HomunculusApril 6, 2016 at 12:25 ‘…It’s an incredible story, which is …

Comment on Look Back to Look Forward by John Clark.

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.

John Clark Also Commented

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.

Look Back to Look Forward
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?

Recent Comments by John Clark

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
James ForrestMarch 24, 2018 at 12:12
‘.John Clark: … His influence with the organisation still gives him the control he needs…’ 
I don’t doubt it. Machiavelli isn’t in it!

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
A reply came in today [from the Active Scotland Division of the  Population Health Directorate] to my letter of 11th March to the Minister for Public Health and Sport ( about getting the Compliance officer to get his finger out) :

” Dear………..,
Thank you…….
While funding from the Scottish Government through sportscotland to the Scottish FA largely supports grassroots participation, the issue you refer to remain the responsibility of the football authorities.

Please contact the Scottish FA at info@scottishfa.co.uk to seek further information.”

No surprises there, and certainly no interest in discussing the point at which taxpayers might legitimately expect some public accountability from a private company that gets millions in public funding.

Ministers are accountable for the content of letters sent out in their name, so let my cry be ‘ Aileen Campbell MSP must go’

( I’ll fire of a wee email to Mr Putin ,see if I can get a few roubles to fund a campaign!) 19

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
scottcMarch 24, 2018 at 11:09
‘..The 1p is just the nominal value of the shares. They will not be offered to anyone at that price. ‘
Thanks, scottc.

But that raises the question of how they will determine the price, so that the lenders will get a sufficient number of new shares to give them a greater overall percentage, or will they just say ‘you’ve got whatever number of shares that at whatever price the market will determine at any given timewill repay the loan?’ 

If I had loaned £100 , then @ 1p , I would need 10 000 shares whereas if the price is @20p, I would only need 500, or if the price were higher, even fewer. Which wouldn’t mean much in terms of increased overall percentage.

How will it work?

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
Just come off  two hour skype to the granweans in Oz.
I notice my post of 21.58 has not one, but two, obvious typos:
“if Club 1872’s shareholding is deleted, ” :  well ,’diluted’ is what I meant to type, of course.
And ‘cheap’ should have been ‘cheep’, the noise that them two bloody budgies in my son’s house made all during that skype!19

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
Yes, I think I’m of the same opinion as JF, the same general understanding that the wide boys in RIFC have pulled a very fast one on innocent football fans who have more trust than sense, and perhaps even less of a grasp of things than I have!

The Board of Club 1872 really ought to have insisted on a binding agreement that a) they will get a seat on the Board and b) that they get the right to purchase shares at the same price as the lenders, whatever that may be.

As it is, they have been shafted right royally ( with Blair no longer on the Board of Club 1872,  the RIFC plc Board can say ‘ nothing to do with us’ if Club 1872’s shareholding is deleted, and tell any discontented folk to take it up with the Club 1872 Board.

There’s another aspect to this. 

There is not ( or was not a few minutes ago) a cheap about any ‘upcoming’ share offer on the ‘investor page’ on the ‘RFC’ official website.

For an entity as close to RIFC plc to be able to

have a meeting with the Chairman of RIFC plc, 

be given privy information about an ‘upcoming’ share offer which those shareholders might not be given the opportunity of buying, resulting in dilution of their holdings , would seem to me to be a breach of market regulation..

It puts one lot of shareholders in possession of share information that has not been communicated to the market generally, or to the other shareholders.

In which Regulator’s territory would that fall? The FCA?The Stock Exchange? Companies House? The Takeover Panel? (So many regulators, yet bad guys can still rip off ordinary folk)

SSL Certificates