Stevie G – The Real Deal?

1082
164888

Steven Gerrard’s slip in 2014 against Chelsea cost Liverpool the league and extinguished Brendan Rodger’s chances of having his name written in Liverpool folklore. Now Steven Gerrard stands in his way of becoming a Celtic legend, by stopping the Ulsterman from claiming an eighth successive title for the Hoops.

But how realistic is that? Can this Anfield great transform the beleaguered ‘Gers into title contenders? Or like his pursuit for a Premier League title, will it ultimately end in failure? Here we take a look at Gerrard’s chances of breaking Celtic’s dominance next season.

Is he tactically astute?

During Sven Goran-Erikkson’s reign as England manager, he was blessed with midfield greats such as Frank Lampard, Paul Scholes, David Beckham and Steven Gerrard. Lampard consistently netted 20+ goals a season for Chelsea and Gerrard seemingly won games on his own for Liverpool.

Yet the two couldn’t play together, and one of the reasons for that was Gerrard’s tactical ineptitude. Whilst Lampard had shown himself adept at following a tactical plan under Mourinho, Gerrard only flourished when partnered with Xabi Alonso – a canny operator with a sharp footballing brain.

All too often Gerrard would abandon his responsibilities and scupper England’s attacks with predictable ‘Hollywood’ passes. If his disregard of tactics from his playing career is anything to go by, then his time at Ibrox will be short-lived.

Signings

Much has been made of the expected wave of Liverpool loanee’s at Ibrox, but so far the new manager has opted to find most of his talent from elsewhere. Scott Arfield, Allan McGregor, Connor Goldson and Ovi Ejaria have all joined the ‘Gers.

Jon Flanagan is the only incoming player with links to Gerrard’s former club, and whilst signings from Brighton, Sunderland and Burnley might not be inspiring, they seem more astute than bringing in second-rate Liverpool rejects. The signing have ensured that Rangers are now 12/1 for the title, second favourites to Celtic.

The transfer market is a crowded place at the moment and Rangers, like Celtic, simply do not have the allure or the money of most Championship clubs never mind Premier League outfits. If Rangers are to be successful they need to maximise the transfer market as Celtic did when David Moss was the head of recruitment.

Moss was the man responsible for bringing players such as Victor Wanyama, Virgil Van Dijk and Moussa Dembele to Parkhead, with the Hoops making substantial profits on most of their player purchases.

Gerrard needs to bring the right scouting team into Ibrox in the hope of emulating Celtic’s transfer success. If he doesn’t, then he won’t stand a chance of challenging Brendan Rodgers as Rangers’ current squad isn’t up to much.

The odds

As much as analysis of Gerrard’s history and style is helpful, it doesn’t give any clear indicators. With the notable exception of Leicester City, the bookies have always tended to get things right in football.

Manchester City and Celtic were the bookies favourites for their domestic leagues last season and Real Madrid were the favourites for the Champions League.

1082 COMMENTS


  1. That's the point JC, if it's a hearing in the Court of Session then it is not criminal. At least that is my understanding.

    I would imagine the CoS or the Police (at the behest of the Lord Advocate) could have him charged with a criminal offence but to my knowledge that hasn't happened.

    As I said I find it all very confusing. 

    View Comment

  2. Homunculus 14th November 2018 at 21:25

    '..That's the point JC, if it's a hearing in the Court of Session then it is not criminal.'

    ____________________________

    I rather think that , if Lady Woolffe's decision is upheld on Friday, then she ( or another Lord Ordinary) will be able to hear the case as a civil case but with the power to impose a prison sentence. ( in the same kind of way that  a drunken yob shouting in any Court can be banged up instantly by the judge without 'trial' for a (limited)  period.

    That is, the TOP's action can proceed as a civil matter, but if on the balance of probabilities the court (no jury) decides that he is in contempt, it could use the sentencing powers (including imprisonment0 afforded under Sec 955.

    I am no lawyer , of course, and might have entirely the wrong end of the stick.( I have to say that I enjoy trying to work out these things from the information that is available. I hope it helps keep old early onset Alzeimer's  away for a few more years!)

    View Comment

  3. Homunculus 14th November 2018 at 21:25

    '…I would imagine the CoS or the Police (at the behest of the Lord Advocate) could have him charged with a criminal offence but to my knowledge that hasn't happened.'

    _________________

    Apologies, H, I should have maybe made the point that only the party affected by the non-compliance has an immediate locus: they have to tell the Court that the order has not been complied with, and seek remedy:otherwise the Court wouldn't officially know ( although as private individuals judges and the likes read the newspapers), nor would the COPFS or police.

    It was for the TOP to tell the Court, and they did. But, according to King's legals, they took the wrong approach which nullified their effort. Lady Woolffe sorted out King's legals, and they appealed. 

    We wait to see how the judge(s) looking at the appeal will decide.

