Comment on In Whose Interests by LUGOSI.
I hadn't looked at this site for a couple of days and when I did I saw the number of Thumbs Downs and asked myself the obvious question: What's Spoutpish been saying now?
Reading further I found out that an innocuous comment about Trade Marks and Intellectual Property concerning the "Old Firm" was the trigger.
This matter was raised and discussed in the past without any resolution.
It may be that Celtic are blocking T'Rangers taking over the "Old Firm" and monopolising it for whatever means. It may be that Celtic are operating or co-operating with T'Rangers for whatever means.
I think Celtic have been asked in the past what the position is and if there had been a meaningful definitive answer there would be no discussion now.
The origin of the "Old Firm" phrase is not clear. The two versions I've heard are commentators referring to the old, firm friends and a reference to the Old Firm of a commercial, business, limited company nature.
Either way the phrase has no relevance or sensible meaning today.
A simple two word phrase falls on both counts.
Before anything can be called "Old" you have to wait for a lot longer than seven years to pass.
Before anything can be "Firm", be it in partnership based on friendship or finance, you are going to need something other than the attitude, noise, behaviour, actions and statements coming from one half of this putative "Firm" before the other half would want or need anything to do with it.
From memory Celtic have gone out of their way not to to utilise the phrase preferring the neutral derby description. Celtic fans took a page in the Sunday Herald to expressly state that the next game between Celtic and T'Rangers was the first meeting between the clubs. Nothing Firm or Old about it.
If you're looking for evidence to support the "it's the same club" view Peter Lawwell wasn't helping when he famously, at a Celtic AGM no less, in response to a question from the floor about the media reporting Rangers as a club founded in 1872, said "Rory Bremner can pretend to be Tony Blair." For a man much maligned, possibly fairly on occasion, his view is crystal clear.
As far as the Thumbs Downs are concerned it is hard to take seriously any discussion about any Ibrox based entity concerning itself with Property, particularly when it is Intellectual.
I can see the point of Thumbs Ups but without some accompanying comment I don't see the point of simply TDing.
Unless it's Spoutpish when TD says it all.
LUGOSI Also Commented
In Whose Interests
John Clark 5th November 2019 at 00:31
Care has to be taken when dealing with "judicial knowledge". Sometimes it includes things that you wouldn't expect it to and vice versa. Like most legal concepts it's practically limitless.
One small example is that there is a difference between judicial knowledge and personal knowledge. For example, on more than one occasion an Appeal has been successful on the basis that the lower Court had taken into account previous convictions which had not been properly laid before the lower Court and admitted or proven. The Appeal Court view was that the previous convictions were not within judicial knowledge and not admissible. More than once the lower Court had proceeded as it did because the Judge, usually a Sheriff or a Justice of the Peace, was the person who had found the person Guilty and jailed or fined them. Personal knowledge, which would appear better than general judicial knowledge, was not within judicial knowledge.
What is or isn't within judicial knowledge; Tuesday follows Monday, English Law has to be proven, is an interesting philosophical subject but in the real world where you want to get things done the prudent approach is to assume you have to prove everything. In more than one case where GASH has been involved I don't understand why, when issues of credibility arise, the opposing party's List of Authorities does not include the South African Court Decisions and the portions thereof, which are so familiar that none of us will ever again hear the phrase "glib and shameless" without thinking of GASH, read aloud to the Court. GASH might say that was in South Africa. Court should say so a South African Court would just ignore anything in a Scottish Decision.
Who knows what weight it would carry but you wouldn't have to worry if it was or was not within judicial knowledge. We know that reference to it would not bring any shame; that's one of the few upsides to being shameless. We also know that reference to it would remind those who already knew and bring it to the attention of those who didn't know or who prefer to ignore or forget.
Facts, judicial or otherwise, can be awkward. Even more awkward can be legal fiction, eg GASH is as honest as you are or I am.
I can't speak for you but I'm not having that.
In Whose Interests
As a rule when I am presented with Accounts (or anything with numbers) my instinct is to leave it to those who know of what they speak to provide analysis. My only contribution when numbers are added/subtracted and reference is made to mathematics is to pettily quibble by pointing out it's arithmetic. Others on this site; easyJambo (and for once I hope I've spelled that correctly- I'm forever writing his name with a capital initial) Homunculus, StevieBC, Timtim and more are in a better position to highlight parts of the most recent financial statement from T'Rangers and the conclusions or inferences that can be drawn therefrom.
Without having to bother about things like Profit and Loss Accounts, Balance Sheets and other things which I will readily confess make my eyes glaze over like a Ming vase the things that catch my attention are things which simply cry out for attention and answers.
Some, if not all, of these things have been commented on but they're worth repeating.
