Sadly, but not surprisingly, even Louise White on what I – The Scottish Football Monitor

Sadly, but not surprisingly, even Louise White on what I …

Comment on Look Back to Look Forward by John Clark.

Sadly, but not surprisingly, even Louise White on what I think is the Kay Adams programme is buying into the myth: or being bullied into it by the producer.
Just how deeply,deeply rotten is that station, when even intelligent non-sports journalists are capable of repeating, parrot-fashion, the lying mantra of the SFA?
And these are the people 9(!) of course who will claim to be neutral and unbiased when talking about politics?
Who could believe a word?

John Clark Also Commented

Look Back to Look Forward
HomunculusApril 6, 2016 at 12:25
‘…It’s an incredible story, which is only really surpassed by the media’s apparent ability to totally ignore the most important parts of it. ..’
It long ago ceased to be a ‘football’ story.
It is now of course a run of the mill story about a corrupt football establishment, protected and defended by the usual suspects- partisan (or easily frightened or bought) pressmen, partisan ( or easily bought or frightened) broadcasters, and other elements of the ‘Scottish establishment’.
The utterly fatuous remark made by Louise White ( worthy, indeed,  of the other Whyte!)  that  ” The SFA say it’s Rangers” as her justification propagating the myth just about says it all about the depths of grovelling abandonment of any pretence at ‘investigation’, of digging out the truth come hell or high water, to which the BBC in particular has sunk over this issue of SDM’s cheating and its consequences for Integrity in Scottish Football.
Pacific Quay’s emanations from its transmitters in support of that cheating are  fouler by far than the effluent from its sewers.
In my opinion.

Look Back to Look Forward
Just as the first word went to Murdo (no doubt by arrangement) so the last word ( presumably also pre-planned) goes to New club supporter.
Well done, Louise, you fit very neatly into the SMSM mould!
I hope you are capable of feeling shame at your part in propagating a myth.

Look Back to Look Forward
And now Murdo wheeled in by arrangement  as an ex-Celtic player  spouting forth about welcoming them ‘Back. ‘Standards have dropped slightly over the years.’…..
Most of the football people ‘love’ the “Old Firm” games…..’
And Miss White being very snippy with a caller who explained about  the new club, applying for membership  and being admitted to the lowest league. ” As far as I am concerned”, she says, ” they are Rangers”.
So much for reasoned discussion, as she carefully keeps her copy-book clean and the Controller happy.

Recent Comments by John Clark

To Comply or not to Comply ?
redlichtieJune 24, 2018 at 19:53
“Phil’s latest post suggests that Sevco and the company proving ‘merchant services’ i.e. credit card facilities (Metro Bank?) are no longer an item………..Anyone able to verify that? Quite a major development if true. A ‘cold shoulder’
The Top’s practice, it would appear, is to issue a statement giving the details of the case they have investigated, the decision made by the Executive, and the decision made by a Hearing, and any further Appeal Hearing decision, and ending up with their concluding paragraph , using words like ” The Committee has come to the conclusion that Mr X should be cold shouldered for (duration of penalty) from the date of this decision, which is…(whatever)”

It is by means of a statement of that kind that the people in the Market, and public companies generally, learn that ‘cold shouldering’ has been ordered.
There is no such statement at present showing on the TOP’s website.

PMcG ‘s sources may be right, of course, but if they are they must be very good sources if they know that a statement is to be made in a couple of weeks.And perhaps, also, normal practice has changed since in King’s/Laird Proprietary’s case the Courts have been involved.

It’ll be eyes down daily on the TOP’s website from tomorrow, on this link

Who knows what the TOP’s most recent approach to the Court was about? ( I got no reply to my email)

Maybe the judge simply suggested to the Panel that they use their own disciplinary powers against King, rather than pursue the ‘contempt of court’ angle?
Will we ever know?
Have the Panel b.ggered things up for themselves?
Is the ‘law’ a ass?

To Comply or not to Comply ?
easyJamboJune 24, 2018 at 01:41
‘….The charges have already been set out. ‘
Thank you, eJ: it’s coming back to me now. 

I wonder what ‘club’ the CO means by ‘Rangers Football Club’?

If he means RFC(IL)/RFC 2012, presumably the Liquidators would be the only ones who could answer the charges?!

If he means TRFC Ltd, then surely as a matter of law, he has made an egregious error in charging an entity that did not exist at the time of the alleged offences!

