Comment on In Whose Interests by John Clark.

    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.

    John Clark Also Commented

    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



    In Whose Interests
    Timtim 11th November 2019 at 00:21


    I believe a certain James Spence did opt to tell the truth ,"

    Yes, indeed, and honour to the man-and also to Mark Daly and Chris McLaughlin who quite possibly have suffered for their attempts to be properly objective as sports journalists.

    The important thing is that the bulk of sports journalists and pundits try to ignore the plain truth and thus betray their partisanship and any concept of journalistic integrity. And in so doing, shame themselves .

    Recent Comments by John Clark

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    StevieBC 8th December 2019 at 12:06

    '..Just hope it's an entertaining cup final today'


    Let's have no sectarianism (whether 'religious' or 'political') ,no 'red mist ' physical assaults on the pitch, and no feckin eejit supporters endangering people with fireworks, and  no ludicrous 'honest mistakes' on the part of the officials.

    And of course, no post-match street , pub, or domestic violence,  and just normal volumes of work in the A&E rooms. 

    Pipe dream?


    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    easyJambo 7th December 2019 at 11:55

    '..I wouldn't put it down to anything more than an unfamiliarity of the complexities of international transfers, a situation that could easily impact any other clubs, rather than one that could only happen to TRFC.'


    Yes, no doubt about it, what used to be 'club secretaries' now have to be very sharp lawyers indeed, so you are right in what you say about the complexities of international transfers. 

    But I think there would be an expectation that James D Blair , as sharp as they come, ought to have been on top of those complexities, serving as legal adviser to a club well accustomed to international transfers.

    Seriously, though, I myself was bemused, if not flabbergasted,at the extent to which football essentially a sport, has become a legal minefield!



    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    easyJambo 7th December 2019 at 11:55

    '…the assertion that under the FIFA Disciplinary Code, the club "Rangers" or "Rangers FC" is a "legal person".


    The point being (for the benefit, eJ, of our SMSM and other 'deniers') that it is a football club , and not any 'holding company' that may own it, that dies if or when that football club  goes bust and in consequence of that loses its entitlement to membership of its national association. 

    RFC of 1872 became insolvent and entered liquidation….. Wavetower ( known as The Rangers Football Group Ltd since 12 May 2011)  is still alive and kicking, 7 years after it bought RFC of 1872 and ran that club into Liquidation.

    It is legally impossible for TRFC, newly created in 2012, to be regarded as being the same club as the club that is in Liquidation.

    No matter that one QC 'learned in the law' amused us all in Court when he babbled on  about 'the essence of things' , 'the what-it's-all-aboutness' , 'the fans', 'the traditions', 'the history' and so on, RFC of 1872 is as dead as the Monty Python parrot.

    Its extremely loyal fans have attached themselves to TRFC.

    But of course, the majority of them must know that their wishing  that TRFC were the Rangers of 1872 simply cannot make it so, any more than any of us can wish a departed loved one back into life. 

    Not even the Celtic plc Board's disgraceful behaviour  in  allowing TRFC to claim to be entitled to share the 'Old Firm' trademark in place of RFC of 1872 can make  TRFC into the other cheek of the 'Old Firm'.

    Nor can all the ridiculously repetitive SMSM hype about tomorrow's 'Old Firm' match.(In which connection, let me applaud Tam Cowan for his entertainingly sarcastic remark about the pubs in Venezuela being stowed out with folk desperate to see that match on TV.)

    Honest to God.

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    LUGOSI 7th December 2019 at 11:09

    '…I've had a quick look at the hundred and odd page, multicoloured uber amended pleadings in MASH v GASH .'


    Nice one, LUGOSI. 

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    In checking my inbox the other day I noticed that Cardiff City are appealing against the decision that they have to pay Nantes 6 000 000 euros (in respect of the late Emiliano Sala's  transfer).

    That led me on to other areas of FIFA disciplinary stuff and I came across this, of which I had never heard or read a word.

    " 1. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee [ in their judgment of 20 September 2019]found the club Rangers FC responsible for the infringement of the relevant provisions of the RSTP related to third-party influence (art. 18bis par. 1) and to the obligations of clubs (art. 4 par. 2 of Annexe 3). 
    2. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee orders the club Rangers FC to pay a fine to the amount of CHF 10,000.  " (about £7600)