Comment on One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All by John Clark.

    The latest little bit of football writer nonsense:

    From Alan Pattullo, in 'The Scotsman online' at 22.30  today:

    writing about a former Rangers Football Club player, Pattullo has this :

    "…When the time came to decide whether he wanted to switch his contract to Rangers newco he declined to do so…"

    There is that pig-headed refusal to speak football truth: Pattullo knows that the player's registration was with a  club that was liquidated (and is in liquidation) and that the player was  free to have his registration transferred to any other club who might want him.( And Fraser Wishart manfully supported that view)

    He was under no legal or FIFA, UEFA or SFA  rule required to join the wholly new club  that was NOT the Rangers Football Club that had ceased to participate in Scottish Football, but had only just been created and admitted to Scottish football.

    The inability of the SMSM to simply enunciate the truth that TRFC Ltd, the former SevcoScotland, is not and cannot possibly be the liquidated RFC speaks volumes of their self-protective temporising with truth and/or of their blind partisanship , both of which have enabled , indeed encouraged,our Sports governance body to, quite simply, blow all integrity to hell when it comes to the governance of Scottish Football.

    John Clark Also Commented

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    Cluster One 3rd April 2019 at 06:58

    "..New “Res 12”, website.



    Thank you for that important link, Cluster one.

    I have said before that I was not and am not one of the 'Res 12' group, but I am wholeheartedly behind them.

    The authors of this thoroughly researched and excellently drafted and presented account of what the Res12 issue is all about are to be congratulated and applauded. 

    No one reading that account could honestly assert that  there are not major questions to be asked of the behaviour of the now dead RFC , its owners and directors, and of the SFA.

    One can very well understand the anger many people feel at:

    the point blank refusal by the SFA to have the matter fully and independently investigated, and the suspicion that this raises as indicating that they fear what may emerge from an investigation

    the meek acceptance by Celtic plc that  they and their shareholders may have been cheated out of millions, and their readiness to kick a shareholders' AGM-resolution into the long grass rather than insist on a full investigation .

    And one can very well understand why a reference to the COPFS/Police Scotland seeking a police investigation into criminality is being held as a backstop.

    I am quite ready to believe that the apparent success of the dirty work involved in the granting of the UEFA licence to an unentitled club encouraged  black hearts and dishonest minds some years  later to believe, smugly, that they could get away with the utterly disgraceful 5-Way Agreement.

    Scottish Football supporters owe it to themselves to try to save Football in Scotland by getting to the truth. And a thorough reading of   https://www.res12.uk/     will convince them of that fact.

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    finnmccool 2nd April 2019 at 16:49

    '…That is the problem that the SFA created when they failed to censure Gerrard over his referee comments and rescinded Morelos's red card..'


    The SFA, by cobbling up the 5-Way Agreement to accommodate cheats lost all moral authority, and has  several times been given the finger with impunity by the chairman of RIFC plc. 

    The SFA supped with the devil, and is now seen for what it has become- in  effect, a bent cop, with no moral authority over the baddies they so eagerly aided and abetted and continue to aid and abet in the deceit of the Big Lie.

    (As for BBC Scotland, I wonder whether Chris McLaughlin's recent promotion was the beginning of an attempt to appease TRFC Ltd by discreetly removing McLaughlin from the list of reporters who would be sent to Ibrox , thus giving in to TRFC ?)


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    paddy malarkey 2nd April 2019 at 16:26


    The link has this:

    "Rangers: Ryan Kent offered ban for lashing [ my bold]out at Celtic captain Scott Brown

    Rangers' Ryan Kent faces a two-game ban after being charged for shoving [ my italics]Celtic captain Scott Brown.

    Footage showed the winger, 22, lash out at Brown in the aftermath of James Forrest's late winner for the hosts at Celtic Park on Sunday."

    What kind of garbage reporting we are now getting from BBC Scotland!

    There is no way Kent's swing at Brown could be construed as a 'shove' , and it was some crass idiot of a sub-editor who let such a contradictory report leave the keyboard.

    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.