0
    0

    Comment on In Whose Interests by easyJambo.

    TRFC back in court in front of Lady Wolffe next Thursday for the Memorial Walls case

    Thursday 14th November

    Procedural Hearing

    Between 9.30am and 10.00am

    CA132/18 Memorial Walls Ltd v The Rangers Football Club Ltd – MBM Commercial LLP – Anderson Strathern LLP

     

    easyJambo Also Commented

    In Whose Interests
    The SPFL's annual report to 31 May 2019 has just been published by Companies House.  It will no doubt be of interest to many posters that the highest paid director (Neil Doncaster?) received a healthy pay rise of £91k taking his remuneration for the year up to £388k. That is despite the SPFL's total revenue falling by more than £1.1m from the previous year.

    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC175364/filing-history


    In Whose Interests
    Auldheid 7th November 2019 at 15:33

    It's all so obvious now looking back  so why is a sham being allowed to continue to stigmatise Scottish football?

    Whose interests is it really in to sustain  a myth at the expense of whatever future Scottish has?

    https://fanswithoutscarves.org/2019/11/07/stigma-in-scottish-football-part-2-a-lesson-from-history/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

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

    That's a well written and argued piece.


    In Whose Interests
    John Clark 7th November 2019 at 13:46

    From your posting of the 'Sun's stuff, it looks as though there was some substantial business relating to the 'facts ' allegedly backing up Whitehouse's claim, and that it was not a mere case-management affair.

    I'm annoyed that I missed it, whatever it was!

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

    You won't have missed it being discussed in court. The Sun article is timestamped at 08:42 this morning, so was written before the hearing.

    I'm sure the legal teams for each of the claimants will either be already aware of the existence of the emails or will seek to have them disclosed as exculpatory evidence.


    Recent Comments by easyJambo

    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    JC and I attended the latest appeal hearing in the cases of David Whitehouse and Paul Clark's action against the Lord Advocate at the Court of Session earlier today.

    Unfortunately today's proceedings had little to do with events following the administration and liquidation of RFC, but were focused on legal arguments about whether the Lord Advocate and his staff in the Crown Office (Advocate Deputes, Procurator Fiscals and Procurator Fiscal deputes) should have immunity against civil claims for damages.

    The appeal was heard by the Inner House of the Court of Session with five judges on the bench, viz. Lord Carloway – The Lord President, Lady Dorrian – The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Menzies, Lady Paton and Lord Brodie, so was close to the most senior bench available to the court.

    Roddy Dunlop QC for Whitehouse and Douglas Fairlie QC for Clark argued that the case law needed updating to reflect the current situation.The current case law, which provides the Lord Advocate with virtually absolute immunity, was set in 1961 in the case of Hester v MacDonald.  It was argued that only the USA and Scotland continued to offer such immunity, while England, Ireland, Australia, Canada and South Africa did not. There were references to cases in each of those jurisdictions which highlighted why the prosecutors should not be given blanket immunity.

    There was half an hour at the end of the day when Gerry Moynihan QC, acting for the Lord Advocate started his submission on why immunity should continue.  He made one very odd statement, saying that the immunity policy came into being in order to ensure that 999 prosecution staff acting in good faith should not be subject to claims because of 1 prosecutor who acted in bad faith.

    It seemed a weak argument given that the 999 would not be subject to a claim if they indeed acted in good faith.

    The hearing continues at 10:30 tomorrow (immediately following the announcement of the CoS decision on the merits of the appeal against proroguing of parliament). 

    I sensed from the interventions of Lady Dorrian, in particular, that overruling/updating the case law from Hester will be a difficult challenge, and that the case could end up in the Supreme Court.

    Dunlop and Fairlie were keen that the case should go to proof (trial) so that the facts of the case can be heard in order to show malice and lack of probable cause by the Crown Office, as the alternative was that such immunity if confirmed would necessarily mean that there would be no remedy for a wrong.


