0
    0

    Comment on Celtic’s Questions to Answer by John Clark.

    Timtim 26th November 2019 at 11:40

    '..Was he pushed or has he jumped?.'

    +++++++++++

    I'd like to think that the FCA has told him that RIFC plc was bogus and has to go, and that shareholders have to be made shareholders in the football club. And that he peronally might be in soapy bubble again and would be well advised to get the hell out!

    John Clark Also Commented

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    upthehoops 26th November 2019 at 07:09

    "…I have never understood why the media are allowed into the Celtic AGM'

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

    From the Press Gazette,September 11, 2019

    "Listed companies are not obliged to allow journalists into their annual general meetings, but most generally do.."

    Sports Direct decision to block journalists from AGM ‘not a good look’

    And any sports editor  worth his salt would probably want to make sure that some stringer or other had shares in a major newsworthy club so that, if there was no formal invitation to the Press, his paper could nevertheless get a first-hand report of the AGM, rather than a Press Release!

    Mmmm! There's a thought. Could I do a wee report of tomorrow's Celtic AGM for the DR? I certainly could. Would I? Not for as many thousands of pounds as there have been lies and half-truths and arrant nonsense printed by the DR about 'continuity' Rangers.

     


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Allyjambo 25th November 2019 at 21:47

    '…PS if anyone thinks there's a place for pyrotechnics in football,'

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

    That's a temptation I can't resist, Aj:

    the proper place for pyrotechnics at football matches is up the jaxies, and lit,  of the numpties who smuggle them into  the ground, dangerous pests that they are. That'd larn them.


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    I've just sent an email reminder to Ms Gosia McBride Clerk to the Treasury Committee, having received no acknowledgement of my email of 10 days ago.

    Is it  inefficiency, incompetence, huge volumes of correspondence, indifference, rudeness and sheer lack of class that prevents the FCA and now the Treasury Committee from even properly acknowledging  letter/emails?

    Or  have they a problem with my questioning of the authorisation of what appears to me to have been a misleading IPO Prospectus, contrary to statute?

    Red faces all round? How the hell to deal with that kind of breach of the rules when they know how much trouble King was to the TOP ?  

    Or is correspondence from members of the public just not dealt with at all, in the hopes that people will get fed up and stop reminding them?

     

     


    Recent Comments by John Clark

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    StevieBC 8th December 2019 at 12:06

    '..Just hope it's an entertaining cup final today'

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

    Let's have no sectarianism (whether 'religious' or 'political') ,no 'red mist ' physical assaults on the pitch, and no feckin eejit supporters endangering people with fireworks, and  no ludicrous 'honest mistakes' on the part of the officials.

    And of course, no post-match street , pub, or domestic violence,  and just normal volumes of work in the A&E rooms. 

    Pipe dream?

     


    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    easyJambo 7th December 2019 at 11:55

    '..I wouldn't put it down to anything more than an unfamiliarity of the complexities of international transfers, a situation that could easily impact any other clubs, rather than one that could only happen to TRFC.'

    +++++++++

    Yes, no doubt about it, what used to be 'club secretaries' now have to be very sharp lawyers indeed, so you are right in what you say about the complexities of international transfers. 

    But I think there would be an expectation that James D Blair , as sharp as they come, ought to have been on top of those complexities, serving as legal adviser to a club well accustomed to international transfers.

    Seriously, though, I myself was bemused, if not flabbergasted,at the extent to which football essentially a sport, has become a legal minefield!

     

     


    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    easyJambo 7th December 2019 at 11:55

    '…the assertion that under the FIFA Disciplinary Code, the club "Rangers" or "Rangers FC" is a "legal person".

    ++++++++++

    The point being (for the benefit, eJ, of our SMSM and other 'deniers') that it is a football club , and not any 'holding company' that may own it, that dies if or when that football club  goes bust and in consequence of that loses its entitlement to membership of its national association. 

    RFC of 1872 became insolvent and entered liquidation….. Wavetower ( known as The Rangers Football Group Ltd since 12 May 2011)  is still alive and kicking, 7 years after it bought RFC of 1872 and ran that club into Liquidation.

    It is legally impossible for TRFC, newly created in 2012, to be regarded as being the same club as the club that is in Liquidation.

    No matter that one QC 'learned in the law' amused us all in Court when he babbled on  about 'the essence of things' , 'the what-it's-all-aboutness' , 'the fans', 'the traditions', 'the history' and so on, RFC of 1872 is as dead as the Monty Python parrot.

    Its extremely loyal fans have attached themselves to TRFC.

    But of course, the majority of them must know that their wishing  that TRFC were the Rangers of 1872 simply cannot make it so, any more than any of us can wish a departed loved one back into life. 

    Not even the Celtic plc Board's disgraceful behaviour  in  allowing TRFC to claim to be entitled to share the 'Old Firm' trademark in place of RFC of 1872 can make  TRFC into the other cheek of the 'Old Firm'.

    Nor can all the ridiculously repetitive SMSM hype about tomorrow's 'Old Firm' match.(In which connection, let me applaud Tam Cowan for his entertainingly sarcastic remark about the pubs in Venezuela being stowed out with folk desperate to see that match on TV.)

    Honest to God.


    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    LUGOSI 7th December 2019 at 11:09

    '…I've had a quick look at the hundred and odd page, multicoloured uber amended pleadings in MASH v GASH .'

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

    Nice one, LUGOSI. 


    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    In checking my inbox the other day I noticed that Cardiff City are appealing against the decision that they have to pay Nantes 6 000 000 euros (in respect of the late Emiliano Sala's  transfer).

    That led me on to other areas of FIFA disciplinary stuff and I came across this, of which I had never heard or read a word.

    " 1. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee [ in their judgment of 20 September 2019]found the club Rangers FC responsible for the infringement of the relevant provisions of the RSTP related to third-party influence (art. 18bis par. 1) and to the obligations of clubs (art. 4 par. 2 of Annexe 3). 
     
    2. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee orders the club Rangers FC to pay a fine to the amount of CHF 10,000.  " (about £7600)

    https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/dc-190616-20-09-2019-club-rangers-fc.pdf?cloudid=rl4dv1jttkuxkwe43lqb