Comment on Bad Money? by John Clark.

    tykebhoy 11th July 2019 at 13:55

    '..However a former head of UEFA club licensing has said McGregor was developed by a different club.  '


    tykebhoy, I am very happy to defer

     a) to your better grasp of the Regulations and 

    b) to your wider info about the case

    and I'm hoping that there is an issue there and that TRFC really has f'.cked things up and will be penalised appropriately.(Anybody got St Joseph's number handy? Naw, it's OK:_I've just sent a wee email to Gib to let them know of my suspicions)devil



    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
    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.


    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.