Comment on In Whose Interests by Corrupt official.

    al62 6th November 2019 at 17:21

           I see John James is suggesting a crowdfunded judicial review of Doncaster’s conferring of old Rangers’ titles on the new Ibrox club. Feel sure folks on here will have considered already (?) but worth a punt ?


         I have a vague recollection that it was amply rewarded David Longmuir, (he of the mega dodgy bonus), who bore the responsibility for the new club's claim on the titles of the deid club. 

        I can't quite recall if that was deffo, or rumour.???

    Corrupt official Also Commented

    In Whose Interests
    John Clark 12th November 2019 at 07:52

    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.


      I recall your post John,which was really what got me thinking. (Initially I just thought, "Dirty sleekit Barstewards). 

        I think we all agree that Sevco would have welshed on the funding agreement with Sports Scotland if they had the chance. The numerous on-going court cases of contract dodging tends to support that belief. However, Sports Scotland appear to have won a lollipop in this episode.

        It may be a similar legal scenario that crossed over, and bound CFC PLC, to the old IP arrangement with the deid club, to the new club.  Given that Sevco are not above monetising plastic ducks, CFC PLC may be the only obstacle preventing a raft of "O** F*** tat lining the shelves of their pop-up stores. 

        I'm not saying it is, nor isn't, but it certainly looks like it is not an IP that CFC PLC intend to capitalise from,via its use.

        I am as wary as the next man regarding CFC PLC involvement in dubious activity, but will not be holding my breath expecting an explanation from them………..

         And yet that is all they have to do to avoid being tarred.

         CFC PLC are too quiet on too many fronts for my liking. Silence naturally breeds suspicion, and in a game where there is very little trust left, (if any), a dangerous game to play. 

         There is very clearly not going to be any, "benefit of doubt", given, and quite understandably so. 

    In Whose Interests
         For some reason 50% ownership of the IP ended up in the hands of Sevco. How much say CFC PLC had in that is anybody's guess. However, willingly or not, CFC PLC found what can only be described as a "partnership" thrust upon them.

        Registered just a year ago, it would appear it was not just a straight forward transfer procedure that occurred upon the death of Rangers (I.L.), but a drawn out affair. 

        For CFC, voluntarily relinquishing their 50% share, presenting Sevco with the opportunity of 100% ownership would not be an option. The puzzle lies in why CFC lawyers have not, or were unable, to have the previous agreement expunged.

        I guess it was a similar scenario to that faced by Sports Scotland, (I think they were called) over the Murray Park funding grant, which was also the ownership of Rangers(I.L.).

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



    In Whose Interests
    Cluster One 6th November 2019 at 22:11 

    Corrupt official 6th November 2019 at 19:57 A discussion also took place about the SFL. Both ND and RM asserted that the SFL’s record keeping was poor and would not provide much for an inquiry.


        Cheers for the memory refresher C1.

    Something just struck me which I must have ducked at the time.

        If SFL records are so poor regarding the secondment of another club's titles onto a new club, that they would be of zero use, then equally, the same applies in reverse.

        There is nothing to say that they did.


    Recent Comments by Corrupt official

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    shug 15th December 2019 at 13:55 

    John Clark I appreciate the irony, Jingo.jimsie. broken heart I would add that I am ready to believe that men so faithless and unprincipled probably now enjoy being metaphorically shafted by TRFC/RIFC plc, and regard it as a privilege worth selling their rotten souls for, and cannot wait for the next opportunity to be of service.


    After reading the above I stumbled on this from the celtic blog. This morning the record revealed that in the event Scotland qualifies for Euro 2020 that the sfa intends to blank its own training complex,assembled at enormous expense for sevco's hummel facility.The "booking" has already been made apparently.


        Shug….Any idea if that has anything to do with the charge held over Minty's Park, by the Sports Scotland grant/loan?


    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
       There is some close up footage of the goal here



    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    easyJambo 6th December 2019 at 16:54

          Accordingly, it is denied, if it is alleged, that Mr. Blair knew that the statement he thought or considered himself to be making, or the statement pleaded in sub-paragraph (3), understood as he intended it to be understood, or any statement he had made, was untrue


         My legalese is abysmal, but I'll have a go.

       "If yir saying he's lying, he wisnae!…..His statement truthfully meant something else. He just gets his words mixed up a wee bit". 

         I'm surprised they didn't add, "He's even worse at filling oot forms and we can prove it".

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    What does it matter if Lawell has, or has not, had eyes on the secret 5-WA?…It still exists !…A secret pact between our governing bodies and two clubs posing as one.     It's very existence is all that matters……Or can we ALL get one?  

            I propose that the next broadcasting contract is negotiated on the basis that every cup final must include Celtic,  and in league games we can guarantee the broadcaster a minimum of five goals for.            Obviously we have first dibs on that now. However, in the interests of fairness, ALL other clubs can choose their own wee secret.

           It's probably best to draw up a list of "package",agreements to choose from……Otherwise it might get a bit ridiculous. indecision   

              Ooooops !…..Silly me…….We are probably still locked-in to the original one that guarantees we show for 4 Sevvy games……Bugger !!! 

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    Sorry, I don't know how I am double posting.