Why are we still being told the Thoughts Of Chairman Dave? That's Club Chairman Dave? Didn't the same Club Chairman's last Statement following the Cold Shouldering say he didn't hold any shares in his own name? I recall MASH going to the Court of Session about GASH not being a fit and proper person and the case ended when the SFA belatedly said he had no connection to the Club so they hadn't decided one way or another. Do the SFA not read or follow what is being said by or on behalf of its members? It's binary; either GASH is involved with the Club or he isn't. If he is his forty-odd criminal convictions raise obvious questions about fitness and propriety. Factor in his conduct with the Take Over Panel and the decision that followed and you answer those questions. Not F&P then, not now and should never be. To say otherwise is tantamount to saying there might be a future place in Scottish football for Craig Whyte. We know that's not going to happen and compared to what GASH has done and is continuing to do Craig Whyte was a rank amateur.
What happened to Metro Bank? All that I knew was that The World's Most Successful… banked with an institution which I had only heard of as a free newspaper on the train. So last year/Financial Statement:- Metro; this year:- Barclays plc. What happened? What changed? I assume Barclays keep up to speed with news which might affect them so does this mean Cold Shouldering has zero affect? If it does why Metro no more? The Auditors, Campbell Dallas(?) clearly see no problem with Cold Shouldering or if they do it's not big enough to stop them picking up Audit fees. Ordinarily whenever anything changes down Ibrox way the merde polishers are out, e.g. Close Brothers loans are overdrafts, so why didn't we get a Statement, accompanied by trumpets, bugles, trombones and hautboys, that Barclays are now the Chosen Ones and We Have Always Been At War With Metro Bank?
Does Financial Fair Play mean anything in Scotland? If it does there's one glaring example of a Club which can be used to explain how the rules apply. If the figures coming out of Ibrox over the last few years don't fall foul of FFP it's hard to imagine what would.
Mention has been made of the report that legal and professional fees had gone up by £3.6 million. As easyJambo pointed out that's £70,000 a week or £10,000 a day. Think about that. Yesterday down Ibrox way not much was happening but by the time it got dark they had lost ten grand. Not ten grand on players or world-class breakfasts but on legal and professional fees. And the same thing will happen today and tomorrow. Those figures appear pretty striking but what struck me was that those figures are not their legal and professional fees; rather they are what those fees have "gone up by". So ten grand a day is in addition to what they spent on those fees last year; a year punctuated by MASH and Take Over Panel proceedings all of which they lost. This and next year are unlikely to be cheaper as MASH aren't going away and even T'Rangers concede they've lost the Memorial Walls case. Any others? Elite? Hummell? 32 Red? The Wi-Fi case? The owners of the St Enoch Square shop? The Erzyermacaroon Man?
I await details but am I roughly right thinking they've 'fessed up to +£10 million lost, +£10 million spent since on players and c.£10 million needed to see out this season?
What's the problem?
£10 million + £10 million + £10 million= 1 Morelos. Plus change.
In Whose Interests
I was going to read the most recent decision in the seemingly neverending saga of T'Rangers when I noticed it was 82 pages long and decided I'd leave it until I had more time. Even a cursory glance at the report shows that the same names keep coming up; on the bench, in the dock, on the Prosecution/Pursuers side, on the Defence/Defenders side. To select one name at random Senior Counsel for the First Pursuer, Paul Whitehouse, is Dunlop QC. I think Roddy Dunlop QC must have featured in more T'Rangers related cases than most. He certainly appeared, without success, in the Supreme Court when he argued EBTs were fine. He has also featured in some appeal(s) against SFA decisions. In between I am sure he has featured in a number of court cases although I can't remember on which side. I'm not sure that there were many cases in which he was standing up to The Man but if Police Scotland and the Lord Advocate don't count as The Man I don't know what does.
Even before reading this decision I get the feeling the Lord Advocate might emerge lighter in the pocket but relatively unscathed while Police Scotland might have bigger problems. At some point someone is going to ask how much time and money was spent on an inquiry into seven(?) potential accused which ended up with one going to trial and acquitted with the rest not even getting to trial far less convicted of anything. Following this the public purse is going to take a severe hit, already in legal bills and potentially in reparation claims. It is possible to have smoke without fire. Ask any smoker. It is also possible to have fire without smoke. Police Scotland seem to be in danger of spontaneous self-combustion. It's hard to see how they talk themselves out of the situation they created although if they're looking for inspiration they could look at the SFA and SPFL.
As ever with T'Rangers it's nigh on impossible to keep up with things.
In the middle of all these things whatever happened to Imran Ahmed? Who was he? What did he do? Who is he? Where is he now? From memory he was the only one who had the smarts to the extent that he was the only one who didn't have at least one overnight stay at a Police Office before appearing in Court. At least a couple of his former business colleagues had not just an overnighter but an overweekender before appearing in Court and then being pushed out of Glasgow Sheriff Court to cameras, press and baying mobs. As far as I know Imran Ahmed has never been in Court in connection with T'Rangers although I recall that at one point he recognised a gravy train when he saw one and there was talk of suing for wrongful prosecution. When you see a chance odds are you're a chancer but if you're Imran Ahmed and you look around you why not?
Maybe, as a bit of light relief, we'll get some Accounts and an update from Sports Direct.
Accounts=We're not telling you.
Sports Direct=Next year's away strip will be green, white and gold as a tribute to Glasgow Corporation buses.
