0
    0

    Comment on Does Money Indeed Ruin Football? by easyJambo.

    paddy malarkey 11th March 2019 at 18:33

    easyJambo 11th March 2019 at 16:05

    Cheers , EJ , but  I omitted to put "Scottish" in the post .

    ==================================

    It's OK. I wasn't specifically responding to your post, just adding information on the scale of the "individual" fan issue to the general debate on strict liability.

    easyJambo Also Commented

    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    paddy malarkey 11th March 2019 at 15:45

    Can anybody point me to he sanctions taken against clubs whose fans have entered the field of play this season ,or statements of condemnation from politicians of the clubs/fans ? Struggling to find much.

    paddy malarkey 11th March 2019 at 18:33

    easyJambo 11th March 2019 at 16:05

    Cheers , EJ , but  I omitted to put "Scottish" in the post .

    ==================================

    The answer to your original question is none, in respect of this season.

    The answer in respect of the last 10 seasons is one, Motherwell following the play-off game against Rangers at Fir Park in 2015 when they were put on probation for 18 months after security failures.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47529229

    https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/motherwell/motherwell-breached-rules-during-rangers-play-off-clash-1-4024144

    ==============================

    The ironic thing about the Strict Liability discussion is that the SFA and SPFL already adopt Strict Liability.

    They do so for clubs who breach their rules on player registrations and eligibility (barring one infamous decision published in 2013). Just ask Clyde or Hearts for their experiences this season, or multiple clubs who have been thrown out of competitions in the past.

    It is only SFA/SPFL rules on unacceptable conduct that need to be put in place.

     


    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    John Clark 11th March 2019 at 20:36

    Meantime, the Liquidation process of the Rangers Football Club of my grandfather's era (that is, of 1872 vintage), the football club of the four young men on Glasgow Green, continues on its inevitable ending in 'dissolution'. 

    There is some piece of routine action in Court tomorrow notified as a further  'unstarred' motion 

    "..P115/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for Orders under Para 75"  before Lord Doherty.

    No appearance of Counsel required, so there is nothing to be argued about, merely some judicial rubber-stamping of some procedural arrangement.  ( Who knows, though: perhaps Henderson and Jones reached an agreed settlement, with BDO happy to avoid a court battle?)

    ====================================

    That case is BDO's action against the administrators (competence/negligence).

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


    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    Just for context, a list of EPL arrests for pitch incursions, over the last 5 completed seasons.

    I think that points deductions for at least the top five might encourage some idiots to stop and think again.

    image.png.a450d45cdcd80d96351a8a7c0552e804.png


    Recent Comments by easyJambo

    Accountability via Transparency.
    John Clark 24th May 2019 at 22:00

    No indication of the nature of the business, but it looks as though it was a routine kind of thing, perhaps not requiring counsel's presence, or submissions, or whatever.

    I must really find out what these various entries in the 'rolls' mean!

    ==================

    From the CoS User Guide

    Callings
    To lodge a case for calling, you need to present the signeted Summons with the Execution of Service included at the back of the Summons, and a calling slip. The calling slip must include the names of the pursuer and defender, the case reference number and the pursuer’s agent’s name. Counter staff will check the service of the Summons, and the details on the calling slip. You will then be advised upon which day the case will call.

    My reading of the above is that Green has already formally lodged his complaint against Police Scotland with the court (the "signeted Summons"), and was assigned a case number. That case called today. I'd imagine that the judge would hear an outline from Green's legal team about what is alleged. The judge would then decide, based of the nature of the claim, how the case should proceed.

    It will be at a very early stage in the court process.

    Case number A51/19, close to that of Green's, was called on 26 March in respect of Imran Ahmad so I suspect that there will be some common ground between the two.

    A51/19 Imran Ahmad AG (First) Iain Livingstone, Chief Constable of Police Scotland &c

    The actions by Clark and Whitehouse against Police Scotland have case numbers A293/16 and A295/16 so again those actions appear to have been coordinated.


    Accountability via Transparency.
    theredpill 22nd May 2019 at 11:32

    Some sites getting excited about this so I am posting to get the experts advice

    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08142409

    =====================================

    It's nothing to get excited about. The £3 million 2017 settlement agreement between TRFC and SDI sealed its demise.

    This is an extract from RRL's 2017 accounts:

    Going concern

    The company ceased to trade on 20 June 2017. and will remain dormant for the foreseeable future. The directors consider it inappropriate to prepare the financial statements on a going concern basis. Therefore, the directors have prepared these financial statements on a break-up basis as set out under the basis of preparation (note 1.2).

     

    Settlement agreement

    On 21 June 2017 an agreement was reached between the shareholders (being The Rangers Football Club Limited and SDI Retail Services Limited) (and their related parties) and the company in relation to a number of disputes and claims between the parties. This agreement represented full and final settlement and closure of all outstanding claims in existence. These had previously been referred to in the 2016 financial statements.


    Accountability via Transparency.
    John Clark 20th May 2019 at 22:58

    I am curious about the practicalities of 'bona vacantia'

    ==========================

    I have come across it before and it makes for an interesting personal story.

