Comment on In Whose Interests by John Clark.

    easyJambo 7th November 2019 at 16:31

    '..CA132/18 Memorial Walls Ltd ..'


    eJ, off the top of your head, do we know the quantum of Memorial Walls claim?  

    The ( surprisingly conciliatory) reference to the claim in the Annual report and accounts suggests to me that ( whether it be a couple of thousand quid or so) it is not an insignificant sum in relation to the cash flow problem at Ibrox. 

    But what puzzles me is why the matter is at the Court of Session. A breach of contract suit where the monies involved are relative chicken feed would scarcely get to the Court of Session?

    What may I have missed?

    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

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    dpj 21st November 2019 at 08:39

    '...will revert back to full Thistle ownership after 10 years…'


    Thank you, dpj : I was reading it as meaning the land would be handed over ten years from now!   

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    easyJambo 21st November 2019 at 13:16

    '..the Accounting Period for LBJ Sports Apparel Ltd (trades as Elite Group) has been extended from 21 November 2019 to 31 March 2020.'


    I gather that one set of circumstances in which  a company might wish to change its accounting year end is when profits are falling. The Companies House guidance  gives an example:

    Example: Your profits for the 12 months to 30 June 2014 are £50,000.  The Corporation Tax on this will be £10,000 (£50,000 x 20%), payable on 31 March 2015.  For the 6 months to 31 December 2014 the Company made a loss of £20,000.  If the Company extends its reporting period to 18 months to 31 December 2014, then total profits will be just £30,000 (£50,000 – £20,000).  Two thirds of this will be taxed in the 12 months to 30 June 2014 and one third in the 6 months to 31 December 2014 (tax periods cannot be any longer than 12 months).  This will result in Corporation Tax of only £4,000 being due on 31 March 2015, compared £10,000 if the year end was unchanged.

    This is not an illegal fiddle, but if a company was feeling the pinch it might find it helpful to defer paying tax due. [A company can do this only once in 5 years, though]

    Is LBJ  Apparels finding things difficult?

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Just in from my wasted trip to Parliament House and a mere 800  metres in the Commonwealth pool.

    It must be quite difficult to schedule available work to match the expected availability of judges so I wouldn't want to be too critical of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service for perhaps hoping that a judge might become free earlier than thought because of last minute withdrawal or settlement of a case.

    And there was a wee bonus: a courteous step-aside by Lord Brodie as we met head-on going round a corner in the corridor.

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    "Weir, 71, has purchased a majority shareholding and a holding in land at the club's Firhill Stadium.

    The life-long supporter will immediately give the land back to the Scottish Championship club…

    ..The land purchased from Firhill Developments is the south terrace area and main stand and it will revert back to full Thistle ownership after 10 years under the terms of the deal."

    I am confused. What does that mean? 'immediately give the land back..' and 'the land purchased …….will revert back to full Thistle ownership after 10 years…'

    Is it just lousy reporting by someone as fundamentally ignorant of these things as I am? 

    Can any Thistle fan tell me. 

    And I remember with fondness my personal, if sort of family second-hand links with Thistle, so I am not being critical or unappreciative of the generous gesture by Colin Weir.

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Not to wander too far off topic , can I say that I do actually have many other interests.

    One of these is in looking into the local history of the place where I grew up. [ The internet is wonderful] 

    This evening , exploring the history of Dalbeth , I found that the lands of Dalbeth came into the hands of the Hopkirk family in 1754- the family fortunes were made in tobacco, and the Hopkirk chap was a plantation owner (and we can presume, a slave owner).

    One or other of the Hopkirks was connected with, or founded, or owned the Glasgow Arms bank.

    That prompted me to look up the City of Glasgow bank which I knew had gone bust in 1878.

    I was led then into an account of the trial of the directors of that bank

    And all of a sudden, I bethought myself of the trial of certain other directors. 

    And of how murky that interface between 'business' and 'law' and right and wrong and guilt and punishment can be. 

    At the trial, the Dean of Faculty defended the accused in a 4-hour speech. 

    The accused were nevertheless found guilty. And Lord Moncrieff passed sentence.

    And I was struck by this observation in what I suppose was a newspaper of the time :

    [ Curiously, the illustration of the Court proceedings seems to show a jury box with only 12 jurors?]

    The Statist agreed. ‘So far as the sentence goes, it would appear to be a safer thing to make away with six or seven millions of money, and thereby to filch from thousands of affluent families everything they possess in the world, than to pick a pocket of a few pence.’ It would have been interesting to know what a Dundee mill girl, whom Moncreiff had sentenced to eight years in prison back in 1870 for stealing a silver watch and some clothing from her landlady, might have thought of this outcome."

    And I for some reason found myself thinking " plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"

    Bast.rds with money/influence  get away with things 

    Edit: well, maybe there's a certain up-his-own-royal-.rse personage who might not entirely get away with things.

    Truth is the great leveller.