Comment on Accountability via Transparency. by John Clark.

    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?)


    John Clark Also Commented

    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









    Accountability via Transparency.
    My post of 20.15 refers ( the Court proceedings)

    On re-reading I find I did not complete a sentence. It's at this point

    " Mr Duncan: Absolutely, my Lord. I must make the point that what the Pursuer says about Lord Mulholland [ ed: Lord Mulholland stepped down as Lord Advocate in 2016. He was, of course, in office at the time the action against Grier was taken]..

    the end of the sentence is " is outrageous!"

    And Mr Duncan spoke with some feeling when he said that. 

    Recent Comments by John Clark

    In Whose Interests
    Avatar Timtim 20th September 2019 at 21:04

    '.. others particularly Andrew Dickson and Stewart Robertson as Directors of TRFC '


    Ach, those guys,I believe, are mere puppets!

    And probably haven't the savvy to realise that their position legally may set them up as fall guys!

    In no way, in my opinion, are these guys 'directing' TRFC Ltd.

    They are, I believe,  but servants, doing their master's  bidding: but servants who ,in my belief, will be disowned by their master if and when everything may go pear-shaped.!

    And they may be too young to know that claiming to have been merely obeying orders was not a particularly successful argument for a number of Nazi war criminals.

    God Almighty!


    In Whose Interests
    John Clark 20th September 2019 at 23:52

    '.. and the very Regulating authority buys into the whole deceitful farrago, '


    And this reminds me that my email of last Friday to the FCA has not yet been even acknowledged,let alone reponded to.

    Keep in mind: Charles Green set up a new football club

    A club so new that it had to apply for membership of a League in order to be allowed into membership of the SFA.

    A club , initially called Sevco Scotland, and renamed The Rangers Football Club Ltd,whose shares were

    were subsequently purchased by a new company called Rangers International Football Club plc, which  then went on to offer to the public investor shares in the Rangers Football Club of 1872!

    No wonder the FCA has failed to acknowledge my correspondence!

    Mr Bailey and Mr Randell  may think that what John Clark has to say can be contemptuously dismissed.

    The fact remains that RIFC plc in its Prospectus certainly implied that prospective investors would be investing in 'Rangers of 1872',with its world record sporting achievements, and not in some gimcrack club manufactured by Charles Green in 2012 falsely claiming to be the Rangers of my grandfather's day, and being accepted by dishonest and dishonourable governance people as being such.

    What might the FCA do if it is alleged that an IPO was founded on an untruth? That prospective investors worldwide were being offered shares not in 'the most successful club in the world' but in a brand new football club that had not even kicked a ball?

    I fear that it will do what those whose purpose in life is 'money' rather than 'principle'.

    And if that is the case, may they be end up in Dante's fourth circle of hell.

    And very bad cess to them!broken heart



    In Whose Interests
    macfurgly 20th September 2019 at 23:25

    '..  I concur. '


    And I'm sure that most ordinary folk can see the weakness of a system that ( as exemplified by  the Thomas Cook example currently) allows feckin companies to blackmail Government and the rest of us by the threat of the loss of jobs if they are not bailed out!

    They f.ck up, as did  RBS and the banks generally, and the rest of us suffer while the individuals responsible ( or greedily irresponsible) get off quite happily, profits made!

    A bit like the Rangers saga:

    Some cheating football club owner cheats the taxman (i.e us!) , an asset stripper cheats the creditors, and a bunch of phoneys tries to make money by using the name and brand of a dead club, and the very Regulating authority buys into the whole deceitful farrago, succumbs to a kind of blackmail, makes liars of itself, and destroys any belief that Scottish Football is anything but rotten at the core by accommodating the cheats.

    In Whose Interests
    Jingso.Jimsie 20th September 2019 at 16:49

    '.. is it TRFC or RIFC being referenced re potential administration events? '


    As I understand it, in the court cases v SDIR, TRFC Ltd is the defender. This means that it was a director of the actual football club that signed the deals on behalf of the football club(not of RIFC plc) and it is the club and its assets that are at risk if they cannot pay their bills.

    Of course, if TRFC Ltd were to enter Administration  and fail to find a way out of Administration, it would enter Liquidation, and thereby cease to be a club entitled to play in Scottish Professional Football (that is, it would suffer death as a football club just as Rangers of 1872 did)

    The Liquidators would sell all the assets, which would leave the Board of RIFC plc without  a chair or a marble step to put their ars.s on ,and without a right to occupy any of the premises.So, with no raison d'etre, RIFC plc would be dissolved.


    In Whose Interests
    Timtim 20th September 2019 at 11:29

    '.. A set fee of 750k ? a pre pack admin .'


    That sent me to read up a little on 'pre-packs'

    And honest to God, if ever there was a legalised form of robbery that gives carte blanche to people like some of those lying, devious, unprincipled and unscrupulous felons that we have read about over the years, it's the use of pre-packs to stiff creditors!

    The historically much-lauded 'invention' of 'limited companies' and 'limited liability' and the 'corporate veil' allows absolute scoundrels to profit from debt-laden companies and then bunk off with swag without any real penalty;with many a Tulkinghorn-type lawyer and low life financial adviser there to share in the booty.

    Bring back the debtors' prison! Or at least mark with public shame and disgrace those directors whose incompetence and /or criminal tendencies damage others