Comment on In Whose Interests by John Clark.

    LUGOSI 5th November 2019 at 12:20

    '..there is a difference between judicial knowledge and personal knowledge. '


    Undoubtedly and indeed so,Lugosi, and I suppose that's why the Sheriff went to the lengths he did to justify his reference to the various histories. I'm not qualified to say whether the Sheriff was right , and  it's easy to see how restricted the concept of 'judicial knowledge' has to be. I found it very interesting, all the same.

    John Clark Also Commented

    In Whose Interests
    Big Pink 12th November 2019 at 07:30

    '..The Res12 fiasco, SIX years of kicking things into the long grass, is proof enough for me that our sport is corrupted terminally.'


    As I understand it, BP, there are a number of quite separate elements in the allegations of corruption made against our Football Governance bodies and some of our clubs.

    There is the allegation that RFC of 1872 lied to the Licensing Committee of the SFA about their tax indebtedness as at 31 March 2011;

    there is the allegation that the Licensing Committee either colluded in that lie or, through carelessness and incompetence, simply accepted what RFC of 1872 told them , and passed that on to UEFA without any check as to its truthfulness and accuracy. The result of that was that RFC of 1872 was awarded a UEFA Competitions Licence to which, under the strict rules, they were not entitled.

    The  SFA has thus far refused to open up an independent investigation into all that was involved in the application made for that licence.

    That refusal raised and continues to raise suspicions that the SFA has something to hide. [ RFC of 1872 is in Liquidation, and TRFC are quite a different legal entity so are not involved and can legitimately say 'nothing to do with us, Squire!'.. except, of course that some of the personnel involved in TRFC were also involved with RFC of 1872…at the material time.

    As a football matter, until there is a full, independent investigation into the Licence matter, then the SFA is under a cloud of suspicion, and so are the then members of the Licensing Committee. 

    And as a football matter, the resistance by Celtic FC to the request that they insist on a full independent investigation being carried out within the football context  is indicative of an unwillingness , rather than an inability, to do so. And that puts Celtic FC under suspicion of underhand complicity in a dirty football cheating arrangement.

    And since no other club has raised any hue and cry about dirty work at the footballing crossroads [and the late Turnbull Hutton must have been sickened at their supine rolling-over], they all are under suspicion of consenting to dirty deeds destructive of the very essence of what their businesses are predicated upon being done in their name.

    Taking the matter out of the football context and into the world of corporate business, there is the allegation that the Sports Governance body may knowingly and with deliberation colluded in fraud to obtain money by falsely representing to UEFA on behalf of a member club (RFC of 1872) that that club was entitled to a Licence to participate in a competition the mere participation in which would guarantee a financial gain for that club of  £xM, with the possibility of £x+M more if the club achieved any kind of sporting success in the competition.

    The consequence of any such alleged false representation was that the properly entitled club was denied such a Licence, and therefore was, in effect, cheated out of at least £xM.

    Since that properly entitled club is a PLC, the Board of that club are required, required, by law to protect the interests of its shareholders.

    It is not for the Board of Celtic plc to decide that the loss, in circumstances where there are prima facie grounds for suspecting that there may have been fraud and deceit [or even incompetence] involving some millions of pounds, should not be investigated.

    It is not for the Celtic Board to try to kick a shareholders' requisitioned resolution at an AGM into touch indefinitely without explanation, debate, and a vote.

    It is failure by the Celtic Board to give adequate and justified and sufficient reasons as to why they have not insisted on such investigation that arouses suspicion in the mind of shareholders ,to whom they are accountable, that they too have something to hide.

    This whole UEFA licence matter cannot be dismissed and corrected and put right until full investigation of the allegations is made, resulting in a proper assessment as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations.

    The other allegation of corruption , namely that a huge lie was manufactured to try to have a brand new club regarded as being one and the same as the RFC of 1872 , and as being entitled to the sporting achievements of that failed club which currently exists as a liquidated football club, can be fixed almost overnight!


    All the SFA has to do is renounce that part of a very dubious, highly secretive (and possibly illegal in itself) binding agreement under which it exceeded its legitimate Governance powers by awarding sporting honours and entitlements to a club that had not existed long enough to earn any one of them on the sports field.!


    In doing so the SFA Board made a farcical mockery of the very idea of sporting competition and of their role as guardians of the Sport.


    Let the SFA state publicly and with suitable apology that they gravely erred in so doing, and that the record books of the SFA (and the SPFL in consequence) will show that the Liquidated RFC ceased to be able to add to their impressive list of such honours and titles on the day they died as a football club.

    Doing that will not, of course, save anyone from possible criminal investigation in relation to the Res 12 matter if that matter has to be referred to Police Scotland, but it would enable some kind of return to sane and proper and honest sports governance.


    I will add one other remark. I have been posting for seven years or thereabouts about the cheating RFC of SDM and CW, and of the (what I believe to have been ) underlying dishonesty of the RIFC IPO prospectus and the blindness of the SMSM.

    I would be some kind of hypocritical liar if I were to attempt to excuse or turn a blind eye to the possibility that the Celtic Board have questions to answer.

    I think they do have questions to answer, but have shown a marked reluctance to do so.

    And, as both a shareholder and supporter, I object to that.

    In Whose Interests
    Corrupt official 12th November 2019 at 04:31 

    ',,,   In law, that was also registered into Sevco "ownership", after a long unexplained delay.   '


    I posted about this some time ago, expressing the view that Sport Scotland  seemed suddenly to realise that the legal entity to which they had given a good few quid of our money had ceased to exist except as an entity in liquidation, and therefore that thee was  no legal obligation on TRFC Ltd to pay any heed to the conditions that had been imposed.

    Hence we had that very late transfer of the 'RFC of 1872' obligations to TRFC Ltd.

