambo 21st July 2019 at 09:59

    '…that no action can be taken against a dead club..'


    Oh, I don't know about that, Aj.

    The history books could/should show that Rangers FC of 1872 died an utterly dishonourable death, not occasioned by the run-of-the-mill  business failure that even perfectly honest businesses can suffer but a death caused by its serial cheating both of the Football Authorities and of HMRC over  a number of years.

    Post-mortem expulsion from Scottish Football is entirely possible and appropriate.

    And of course the absurd pretence that TRFC Ltd is the same club as that monstrous cheat of a club should be forthwith abandoned, and Scottish Football put back on the path of Sporting truth.


    Bad Money?
    Allyjambo 21st July 2019 at 09:59

    '..Of course, anyone involved at Rangers at the time the (potential) fraud took place might feel the effects of any fallout, maybe even a criminal investigation.'


    Have you had a wee read at this link, Aj 


    from which I take this excerpt:

    "..It is generally the case that examples of personal criminal liability for directors flow from the corporate criminal liability of the company of which they are a director. Having establishing the corporate criminal liability, the personal liability of the director depends upon their role in the company and the link to the criminal act(s).

    Although the personal liability of a director is dependent upon the company having committed a criminal act it can be established even if the company has not been or is not being prosecuted.[my underlining]

    The existence of personal criminal liability of directors is intended to ensure the accountability of those in senior positions at companies engaging in criminal conduct…"

    There are some delicious sections in the Fraud Act 2006, e.g.

    "12. Liability of company officers for offences by company

    (1)Subsection (2) applies if an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate.

    (2)If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of—

    (a)a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or

    (b)a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

    he (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."

    And, of course, the directors of a company in Liquidation are still accountable for their acts as directors of that company notwithstanding the Liquidation or the fact that they had resigned before the Liquidation

    And, further, I suspect that if a  wayward director had been acting in collusion with wayward directors of another company the directors of that other company could find themselves also being prosecuted.

    Speaking entirely in the abstract, it is entirely right and proper that allegations of potentially fraudulent behaviour by company directors should be thoroughly ad independently investigated, for their sake if the allegations are shown to be unfounded, and for the sake of the rest of us if there is found to be truth in the allegations.

    Bad Money?
    Auldheid 20th July 2019 at 12:58

    '…and Celtic really should pass Res12 or a derivative at the next AGM.'


    It's late of a Saturday night, Auldheid, but a wee alarm bell is ringing. 

    The Res12 people would have to be careful NOT to withdraw the Res 12 motion that has been in 'adjournment' (for 6 feckin years!)  before they are certain that a replacement, differently worded, resolution will definitely appear on the agenda at this Autumn's agm and be debated and voted upon. 

    There is nothing the Celtic Board would like better than to have Res 12 withdrawn! 

    And they are no angels in this matter: if Res 12 is withdrawn,  they would try everything to prevent a new Resolution getting on to the agenda.

    After 6 years, it is clear that they, no more than the SFA, want the licence issue really and thoroughly investigated.

    Phew! Jings, crivvens and michty me! Forgive my moment of panic. I'm sure the Res12 folk are more aware of these things than I!


    Bad Money?
    Allyjambo 20th July 2019 at 10:25

    '…John, in what context did McFadden find the 'need' to utter the following in the build up to a Motherwell v Morton match?'


    I had only just switched on the steam radio when I heard McFadden speak. I didn't recognise his voice and was wondering who it was that was speaking about 'Rangers' ,and how well they are doing, fifteen minutes before the Motherwell/Morton kick-off!

    I assume that there had been some general chat about the premier league teams in general and the conversation had reached 'Rangers', with the BBC heads perhaps bowing  in homage at each mention of the holy name!angry 

    Bad Money?
    Highlander 20th July 2019 at 10:10

    '.., the BBC's main driver in adopting their sacrosanct policy was advice supplied by the Scottish Football Association,..'


    In strict fairness , Highlander,to the BBC executives, who defended their use of 'new club'/'old club' by reference to Scots law, they were constitutionally bound to obey the order issued by the BBC Trust not to use those descriptions.

    Happily, the BBC Trust [ set up by Royal Charter, not by Parliament ]was itself dissolved in 2017, having previously been accused by a former Director-General, Mark Thomson,  of 'fundamentally misleading' Parliament in the scandal over large pay-offs to senior executives.

    It is amusing to read this extract from the Editorial Standards Committee's report: 

    "The ECS said it was "satisfied that although there had been a breach of the editorial guidelines in relation to due accuracy and the use of clear and precise language, it had not seen anything to suggest that the BBC had knowingly and materially misled its audience". (in the way, perhaps, that the Trust was alleged to have tried 'knowingly and materially' to mislead Parliament!)

    Sadly, by complying with the order, and abandoning truth thereby,the BBC has been knowingly and materially misleading its audience since 2013!

    The dissolution of the Trust two years ago should have been seized by the BBC to begin again to report the truth on their own account, or at least raise the question with Ofcom, which took over the monitoring of editorial standards.

    If the BBC can speak untruth in the simple matter of Sport, what bigger untruths will it be reporting on, say, Brexit, where matters of real national importance are at stake, rather than the piddly little affairs of a seven year old football club trying to live on a bunch of lies?