0
    0

    Comment on Accountability via Transparency. by John Clark.

    Jingso.Jimsie 4th June 2019 at 15:48

    "…I recall seeing a copy of hand-written team lines for the match in question for sale on eBay…"

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

    Yeah, that rings wee bells at the back of the memory!

    Thanks for that. 

    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

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Cluster One 15th November 2019 at 20:08

    '…A firm  suing Rangers following a shelved plan….'

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

    There is the SMSM at its best!

    Not a mention of 'breach of contract'.

    Oh ,no. A 'shelved plan!' A mere nothing that some wee company is making much of!

    Honest to God! Memorial walls is suing for a substantial some of money because TRFC is, they say,  in breach of contract. 

    in the same way  as Lionel Persey QC found them to be in the SDIR case.

    This pussyfooting about anything to do with 'Rangers' , the minimising and misreporting of the facts about anything to do with either RFC of 1872 or TRF of 2012 , marks the SMSM as perhaps the most untrustworthy aggregation of 'journalists' outside North Korea, China, and other such places where journalist means party propagandist.

     

     


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    ulyanova 15th November 2019 at 22:33

    '..I wonder if there was a theory that 'purdah' rules during an an election would preclude a response from HMRC?'

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

    If  Llewellin thought that, he's even more of a dolt than I took him for!

    There was, is, nothing 'political' in terms of 'party politics' in Harra's  matter of fact statement of fact. 

    If Llewellin thought that HMRC could not defend itself against false accusations he's just a singularly uninformed eejit of a newspaper editor, and possibly a badly motivated one at that!

    HMRC should demand an immediate retraction of the falsehood.

     

     


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Right! Not having received any reply from either of the two email addresses of the FCA, I have sent this email to the Clerk of the Treasury Committee.

    To:treascom@parliament.uk

    15 Nov at 22:18

    To: the Clerk to the Treasury Committee

    "Dear Gosia McBride,

    I  know  that the Financial Conduct Authority is not a Civil Service department and is therefore perhaps less under any obligation (other than those imposed by conventional good manners and custom)  to reply to individual members of the public than  is a regular Civil Service Department.

    I have a wee problem, though, that I hope you may be able to help resolve.

    Briefly, on 25 June I wrote to the CEO  of the FCA suggesting that the FCA may have  been in breach of its statutory duty in the matter of the authorisation of the Prospectus for an Initial Public Offer of a particular company.

    Since then I have received only one acknowledgement , to the effect that the FCA had no trace of my letters, and could I send copies, and carried with it the suggestion that if I were to use email matters would be speeded up.

    I promptly emailed copies of all that I had previously sent whether by Royal Mail or email.

    The forwarded email below is the tail  end of it, and brings us up to date.

    The FCA appears to be grossly inefficient in its routine administrative functions, or contemptuous of people who write to them or unwilling to reply to questions which seem to imply some fault on their part.

    I still have received no substantive reply to my letters/emails!

    Whatever the reason (and any one of the three possibilities I mention should be of some interest to the Committee) the FCA is ultimately accountable to Parliament (and the electorate) through the Treasury Committee.  

    It is on that basis I write to you to ask, please, that you pass this email to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee and/or direct to  the CEO of the FCA.

    Given that Parliament is presently suspended for the general election I thought it pointless to 'write to my MP' as I otherwise would have done . I suspect that he may have  other things to worry about.

    Yours sincerely etc etc"

    _____

    I forwarded only the most recent reminder that I had sent to the FCA, but that should provide enough general info.[I don't have a clue how to send an email chain, tried looking it up but couldn't find anything I understood. heart]

    The point in writing to the Treasury Committee clerk, of course, is that she will have to do something. She cannot deal conclusively with my email on her own authority. She cannot just bin it! She must either

    send it to the Chairman and do what he says ,which will be either to tell her to flog it straight off to the FCA- in which case the FCA will see that the Treasury Committee clerk will have it on record- or himself take an interest in the content and be curious enough to  ask a question or two.

    or, she herself will consider it to be simply a matter for the FCA, send it there, and tell me that she has sent it to them as being simply a  matter for them.

    Standard stuff. 

    But knowledge of the 'issue' is spread a wee bit wider!

    We'll see what  Gosia 's reply may be. ( Pronounced Gohsha, a Polish version of 'Margaret')

     


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Bogs Dollox 15th November 2019 at 13:22

    '..raking over the coals only highlights the fact they were tax cheats.'

    +++++++++++++
    And  they were sports cheats!

    Doing the taxpayer out of money is one thing and damaging to the whole of society in a sort of abstract, non-immediately personal way.

    Telling lies to the other football clubs which are their 'sporting' competitors (via at the very least lying to the SFA about the payments they were making to their players and concealing the 'side-letters' and possibly having lied to UEFA about the European licence some years before that) is far more personally offensive and insulting to me and the rest of us. 

    RFC of 1872 deservedly are in Liquidation.

    Meanwhile TRFC continues to live a sports cheating existence in  claiming such sporting merit as the club in Liquidation had earned. 

    They have not yet been sorted out for that. 

    And the failure to deal with that is, one suspects, the clearest indicator that our football governance bodies are themselves so heavily involved in the sports cheating that they are themselves sh.t scared to act as they should.


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    I am by no means a dedicated reader of the business pages or the Financial Times nor have I been particularly interested in even my own personal tax affairs, so I may very well be off the mark, but I do not recollect ever seeing HMRC publicly assert the truth of their calculations in relation to a named tax-payer .

    Don't they usually say they never comment on particular cases? 

    Has new ground been broken here by HMRC ? 

    We should perhaps see a lot more naming and shaming of the low-life ,would-be high-living turds who cheat  us all. 

    And if any such have been honoured, we should see them as publicly dishonoured as certain bank chiefs have been dishonoured.