Comment on Bad Money? by John Clark.

    Finloch 9th July 2019 at 13:02

    "…Commercially I'd actually say Lawwell and his boss probably called it right, a short term income hiatus for a medium and longer term gain and the maintenance of the divisive and unique Scottish football monopoly that in reality only helps two clubs.'


    Translated into everyday speech, Finloch, Celtic plc ( and other clubs) appear to have been happy to accept losing their shareholders a few million quid at the expense of any kind of principle, to ensure the future receipt of the sectarian pound for the majority shareholder.

    I object to that.

    I want a full, independent investigation into how it came about that a UEFA licence was granted to a club that owed millions to the tax man and was not at the time entitled to such a licence. 

    If hands are clean, let us all see that they are clean.

    And if there are dirty hands, let's get those dirty hands into handcuffs and tried for conspiracy to fraudulently slide millions of pounds to an unentitled club.

    It would not be up to the board of Celtic plc or the SPFL to decide whether a crime had been committed.


    John Clark Also Commented

    Bad Money?
    easyJambo 7th August 2019 at 00:06

    '..then they collectively control 81%, so more than enough to vote through anything they want.#


    I thought I had seen a reference in something from the TOP to the effect that the concert party could not use the additional shares they were allowed to obtain to increase their voting power or some such. I didn't understand it then ( couldn't really see how they could be denied the voting rights attached to the extra shares) and am probably mistaken. . Any recollection?

    Bad Money?
    'Disgraced MP struck off as Solicitor'.(page 13 report in today's print version of 'The Scotsman')

    Why was she struck off?

    Oohhhh? because she had been convicted of lying to the Police/CPS to try to escape a speeding conviction.

    Question: what might happen were a solicitor in Scotland to be publicly belted in a Judgment by a High Court of Chancery Judge for telling an untruth  in  written submission to the Court aimed at misleading the Court? 

    One wonders!

    ( and one wonders again at a little additional piece to the report: the Solicitors Regulation Authority had asked for £22,762 costs of their strike-off action. They were awarded £6,562 -because the Chairman of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal had "anxiety about the number of hours that have been claimed" [40 hours]

    Surely our solicitors do not deliberately overclaim ( or lie!) or even make honest mistakes on such a scale in calculating what work they have done?


    Bad Money?
    What is it about people in the world of finance generally and any relationship with factual truth?

    Here is a statement I just came across this morning. It is in the business magazine insider.co.uk on 29/05/19. Ken Symon (reporter) cites it as a quotation from the lips of one Ken Pattullo, of Begbies Traynor (Scotland)LLP:

    " “The huge waves caused by Rangers’ administration and subsequent journey through the tables have now settled down, [my italics] and to some degree have contributed to benefiting and stabilising other clubs.”

    What kind of 'insolvency' practitioner' can Mr Pattullo be, I wonder, if he doesn't know his arm from Liquidation, and fondly imagines either that a liquidated football club can exist in Scottish Football or that a new club founded in 2012 and admitted for the first time to the SFA in 2012 can be the very same club that even now is awaiting final dissolution by Companies House?

    I do not think I will be recommending Begbies Traynor LLP to anyone as any kind of expert company.

    [I'm not gong to waste time checking if there is any relationship between the 'Traynors' or the 'Pattullos', other than a shared capacity to deny a plainly obvious fact:that RFC of 1872 was Liquidated, and did not make any kind of 'journey through the tables'.]

    Honest to God!

    Recent Comments by John Clark

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    dpj 21st November 2019 at 08:39

    '...will revert back to full Thistle ownership after 10 years…'


    Thank you, dpj : I was reading it as meaning the land would be handed over ten years from now!   

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    easyJambo 21st November 2019 at 13:16

    '..the Accounting Period for LBJ Sports Apparel Ltd (trades as Elite Group) has been extended from 21 November 2019 to 31 March 2020.'


    I gather that one set of circumstances in which  a company might wish to change its accounting year end is when profits are falling. The Companies House guidance  gives an example:

    Example: Your profits for the 12 months to 30 June 2014 are £50,000.  The Corporation Tax on this will be £10,000 (£50,000 x 20%), payable on 31 March 2015.  For the 6 months to 31 December 2014 the Company made a loss of £20,000.  If the Company extends its reporting period to 18 months to 31 December 2014, then total profits will be just £30,000 (£50,000 – £20,000).  Two thirds of this will be taxed in the 12 months to 30 June 2014 and one third in the 6 months to 31 December 2014 (tax periods cannot be any longer than 12 months).  This will result in Corporation Tax of only £4,000 being due on 31 March 2015, compared £10,000 if the year end was unchanged.

    This is not an illegal fiddle, but if a company was feeling the pinch it might find it helpful to defer paying tax due. [A company can do this only once in 5 years, though]

    Is LBJ  Apparels finding things difficult?

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Just in from my wasted trip to Parliament House and a mere 800  metres in the Commonwealth pool.

    It must be quite difficult to schedule available work to match the expected availability of judges so I wouldn't want to be too critical of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service for perhaps hoping that a judge might become free earlier than thought because of last minute withdrawal or settlement of a case.

    And there was a wee bonus: a courteous step-aside by Lord Brodie as we met head-on going round a corner in the corridor.

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    "Weir, 71, has purchased a majority shareholding and a holding in land at the club's Firhill Stadium.

    The life-long supporter will immediately give the land back to the Scottish Championship club…

    ..The land purchased from Firhill Developments is the south terrace area and main stand and it will revert back to full Thistle ownership after 10 years under the terms of the deal."

    I am confused. What does that mean? 'immediately give the land back..' and 'the land purchased …….will revert back to full Thistle ownership after 10 years…'

    Is it just lousy reporting by someone as fundamentally ignorant of these things as I am? 

    Can any Thistle fan tell me. 

    And I remember with fondness my personal, if sort of family second-hand links with Thistle, so I am not being critical or unappreciative of the generous gesture by Colin Weir.

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Not to wander too far off topic , can I say that I do actually have many other interests.

    One of these is in looking into the local history of the place where I grew up. [ The internet is wonderful] 

    This evening , exploring the history of Dalbeth , I found that the lands of Dalbeth came into the hands of the Hopkirk family in 1754- the family fortunes were made in tobacco, and the Hopkirk chap was a plantation owner (and we can presume, a slave owner).

    One or other of the Hopkirks was connected with, or founded, or owned the Glasgow Arms bank.

    That prompted me to look up the City of Glasgow bank which I knew had gone bust in 1878.

    I was led then into an account of the trial of the directors of that bank

    And all of a sudden, I bethought myself of the trial of certain other directors. 

    And of how murky that interface between 'business' and 'law' and right and wrong and guilt and punishment can be. 

    At the trial, the Dean of Faculty defended the accused in a 4-hour speech. 

    The accused were nevertheless found guilty. And Lord Moncrieff passed sentence.

    And I was struck by this observation in what I suppose was a newspaper of the time :

    [ Curiously, the illustration of the Court proceedings seems to show a jury box with only 12 jurors?]

    The Statist agreed. ‘So far as the sentence goes, it would appear to be a safer thing to make away with six or seven millions of money, and thereby to filch from thousands of affluent families everything they possess in the world, than to pick a pocket of a few pence.’ It would have been interesting to know what a Dundee mill girl, whom Moncreiff had sentenced to eight years in prison back in 1870 for stealing a silver watch and some clothing from her landlady, might have thought of this outcome."

    And I for some reason found myself thinking " plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"

    Bast.rds with money/influence  get away with things 

    Edit: well, maybe there's a certain up-his-own-royal-.rse personage who might not entirely get away with things.

    Truth is the great leveller.