Comment on Does Money Indeed Ruin Football? by John Clark.

    StevieBC 11th March 2019 at 00:53

    '…Absolutely no point in focusing on those who tarnish Scottish football at the stadiums – if there is no focus on those who tarnish Scottish football from their positions at the SFA / SPFL."


    And that is a point that cannot be made often enough, StevieBC.

    The wrongdoing of nutcase fans (even if there may be thousands of such), is as nothing compared with the cynical cheating and lying of the very  Sports governance body!

    The Big Lie was  devised, constructed and put into effect by  unscrupulous men of no moral fibre whatsoever: men ready to swear away any regard for sporting integrity, and even common sense, and sell their filthy little souls for an outrageous fantasy. 

    If there were never to be another incursion by fans, or another episode of sectarian singing, the Governance of our game will still remain rotten at its core  for as long as the Big Lie is allowed to stand. 


    John Clark Also Commented

    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    StevieBC 11th March 2019 at 22:15

    '..Good to see the Scotland manager has his finger on the pulse WRT his team…'


    And good to see that the unfaithful, 'committed'  manager who so contemptuously walked away from the Scotland job( but got it back) is so oo oo understanding of  McGregor's hissyfit.

    Honest to God!

    How much crap can we take from  our Football Governance body?  

    Leave aside Truth: have they no bloody idea of how to lie in any kind of integrated manner?

    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    easyJambo 11th March 2019 at 21:12

    '..The case no. for the H&J action is P997/17'


    Aye, eJ, I should have checked the list! broken heart Just hoping for some interesting development.

    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    paddy malarkey's link at 19.07 this evening to the Strict Liability consultation document and the replies thereto [ what a brilliantly crafted series of intellectual arguments in support of their 'opposed' was provided by club 1872. Not Socrates, not Plato nor yet Aristotle could have matched it] made me turn to a Parliamentary debate about the abolition of corporal punishment in schools 


    I've been reading it on and off this evening. 

    Because I remembered:

    there was a fight at dinner time one day in 1955, on waste ground outside the school. 'Fight, fight, fight' was the cry, and I think every pupil who heard the cry was present to see as bloody a 'schoolboy' fight as ever was seen. 

    It happened that a wee wumman passing by stopped to try to break it up. She was hunted- and someone threw a clod of earth at her, some of which made a mess on her coat; and the fight carried on.

    When we all got back to our classrooms, we, that is, every class,  were asked 'who threw the clod'.

    No one owned up. 

    Result: the whole damned school got the belt.

    Even as a 13 year old I thought that a bit excessive- we had only just been reading about the Roman Army, where they were content just to punish one-in-ten!

    A more mature understanding of that and similar, one-classroom, experiences makes me instinctively opposed to SL. There can be no justification for punishing the 'innocent.' Doing so is essentially an admission of defeat, and a resort to the unprincipled behaviour of the bad guys. 

    We on this blog are strong in our condemnation of our Football Governance body's contempt for truth and justice when it comes to applying basic rules of sporting integrity: we should not , I believe, compromise ourselves by suggesting that there is a 'greater good' that can be served if we ourselves dispense with notions of fairness and truth and justice.


    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