    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    A couple of court cases next week that will be heard together by the Inner House

    INNER HOUSE ROLLS
    FIRST DIVISION
    Tuesday 10th September
    Summar Roll (4 days)
    A293/16 Paul Clark v The Chief Constable of Police Scotland &c – Kennedys Scotland – Scottish Government

    A295/16 David Whitehouse v The Chief Constable of Police Scotland &c – A & W M Urquhart – Scottish Government


    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    wottpi 3rd September 2019 at 16:47

    ——————————————-

    As you point out, politicians will always act in a way that they believe will appeal to their electorate and not pose a risk to continuation of their own elected position.

    For info:   The Bury CVA proposal indicated that HMRC was owed £1,158,850.45. HMRC voted against the CVA.


    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    The EFL and its clubs appear ready to make up new rules as they go along in the Bury case.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49569697

    The English Football League is to discuss Bury's future with its member clubs following efforts to reinstate the Shakers in League Two next season.

    Bury were expelled from the EFL on 27 August after a failed takeover bid by C&N Sporting Risk.

    Bury North MP James Frith has called for the Shakers to re-enter in the fourth tier for the 2020-21 season.

    Meanwhile, Greater Manchester Police has said it is investigating an allegation of fraud involving the club.

    No arrests have been made.

    In a statement, the EFL says the "only current established procedure" for entry to League Two is promotion through the National League.

    However, it added that "in acknowledgement of the extreme nature of the problems" at Bury, the EFL board had "agreed it is appropriate to discuss the matter with member clubs" and those talks will take place in the coming weeks.

     


    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    wottpi 3rd September 2019 at 09:25

    easyJambo 2nd September 2019 at 16:54

    We have discussed this before.

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

    We have indeed.

    King has adopted the same approach as Murray did two decades ago ……. viz. spend as much as it takes to be successful. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, just that they are able to fund the necessary level of spending.

    The ironic thing about Murray's spending was that it only really got going after their 9 in a row. They had achieved success without spending to excess (Celtic had their own financial constraints at the time). It was the failure to go on to 10 or 11 that drove them to engage in excessive borrowing, seeking external investment (from King and Lewis) and engaging in unlawful tax arrangements. By that time Celtic had put their house in order (under McCann) and were again serious challengers to Rangers domestic dominance.

    Moving forward to the last couple of years, the desire to stop another 9 in a row or the unprecedented 10 in a row has become all consuming. King's speculate to accumulate model hasn't as yet stopped the Celtic juggernaut, but he has tied a rope to it, with the club clinging on while balancing precariously on a pair of roller skates.

    King's fundraising, initially as loans with around £25m now converted to equity, could be compared to Murray's early sourcing of investment. He seems intent on spending every penny he earns, or raises, on the team, which may well be laudable in the fans eyes, but perhaps is not a prudent choice.

    I see it very much as a gamble with the future of the club at  stake. Thus far he is still in the game and has accumulated support from the fan base and by reaching the EL group stage for the last two seasons. There is no doubt that TRFC is closer to Celtic than they were two years ago.  The club is largely debt free for the moment, thanks to the recent DFE swaps. King hasn't gone "all in" yet, but the spending on the likes of Kent is based on future earnings from the EL.

    That is an unsustainable model, but as long as they progress on the park I believe that King will continue to find backers willing to support the cause.

    There are huge risks along the way, of which SDI is a relatively small part. King suggested previously that it would only take a season of Celtic failing to reach the CL group stage to knock them off their perch. Celtic has now failed in the CL quest for the last two seasons but thus far appear to be able to adapt to their reduced revenue. I have adopted a contrary view in that I think that TRFC is more at risk should they miss out on EL revenues. 

    We will be able to view Celtic's annual report later this month, with RIFC producing their report a month or so later. I'm certain that Celtic's will show some prudent steps taken to manage their spending to a reduced income, but with the impact softened by a couple of boosts from the departures of Rodgers and Tierney. The RIFC accounts will be much harder to interpret. Some of their debts were only converted after year end, with player purchases and departures occurring both before and after year end, so the forecasts and post year end reports will probably be more enlightening than the raw figures.

    I don't know what the end game will be. Will TRFC manage to pull themselves alongside a slowing Celtic juggernaut, or will they hit a bump in the road and find themselves crashing off their skates and come to a juddering halt as they hit a tree by the roadside?