    SportScotland showed themselves up as being suckers ( or succulent lamb eaters) in thrall to the 'establishment club' who for about two years had swallowed the SFA/TRFC lie that SevcoScotland?TRFC was the RFC of 1872 which had received the money.

    Some dozy people are damned lucky not to have lost their jobs over that episode, in my opinion, whether for turning a blind eye or for downright incompetence.


    In Whose Interests
    paraniodbyexperience 11th November 2019 at 15:53

    '..why the Celtic board would be involved in this. '


    Why else but to help sustain the lie that there is still a marketable 'old firm' comprising two old clubs who made their money by cashing in on politico/religious sectarianism in spite of the fact that it is recognised in the 'recordal'  SevcoScotland/TRFC is NOT the Rangers of 1872 

    Greed has caused CFC plc to sell its soul without a blush , pretty much as the SFA/SPFL sold the soul of Scottish Football integrity to a miserable wretch.

    Brother Walfrid will be turning in his grave



    Recent Comments by John Clark

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    Up betimes this morning, civic duty performed an hour ago, and I will be travelling into Glasgow a little later for a Wetherspoons' lunch and a few beers with a couple of former colleagues and friends of some 48 years.

    As I open my 'Scotsman', I nearly choke on my coffee and bruschetta as I read this sentence on the leader page, in red ink:

    " …..Our job at the Scotsman is to report the facts and demand the truth"

    I have absolutely no confidence that a newspaper which tells lies in matters of Sport (eg that TRFC of 2012 are RFC of 1872 and entitled to the honours and titles of that club which, being now in Liquidation is unable to participate in Scottish Football) will tell the truth in the much more important business of national Politics.

    The 'Scotsman' continues "  We have survived for more than two centuries precisely because we can be trusted. And every day we endeavour to retain that trust."

    Well, an empty boast if ever there was one! Rangers of 1872 died after 140 years, and died because it lied. 

    The 'Scotsman' is virtually on its deathbed, and its death will be hastened by its part in the propagation of the biggest sporting lie that Scottish Football has thrown up in its history.

    Speed the day.

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    upthehoops 11th December 2019 at 07:19

    '…the SFA's own disciplinary process found a case to answer and now says it should now be handed over to CAS. That part the Celtic Board have never had an issue with.'


     If my memory serves, uth, "..The part that the Celtic Board have never had an issue with "…..was the part that would not have caused them any problem!

    Celtic plc's attitude since 2013, and made crystal clear at the AGM last month (by Lawwell's affronted and needlessly aggressive "What are you suggesting?" question to a speaker from the floor) was and is  one of determined resolve to avert their eyes from the possibility that shareholders  might have been  shafted by dishonesty on the part of RFC of 1872 in collusion with  the Licensing Committee  and with the connivance of members of the SFA board . 

    Plenty of people believe there are serious questions to be asked and answers to be honestly and thoroughly sought.

    And  the SFA 's refusal even to begin to investigate does not provide much encouragement to believe in their commitment to Truth in governance.



    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    '.easyJambo 10th December 2019 at 20:44

    No, but I could give you odds that it’s betting!


    paddy malarkey 10th December 2019 at 21:14

    '..Chances are , you'd be right..'


    Aye,very good, chaps!broken heart

    On that link provided by paddym there are I think five  players on charges of betting on football matches going back a number of seasons.

    I wonder what evidence the Compliance Officer has for any of these charges? Is it from whistle-blowers [no, not referees!] among their team-mates? Or the bookies that the charged players allegedly placed their bets with? Or self-confession? 

    I bet ye that in a fraction of the time that will be taken up by these hearings the President or CEO of the SFA could if he was so minded find out and tell us ,with proof , whether RFC of 1872 lied to either or both the Licensing Committee and UEFA.

    I suggest that their refusal to do so strongly implies that they believe revelation of the true facts will show the SFA Board up as scoundrels.




    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    On the business in Court Room 8 in Parliament House this morning:

    Mr McKinlay, Advocate representing Mr David Grier in his action for damages against the Chief Constable,  informed Lord Doherty that Parties had agreed the wording of an Order that, if his Lordship was content, they would ask his Lordship to grant.

    Basically, although Clark and Whitehouse are not party to proceedings in Grier's action against the Chief Constable, there's some stuff common to the separate claims of all three. The Order sought was an Order allowing the exchange of information ( e.g. witness statements) in  one or  both  of the Clark and Whitehouse cases that might have a bearing on the Grier case.

    Lord Doherty closely questioned Mr McKinlay about Mr Grier's consent to this,  and after a little bit of hesitancy while McKinlay spoke to his assisting solicitor, Mr McKinlay satisfied Lord Doherty that Grier was content.

    Ms Maguire QC representing the Chief Constable could at first only assure the judge that the Lord Advocate was content in relation to the Chief Constable's  case, and it took a smart phone call by her assisting solicitor to the Lord Advocate's office[ while Ms Maguire was addressing the judge] to enable Ms Maguire ( a tug at her gown and a hurried whisper) to confirm that the Lord Advocate gave his consent in relation to the Clark and Whitehouse cases.

    On the basis of this agreement,  Lord Doherty intimated that he would grant the Order sought.

    Proceedings lasted scarce a half-hour.

    eJ and Mulholland the free-lance journo were the only two lay persons present apart from me myself.

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    paddy malarkey 10th December 2019 at 12:21

    '..We're back to company that owned Rangers '


    How can these BBC people live with themselves, being party to such drivelling, untrue nonsense.

    May they (i.e the senior people who insist on broadcasting untruth) be regarded by all as little different from Dr Josef Goebbels in attitude.

    Certainly, that's how I regard them.

    If they can lie [ and it is a lie] and mislead about a matter of sport, what other lies might they be prepared to propagate?