Comment on Bonkers OCNC Thread by Reiver.
Request placed with Duff and Phelps to explain in what context they are able to sell the history of any company when that history includes massive debts but the company that therefor bought the debts has not repaid them.
We may or may not get a reply. We can but hope.
Reiver Also Commented
Is the ethereal entity that is so mocked upon….
In addition you are showing your lack of understanding at what is being mocked. It was that, in court, the judge stated that he did not want to get involved with "metaphysics" in response to Ranger's counsel talking about the ethereal part of a club and yet the fans continue to treat the ethereal club as a point of argument in what is a real world scenario.
All fans recognise the emotional attachments but that is not an argument that holds water against the rights of creditors not to be stiffed.
Bonkers OCNC Thread
Is the ethereal entity that is so mocked upon here actually related not to the assets or badge but to the teams support and interestingly their competitor's determination that they still exist.
That is exactly what we agree with, for that view to continue as part of their emotions. It is what faced Airdrie fans when their club was forced into liquidation by the actions of David Murray for the sake of c.£200K, at a time when he was taking the tax payers and the Bank of Scotland savers for hundreds of millions. The Airdrie fans continued supporting Airdrie United as if it were the original team but it wasn't. Its records were left with the liquidators and they started anew. They did manage to return the club's name after about five years when the insult to the creditors(David Murray) of creating a Phoenix club time was passed. They are still not the original club according to the records.
Can you not see the irony in this where Rangers fans want to ignore the laws that everyone else accepts so they can keep their club? But is it that the problem is it that they want to keep a football club or is it that they want to keep the supremacy over their rivals by keeping a history that should disappear.
Also, keep in mind that the history of the club includes debts of in excess of £100M or do you just want the part of the history that your emotions are comfortable with.
As you are of a wont to misrepresent me I request that you do not hold me as an example of anything or make direct reference to me in your posts. My posts are already out there for others to read and do not need repetition.
For instance –
I am firmly in the same camp as Reiver on the issue though in that I do not see any reason for Traveso to introduce the “/company” to the letter
A total misrepresentation. My belief is that there is no consistency in UEFA's handling of the continuation claims and that it should be debated on here so we can find a way to make them come out and clearly state their position.
I may have accepted that a single point you raised should be debated to see if a clear acceptance or dismissal view could be reached. Other than that I am of the view, that most seem to share, that you are a troll.
I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to make their case and that everyone else should deal with trolls by not engaging in the non supported, irrelevant minutiae that floods the threads.
Recent Comments by Reiver
It doesn't constitute censorship if the mods steer discussion back on substantive matters
Tris the point of my post was to point out that non-substantive posts were NOT steered away from and I listed them. Those points are far more responsible for breaking up discussions than ever continuation was. To treat music and religious posts as substantive in the context of the site when serious issues like continuation is relegated makes a mockery of your observations.
You may judge my comments as a "martyr-fest" but that displays misjudgement on your part not any ego induced part of mine. My concern was that the site was being diluted with everyday football and non-football issues that involved nothing of substance to the original purpose of monitoring our football administrators. If that continues to be the case then this site will drift towards being an irrelevant side show and we cannot afford for that to happen as this has always been the only site on which semblance of club impartiality could be found.
You seem to be comfortable with the loss of some big hitters from here but it would be foolish to believe that their departure as advantageous to the goal. You would be far better advised to take on board their reason for leaving and, after an honest critique of the site, consider whether their points are valid. From there make the adjustments to the site policies that attracts them to return.
Finally. last year I purchased the domain SFA-Truth.uk but have not brought it to life because other lines of pressure were suppose to be in the offing. One, in which I was involved, failed to materialise. Res 12 plods along as before with no conclusion in sight. Perhaps a bit more proactive support from a site dedicated to righting of wrongs would have persuaded the Celtic board, and other club's boards, that there was value in moving the resolution forward. This site's reputation gives it a far greater advantage than any site I could create but without the will here to get back on track I need to make SFA-Truth an active site.
This may be looked on as an attempt at martyrdom but I honestly believe what I have written, and perhaps others do too. So instead of as previously binning this post because of the criticism it contains consider leaving it up so that other posters can make their feelings known. Posters ARE the site as we are lucky to see four articles a year published. You guys have put a great deal of hard work into the production here but without the contribution to the threads no-one would visit. Please! Seriously soul search before it is too late.
Fantastic Voyage ..