     

    View Comment

  4. What I found most interesting in my reading of the decision was the distinction that was made by Lady Wolffe between 'positive' contempt (what she described as ad factum praestandum ) i.e. as in this case, ordered TO DO something, (make an offer to buy shares); and 'negative' contempt of court, such as breach of an interdict, i.e. being ordered NOT to do something.  The legal arguments seemed to revolve around concurrence -i.e. the need to involve the Lord Advocate.  As JC mentions, each contempt case has to be judged on its own merits but it seems that the Lord Advocate will only have an interest in cases of 'negative' contempt cases such as breach of an interdict but not necessarily 'positive' breaches.  

    This makes some sense to me personally insofar as many years ago in domestic dispute type incidents that were frequently attended by the police, there was seldom any corroborated evidence of, for instance, wife assault; it was generally one person's word against another.   There may have been circumstantial evidence but rarely enough to satisfy the Fiscal.  In many of these cases, the wife's only recourse was to apply to the civil courts – where the burden of proof is far less that the criminal standard – for an interim interdict to prevent a violent husband or partner assaulting or otherwise molesting her.  

    When granted, most of these – essentially civil decrees – were issued with a power of arrest for breaches of the interdict.  A copy of the interdict was usually lodged with the local police and officers were regularly and well-briefed on newly granted interim interdicts affecting individuals on their beats.  In such cases, if the police were called to an incident of wife assault or harassment, if the husband was merely found within the curtilages of the wife's house in breach of the order, he could be arrested and detained in custody; effectively a criminal outcome from a civil matter.

    In these cases, the contempt of court was 'negative', ie. the individual concerned had been ordered NOT to do something yet disregarded the order and continued to harass his wife.  I cannot think of an example of a 'positive' contempt of court that I dealt with – or even learned about – that occurred outside of the courtroom itself.

    It seems to me that this manoeuvring by King's counsel was merely to argue that as the TOP had not sought the concurrence of the Lord Advocate in the process of their 'application' for contempt proceedings to be instigated, that process was not competent.  I think the TOP's argument kind of blew that out of the water.  Their view was that the process they were adopting was the correct one given that the order made in respect of King was a 'positive' (DO SOMETHING) order and not a 'negative' (DON'T DO SOMETHING) order, therefore the involvement of Lord Advocate was not required.

    This makes perfect sense, as argued by counsel in case law, that there must surely be some power vested in the civil courts to maintain their authority and the speedy and effectual advancement of justice otherwise, every contempt of court case, ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ would require to be reported to the Lord Advocate.  However, this 'positive' contempt does not on my reading of the decision, appear to be a crime per se.  My gut feeling is that there must be some action the civil courts can take in such 'positive' cases of contempt short of a criminal sanction otherwise what's the point?   

    My confusion on this point, like Homunculus's,  is compounded by the fact that the original motion of the TOP in the event that the court found King to be in contempt of court was: 

    If the court finds that there has been a contempt of court, the Panel invites the court to impose upon the respondent “such penalty, whether by fine, imprisonment or otherwise as to the court shall seem appropriate in respect of that contempt”

    Most of these appear to me to be criminal sanctions.  Consequently, I have no idea of what civil sanctions could be applied although I am sure there are far better qualified individuals on here who might argue otherwise.  What I feel confident about, having read the judgement of Lady Wolffe, which is very tightly constructed, is that any appeal against this finding will surely fail.

     

     

    View Comment

  5. Homunculus 14th November 2018 at 21:25

    '..I would imagine the CoS or the Police (at the behest of the Lord Advocate) could have him charged with a criminal offence .'

    ______________________________

    I should perhaps have addressed that point, H, sorry. 

    Only the party in favour of whom an order is made can tell the Court that it has not been complied with and seek remedy. The court won't know officially ( even though judges read the newspapers) and neither the Lord Advocate nor the polis have any interest at that stage. 

    The TOP told the court, and looked for remedy. King's legals argued that the TOP's approach was legally flawed. Lady  Woolffe says it wasn't. A higher Court will decide. If they decide for Lady Woolffe, further action is easy-peasy. If they decide against Lady W, then the TOP will have to go to the bother of seeking the Lord Advocate's 'concurrence' in a Petition to the Court of Session… 

    View Comment

  6. Mordecai 14th November 2018 at 22:49

    '..I have no idea of what civil sanctions could be applied ..'

    ___________________________________

    oh, I dunno, Mordecai: "…whether by fine, imprisonment or otherwise as to the court shall seem appropriate" would seem to give the Court the power to require someone to sell his shares in a particular ompany, or ban him from being a company director ……broken heart

    View Comment

  7. Scrolling back to look at something else, I came back to my post of 14th November 2018 at 10:36 , and again was absolutely shocked at King's remarks. 

    It is one thing for me to talk disparagingly about the 'Mexican Piddler',  (and it's a fact that Pena is in Mexico and that he piddled ).