Recent Comments by LUGOSI
Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
I've had a quick look at the hundred and odd page, multicoloured uber amended pleadings in MASH v GASH and decided that unless I get really, really bored I am not going to read it to follow the history of the case ab initio.
I would advise anyone thinking of doing so to first read or re-read SDI Retail Services Limited v The Rangers Footbal Club Limited, 2019 EWHC 1929 (Comm). It's a lot shorter; it answers a lot of squirrel questions; it lays out judicial determinations on facts and it states the legal position. The decision dates from 19th July this year and follows four days of evidence and submissions on 15th to 18th April this year so anything prior to these dates can be binned.
So far as Mr Blair of the non-denial denial is concerned one of the witnesses in April, ie a couple of months ago, was "James Don Blair, Rangers' Secretary" and he is included in a list of witnesses described by Judge Persey as "unhelpful and unsatisfactory".
Paragraph 10 of the decision tells us all what Judge Persey thought of Mr Blair's evidence. Despite Mr Blair being a Man Learned In The Law Judge Persey takes the ink to point out it took Mr Blair eight Witness Statements before he came to a settled conclusion on what his position actually was. Sadly, Judge Persey held "This is all inadmissible." and goes on to fillet Mr Blair's role.
Could have been worse? It was.
Paragraph 22 narrates the Elite/Hummel Agreement concluded on 30th March 2018.
Paragraph 24 narrates Mr Blair making later statements about this Agreement which Judge Persey pithily but politely dismisses with "This was untrue."
I don't know every word in the latest document but I don't need to unless I need reminding of the smoke and mirrors, twisting and turning, up is down approach taken by T'Rangers in almost every matter; an approach which even in their most ambitious moments would cause Boris, The Donald and Prince Andrew to blush.
Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
I hope Mr Blair is not advancing the Ancient Scots Law defence:
"I might be a liar and a thief but, at least, I'm honest."
Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
I believe Mr Gerrard (they love a "Mr") when he says that the Referee John Beaton apologised for not giving T'Rangers a "blatant" penalty.
I also believed Referee John Beaton when he reported to the SFA that he had seen all three of the potential red card incidents involving Frodo Morelos in the match against Celtic last December none of which merited even a yellow card.
I also believed the banner bearing Referee John Beaton's name and the photographs showing him down at his local, The Everyone, Anyone (Not Really-Not Theym).
I believe this penalty/non-penalty happened on the pitch; it happened a long time ago; there's no good raking over old coals; it was an improperly decided incident; Referee John Beaton is a fit and proper person and any dispute should be referred to the SFA Resolution Of Things Committee (Sectarian Singing, Fraudulent Financial Reporting, Inappropriate Statements Investigations Sub-Committee).
I also believe in The Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Astrology, The Loch Ness Monster and Hobbits. Other beliefs are available.
I believe Mr Gerrard is forced to wear a suit and I believe he envies Neil Lennon not for the structure of Celtic or the players available or the way the team play or the results he achieves or the trophies he wins but he envies Mr Lennon being able to treat every day as Dress Down Friday. It's obvious that Mr King, or maybe Mr Jabba, is hampering T'Rangers march to Interstellar Domination by this insistence on wearing a necktie. It's common knowledge that when you force someone to put on a tie it's the equivalent of cutting off oxygen to the brain. Hold on, I might be defeating my own argument here.
Anyhoo, with two sleeps to a Cup Final I'm sure no part of our respected, honest SMSM will produce any dodgy reporting or articles about an "Old Firm" or a Club which has an unbroken history since 1690 or how a Stirling University Research Report proves that victory depends on how many of your players are named Ryan or how T'Rangers go into the Final top of the League on minus two points and minus two (or maybe three, who cares?) goals.
I believe They Believe They Are The People. Just as well they don't care.
Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
South Africa sounds like a lovely place to live.
The Authorities give financial advice, assistance and directions to residents even when those residents have been convicted of tax fraud, narrowly avoided eighty odd years in jail and have been charged with dozens of similar and worse crimes.
How helpful must the South African Authorities be to decent, honest, law abiding residents?
Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
While awaiting the latest development on a Resolution that's nearly as old as one of Glasgow's clubs I read GASH's AGM speech. Jabba clearly doesn't care what he writes and GASH clearly doesn't care what he reads.
In the tsunami of BS a standout was the last thing GASH said; he would be staying on the Board of Rangers Retail Limited until the litigation with Sports Direct was over. Why did this get a mention? The last I heard of RRL was GASH and Paul Murray were on the hook personally for acting the goat and the way out was for GASH to have it leaked that he had torn up the contract whereas it later came out SD got the current deal (not with RRL but TRFCL) and SD got £3 million. So what does RRL have to do with anything?
I know it's GASH we're dealing with but even dupliticious sociopaths must have reasons for what they say. Unless I'm missing something or making a schoolboy error in thinking anything GASH says should be given any thought the reference to RRL could have been replaced by Sevco/Newco/Anyco/MemorialWallsWereUs/WiFiNoMore/FacepaintersPaid and it would have the same relevance; namely, none.
Meanwhile, Auldheid et al, Unleash Hell.