Auldheid 23rd August 2018 at 15:48
Auldheid 23rd August 2018 at 22:25
Firstly, apologies for the delay but I have been seriously considering whether I was right to return to the site. I seems to have lost its way. The first of your posts above quotes from part of a post of mine that is no longer in existence. Not lost in the spam folder but deliberately removed without explanation. The content was to point out, as JC has just done, that a great deal of the content of the site has far less right to stay on the main thread than the continuation debate. There were no ad hominem attacks. If any could be loosely translated as such it would be the one that still exists – Reiver 23rd August 2018 at 10:56 – which was meant append the post that you quote. The removal of my post smacks of an unhealthy(for the site) instance of censorship. Censorship of criticism of the site itself.
Anyway to the point in hand.
In your second post you state
Apart from the fact it continues to be under the scrutiny of the JPDT armed with all the knowns it depends.
Since LNS, and to this day, we have seen that "independent" scrutiny does not result in independent outcomes. To put faith in that is, because of our experiences, tantamount to naivety and you do tip your hat to that view. But it is still allowed to kick the can down the road further.
You then go on to say
If there isn't the majority shareholders will have to explain to minority shareholders and supporters why it is in their interest not to challenge fraud and at the same time assure them its OK to still buy STs without some explanation of steps they have taken to prevent a recurrence other than "trust us." Otherwise they are taking a loan of their supporters.
If, as I suggested, that Celtic see the end to this as rejecting Res 12 outright then what? The AGM at which this will surface will be closer to when the STs have been already bought than to when the money from the next sale is required. Do you really believe that you have found a way to retain the attention of the majority of the fans? If you have then why use it for that, why not use it last year or now to bring those fans on board?
So you are left with the very real outcome of Res12 being neutered with no way forward other than some very expensive private prosecution. The purpose of Res12 has been valid for 7 years now with each year that passes seeing strengthening evidence being gathered. But I believe that it is two years since the real power of that evidence was reached. Since then, time passed is serving to neutralise that proof and yet when the evidence was at its most pertinent Celtic refused to act.
We must not forget that Res12 is only related to a single aspect of the poor(too weak a term) governance in Scottish football. So even if it should succeed I do not believe we are left in a strong position. Let me predict the scenario.
Celtic pass Res 12 and demand action from the SFA/UEFA
SFA see that they are in a corner and perhaps open to criminal charges.
Their options are to come clean and be prosecuted or find somebody else to blame.
I'll leave you to finish that scenario as I am sure it is obvious what they will do, who they will blame and for what.
We are now in a position where a club that is already in a very dodgy position carries the can and and a governing body that carries on, more carefully, than before. How do we then take them to task for their sins. The issues that are more definitive of their involvement such as lack of punishment for years of cheating, the five way agreement, the transfer of trophies to a club that is not the one who won them, ignoring attacks on fellow members in club statements etc. The efficacy of such challenges have been undermined by a success on an issue that can be perceived only to have been advantageous to Celtic.
I am not against Res 12 and am sure you will concede that I have proved that by assisting in facilitating publicity on the issue but Res12 does not prove SFA involvement only that they MAY have been involved or more likely they have been incompetent.
We need all their sins exposed.
Fantastic Voyage ..
I agree, and have never said otherwise, it can be the answer IF it runs to a conclusion but the signs so far are that the Celtic bean counters match the bean counters at every other club in that they see no financial advantage in proceeding down that road. Not only do they see no advantage but they judge it as financial disadvantage. I think when you get to the stage of refusing the CFC board's further delays that they will become quite pro-active against the the resolution. I believe that you will see them do a TRFC and call for all "right-minded" shareholders to vote down the resolution. I don't know the make up of the share spread at Celtic but I am willing to bet that there is a majority who are finance minded rather than sport minded.
So Res12 will probably end up in the same situation as OC/NC in that someone outwith the football authorities will need to push their case through the courts and stump up the costs for that action.
I have only spent c.36 hours considering the D & P "history as an asset" statement but to my mind we have the opportunity to have their opinion challenged by using the government's own complaints service at https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-insolvency-practitioner . At the very least that should result in some sort of answer for or agin us. For that we don't need to stump up lawyers fees.
In the meantime, I have asked for a explanation from Duff and Phelps on how the can sell the history to a buyer, when that history MUST also include the company's debt, and the purchaser does not settle up with the creditors. Once we get an answer or receive no answer at all the decision can be made whether to make the move formal or not. While waiting more research can be done in preparation.
This is why I object to the relegation of the continuation subject. Had it been on the main thread I could have received assistance from those that have more knowledge on the subject than I do.
Fantastic Voyage ..
Oh! I missed Brass Bands – the football administrators not involved
No I don't remember that you are a Hibby. I see so many posts on so many sites that this old brain has given up remembering. On the other hand if I had spoken to you once in the 1970's my memory would be 100%
As to my identity. When I returned BP was so convinced that I was who I said I was that it was he who retrieved my avatar for me. It may have been my email address that convinced him.
If you want to know where I stand with regards to LM2 pop over to the OC/NC thread and check out my response to him yesterday.