    I had occasion to look into the term a couple of years ago.  It involved a company called "Heart of Midlothian 2005"  It held 6.5m shares (just over 4%) in Hearts (Heart of Midlothian plc), but had just been dissolved.

    I already knew that HoM 2005 was the company that Romanov had used to acquire control of the club in 2005, although its holding had been diluted in the intervening years by a couple of debt for equity swaps involving Romanov's bank, Ukio Bankas and his holding company UBIG. HoM 2005 also ended up as a subsidiary of UBIG.

    I was curious about what happened to the shares HoM 2005 held in the club, as they hadn’t been accounted for in the documented share transfers at the time of the takeover. I found out that they would now be classed as "Bona Vacantia" and under the control of the "Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer" (QLTR). I actually considered making an offer to the QLTR for the shares, if I could get them at the same price as Ann Budge had paid for the Ukio Bankas and UBIG shares.  It would only have cost around £4,500, which I thought was a good deal to own over 4% of the club.

    With hindsight, I made a mistake shortly afterwards by submitting a question about the status of the shares to the Hearts AGM. A couple of days after the AGM I received confirmation from the club's financial director that the shares were held "bona vacantia" (which I already knew).

    My thoughts of owning a small but not insignificant part of the club were dashed a few weeks later when an unopposed petition was submitted to the Court of Session, on behalf of Ann Budge, seeking ownership of the HoM 2005 shares under the control of the QLTR.  

    I guess that she did have every right to take ownership of them as she had acquired the rest of the UBIG shares as part of the CVA that took the club out of administration. HoM 2005 being a subsidiary of UBIG may well have meant that she should have acquired their shares at the time of the CVA, depending on the terms of the offer made to UBIG. 

    However, when I look back, I wonder if it was me contacting the club that prompted Ann Budge to contact the QLTR in the first place.

     


    Accountability via Transparency.
    Ex Ludo 20th May 2019 at 19:34

    Oops.

    =========================

    It's not really "oops". RRL being wound up was part of the deal that saw TRFC hand over £3m to Ashley to get out of the old contract.

    A dispute about the new contract, of which TRFC is allegedly in breach, is still going through the court system.


    Accountability via Transparency.
    There are a raft of shameful statements in Maxwell's response to Bonnyrigg

    “Having checked internally, I can confirm that there is no appeal route available for clubs going through the application process.

    So he didn't know the SFA's own rules on the matter and the absence of an appeal process is a disgrace.

    The Board rejected all applicant club derogations as a matter of policy.

    So why is there an option in the SFA's licensing rules that allows derogation.  Maxwell was present at the same meeting in April at which Petrie said that derogations would be considered. 

    Additionally, in the build up to a new season, leagues and clubs require certainty around their membership to allow proper planning on and off the pitch. Situations where league membership requires to be changed last minute are impractical and must be avoided.

    The SFA have a cheek saying that it is too close to the new season as they were meant to have announced the licensing decisions at their February board meeting, but cancelled that meeting, then delayed the announcement by three months.  Perhaps the SPFL playoffs including the Cove/Berwick play-off tomorrow should be called off as some clubs don't know what league they will be playing in next season.

    I appreciate that the floodlighting criteria was added during your application process. We found ourselves in the unusual position of having 12 clubs apply for membership at roughly the same time and had to consider the impact this influx would have.

    That was nice of Maxwell to acknowledge that the SFA changed the licensing criteria two months after Bonnyrigg and others made their applications.  Unusual that 12 clubs would seek membership?  I thought the SFA's stated aim was to promote community clubs in obtaining licences which demonstrate that they have facilities, infrastructure, coaching and youth set ups aimed at developing the game both at senior and grass-roots levels. Consider the impact of admitting 12 clubs instead of 6? WTF is he on, unless the existing member clubs don't want new clubs admitted as full members.

    One major consideration is the Scottish Cup and we receive consistent feedback from members that postponed/replay fixture dates which, due to a lack of floodlighting, are required to be Saturday afternoons as opposed to midweek evenings are hugely problematic.

    So why allow clubs without floodlights to enter the Scottish Cup in the first place.  Bonnyrigg has already qualified to take part in next season’s competition as EOS champions.  Camelon (another rejected club) has also qualified.  Auchinleck reached the 5th round last reason, beating Ayr in the process. They don't have lights ……. and that was a major problem had Hearts drawn with them at Tynecastle. Is it not beyond the thought processes at Hampden that Auchinleck could have played any midweek games at Rugby Park or Somerset Park, or any other ground with lights?  Just watch for Whitehill being drawn to play Bonnyrigg in next season's competition.

    Please be assured the decision wasn’t taken lightly. We were aware of the implications for your club in particular and I understand the frustration and disappointment you must feel, however the Board must take decisions considering the impact on the Scottish game as a whole, rather than considering individual circumstances. 

    Considering the game as a whole, rather than individual club circumstances? So the SFA finds it easier to express a "can't do" approach rather than a "can do" approach. Typical of blazer and committee led organisations.