The Big Lie has got them all in a fankle, a real dilemma: if TRFC Ltd are deemed to be the offender, and are found guilty of lying to the SFA and UEFA  about their social taxes indebtedness, then I can see the possibilities arising  of the Crown Office being asked by shareholders of Celtic plc to investigate the possibility of fraud: and  of expulsion from Scottish football as the only appropriate football crime penalty.

If it is RFC(IL) that is the alleged offender, and, remembering that that club in liquidation is still in existence as a legal entity,then if it is found guilty, it would surely be possible for the shareholders to lodge a claim  against the few million quid that remain in the hands of the Liquidators.
And the penalty of retrospective expulsion could be applied.

But, of course, as Alan Massie ( in the course of his  review in yesterday’s ‘Scotsman Magazine’ of a book about the Oscar Slater case) remarks:
“Too often and too easily, Establishments will, in self-protection or with a regard for their reputation, persist in an unjust course rather than admit to have made a mistake and been at fault.”

The remark was made in relation to the legal establishment (police, prosecuting authorities, and the judge in the Slater case, and the Sheriff who conducted a ‘review’ of the conviction years after Slater had been jailed)

But I believe there might be sufficient reason for us to apply that remark toanother ‘Establishment’ operating in the field of Sport.

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Talking about journalists, there is an email in my in-box from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

This is an excerpt from it:

“On March 9, 2016, employees of Mossack Fonseca, a Panamanian law firm that for decades had kept the financial secrets of global celebrities, oligarchs and criminals, made a stomach-churning discovery. Someone had copied huge amounts of data from its computers.Emails, contracts, banking statements – 11.5 million documents of the firm’s most sensitive client records, a staggering 2.6 terabytes of data – had been taken.
Suddenly, the day-to-day business of setting up shell companies in tax havens was no longer the priority. Instead, newly obtained Mossack Fonseca documents show, employees began working furiously on a new mission: find out who its clients were.
As a key player in the world of offshore finance, Mossack Fonseca had for years flouted rules requiring lawyers and other offshore specialists to identify and verify their clients, requirements designed to prevent aiding criminal activity.
Over the year, newly leaked documents show, Mossack Fonseca employees frantically emailed bankers, accountants and lawyers – the professionals who had hired the firm to set up shell companies for wealthy clients who wanted to remain anonymous – in an attempt to close the gaps in its recordkeeping.
Those intermediaries responded with panic and fury.“
THE CLIENT DISAPPEARED! I CAN NOT FIND HIM ANYMORE!!!!!!!,” Nicole Didi, a Swiss wealth management adviser, wrote in March 2017.
A long-time intermediary of Mossack Fonseca, she acted for 80 companies set up by the firm……..”

and so on.

Real, ‘Watergate’ kind of journalism is involved in this kind of reporting….

Puts our SMSM people who choose not to ask questions, not of guys like Putin or extremely powerful Arabian princes and such like, but of a tuppence-ha’penny Football Governance body  like the SFA, in a very, very poor light indeed.

To their shame.

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Cluster OneJune 23, 2018 at 22:27
‘May 22, to respond.June 26 principal hearing JC.’
easyJamboJune 23, 2018 at 22:36
‘The “Principal Hearing” is scheduled for that date….’
Thanks to you both.

I was beginning to think that fumes from Solvite wallpaper paste and B&Q’s best paint and whatnot had addled my brains!
One would have thought that the new CEO , eager to show a desire to be ‘transparent’ would have taken the initiative by calling a Press conference , or at least circulating the Scottish press, to give the kind of information about the mechanics of the ‘hearing’ that you  mention, eJ.

Are ‘charges’ under the Protocol being brought? Or is it a meeting merely to consider the ‘facts’ to decide whether ‘charges’ ought to be brought, and what those ‘charges’ might be and against which ‘legal person’? And such like.

I think if I had a ‘Press card’ I’d be persistent in asking Maxwell  for such info, and assuring him that an unwillingness to answer would be taken as a sign of a desire to be anything but ‘transparent’.

If, if, there was jiggery-pokery and lying and agreements to lie, then we would be in the realms of conspiracy to defraud ( a conspiracy which had very practical consequences for one plc, and perhaps for  other football businesses)

That is, the matter ceases to be simply an internal matter of football rules, but becomes  one with potential implications under both  criminal and civil law.

Any journalist who thinks it is  a piddling little trifle is no journalist! 

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Last time I was properly focussed on the blog I think we were looking forward to the SFA’s consideration of the Compliance Officer’s report of his findings following his investigation into the deceitful (possibly criminal)award of a UEFA competitions licence to RFC(IL) in 2011.

The date for this was to be 26th June, I think.

Can anyone reassure me that I didn’t imagine this? 

SSL Certificates