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

    Bad Money?
    Allyjambo 21st July 2019 at 09:59

    '…that no action can be taken against a dead club..'


    Oh, I don't know about that, Aj.

    The history books could/should show that Rangers FC of 1872 died an utterly dishonourable death, not occasioned by the run-of-the-mill  business failure that even perfectly honest businesses can suffer but a death caused by its serial cheating both of the Football Authorities and of HMRC over  a number of years.

    Post-mortem expulsion from Scottish Football is entirely possible and appropriate.

    And of course the absurd pretence that TRFC Ltd is the same club as that monstrous cheat of a club should be forthwith abandoned, and Scottish Football put back on the path of Sporting truth.


    Bad Money?
    Allyjambo 21st July 2019 at 09:59

    '..Of course, anyone involved at Rangers at the time the (potential) fraud took place might feel the effects of any fallout, maybe even a criminal investigation.'


    Have you had a wee read at this link, Aj 


    from which I take this excerpt:

    "..It is generally the case that examples of personal criminal liability for directors flow from the corporate criminal liability of the company of which they are a director. Having establishing the corporate criminal liability, the personal liability of the director depends upon their role in the company and the link to the criminal act(s).

    Although the personal liability of a director is dependent upon the company having committed a criminal act it can be established even if the company has not been or is not being prosecuted.[my underlining]

    The existence of personal criminal liability of directors is intended to ensure the accountability of those in senior positions at companies engaging in criminal conduct…"

    There are some delicious sections in the Fraud Act 2006, e.g.

    "12. Liability of company officers for offences by company

    (1)Subsection (2) applies if an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate.

    (2)If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of—

    (a)a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or

    (b)a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

    he (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."

    And, of course, the directors of a company in Liquidation are still accountable for their acts as directors of that company notwithstanding the Liquidation or the fact that they had resigned before the Liquidation

    And, further, I suspect that if a  wayward director had been acting in collusion with wayward directors of another company the directors of that other company could find themselves also being prosecuted.

    Speaking entirely in the abstract, it is entirely right and proper that allegations of potentially fraudulent behaviour by company directors should be thoroughly ad independently investigated, for their sake if the allegations are shown to be unfounded, and for the sake of the rest of us if there is found to be truth in the allegations.

    Bad Money?
    Auldheid 20th July 2019 at 12:58

    '…and Celtic really should pass Res12 or a derivative at the next AGM.'


    It's late of a Saturday night, Auldheid, but a wee alarm bell is ringing. 

    The Res12 people would have to be careful NOT to withdraw the Res 12 motion that has been in 'adjournment' (for 6 feckin years!)  before they are certain that a replacement, differently worded, resolution will definitely appear on the agenda at this Autumn's agm and be debated and voted upon. 

    There is nothing the Celtic Board would like better than to have Res 12 withdrawn! 

    And they are no angels in this matter: if Res 12 is withdrawn,  they would try everything to prevent a new Resolution getting on to the agenda.

    After 6 years, it is clear that they, no more than the SFA, want the licence issue really and thoroughly investigated.

    Phew! Jings, crivvens and michty me! Forgive my moment of panic. I'm sure the Res12 folk are more aware of these things than I!


    Bad Money?
    Allyjambo 20th July 2019 at 10:25

    '…John, in what context did McFadden find the 'need' to utter the following in the build up to a Motherwell v Morton match?'


    I had only just switched on the steam radio when I heard McFadden speak. I didn't recognise his voice and was wondering who it was that was speaking about 'Rangers' ,and how well they are doing, fifteen minutes before the Motherwell/Morton kick-off!

    I assume that there had been some general chat about the premier league teams in general and the conversation had reached 'Rangers', with the BBC heads perhaps bowing  in homage at each mention of the holy name!angry 

    Bad Money?
    Highlander 20th July 2019 at 10:10

    '.., the BBC's main driver in adopting their sacrosanct policy was advice supplied by the Scottish Football Association,..'


    In strict fairness , Highlander,to the BBC executives, who defended their use of 'new club'/'old club' by reference to Scots law, they were constitutionally bound to obey the order issued by the BBC Trust not to use those descriptions.

    Happily, the BBC Trust [ set up by Royal Charter, not by Parliament ]was itself dissolved in 2017, having previously been accused by a former Director-General, Mark Thomson,  of 'fundamentally misleading' Parliament in the scandal over large pay-offs to senior executives.

    It is amusing to read this extract from the Editorial Standards Committee's report: 

    "The ECS said it was "satisfied that although there had been a breach of the editorial guidelines in relation to due accuracy and the use of clear and precise language, it had not seen anything to suggest that the BBC had knowingly and materially misled its audience". (in the way, perhaps, that the Trust was alleged to have tried 'knowingly and materially' to mislead Parliament!)

    Sadly, by complying with the order, and abandoning truth thereby,the BBC has been knowingly and materially misleading its audience since 2013!

    The dissolution of the Trust two years ago should have been seized by the BBC to begin again to report the truth on their own account, or at least raise the question with Ofcom, which took over the monitoring of editorial standards.

    If the BBC can speak untruth in the simple matter of Sport, what bigger untruths will it be reporting on, say, Brexit, where matters of real national importance are at stake, rather than the piddly little affairs of a seven year old football club trying to live on a bunch of lies?