    Quite something else when the Chairman of a holding company which 'operates' a 6-year-old football club and styles itself as 'international' , publicly trashes a football player who was one of his employees. 

    And who is still his employee…! 

    Bullying, harassment, isn't in it!

    I'm with the Mexican piddler….. particularly if he legally pisses all over his employer and screws him from here to hell.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    View Comment

  8. easyJambo 14th November 2018 at 18:02

    Candeias second yellow card explained.

    ===========================

    I'm struggling to think of a yellow card which has caused such utter apoplexy among the media even though there has been many an unjust yellow card handed out to various clubs over the years. If the explanation is correct, then why don't the media tell Rangers to petition for a rules change rather than just sitting there foaming at the mouth? Better still, why don't they get angry at some really major injustices the SFA have perpetrated over the past six years!

    View Comment

  9. There is a member of the Faculty of Advocates named Adrian Toner who is a season ticket holder at Celtic Park.

    His birthday is 12th July; a date some associate with some unpleasantness at the Boyne.

    A better known member of said Faculty is Donald Findlay, Q.C. who is a former vice-chairman at Ibrox Park.

    His birthday is 17th March; a date some associate with St Patrick's Day.

    Needless to say neither was too happy with these twists of fate but legend has it that when they discovered the facts they had a chat and rather than just bemoan their respective lots they found a solution.

    They swapped birthdays.

    Following the most recent Court decision I found myself thinking that in a bizzaro parallel universe the judge's marriage,sadly, ended and she thereafter married the first mentioned gentleman.

    In that parallel universe the decision telling GASH to jog on would have been by Lady Wolffe Toner.

    View Comment

  10. John Clark 

    14th November 2018 at 22:57

    ==================================

    Criminal prosecutions in Scotland are at the behest of the Lord Advocate. Crown Office and the Police act on his behalf.

    It sounds more and more that this is currently a purely civil matter.

     

    View Comment

  11. Re DCK & (alleged) 'Contempt of Court' etc.; I found this article illuminated some of the complexities:

     

    https://www.out-law.com/en/topics/dispute-resolution-and-litigation/interdicts-in-scotland/

     

    Note the first sentence of the penultimate paragraph:

     

    'The process of interdict is quasi criminal, and if the party who has been interdicted fails to observe the terms of the interdict, once notified of it, he is liable to summary punishment, which can include a fine or imprisonment.'

     

    Incidentally, the Paul McKenzie mentioned in the second sentence of the same paragraph was one of the so-called 'Blue Knights'…

     

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/businessman-who-tried-to-buy-rangers-is-jailed-1-3655582

    View Comment

  12. King isn't subject to an interdict. He has failed to comply with a court order.  It is that non compliance that is leading to the contempt of court charge.

    View Comment

  13. Jingso.Jimsie 

    15th November 2018 at 14:48

    ===================================

    Bearing in mind that interdict is the Court ordering a person not to do something, as opposed to ordering them to do something which is what has happened in King's case. 

    View Comment

  14. easyJambo 15th November 2018 at 16:00:

     

    You are, of course, correct.

     

    Apologies to the board for going off-piste (not half-piste, that'll happen later!).

     

     

    View Comment

  15. I only managed along to this morning's proceedings at the CoS in the Whitehouse & Clark v Police Scotland and the Lord Advocate cases.  JC was planning to stay for the afternoon session.

    Today was very much a tidy up exercise, updating "pleas in law" following Lord Malcolm's recent decision about the Lord Advocate's immunity under common law, leaving only the Human Rights Article 5 and Article 8 actions outstanding, which will go to a "proof before answer" hearing at a later date.

    Lord Malcolm seemed bemused that none of the parties present were able to point to the legal question that he, or whatever judge hears the proof, will be requested to answer.  It wasn't clear from the debate, but as I understand it, Whitehouse & Clark will be required to show "malice" and "lack of probable cause" on the part of the police. Lord Malcolm will therefore be required to judge both on the merits of the arguments, but also whether or not "malice" has been proved (the legal question?).

    The rest of the morning was spent arguing over expenses. It was agreed between the Lord Advocate's, Whitehouse's and Clark's counsels that no party would be liable to pay the legal costs and expenses of the other. However, counsel for Police Scotland sought payment from Whitehouse for the costs associated with an earlier hearing, for which it was claimed that they "won". Counsel for Whitehouse argued the point and put forward a case for the reverse position on costs, or that Lord Malcolm reserves his position on costs until we he sees how the case unfolds. In the event that Lord Malcolm sides with Police Scotland, he then asked that the costs be restricted to two days attendance in court.

    There was some discussion on Police Scotland’s conduct during the case, what they had/hadn’t disclosed and delays in that process, including "Craig Whyte emails" which Whitehouse believes will exonerate him.

    David Grier also had his legal team present and they were due to make their submissions this afternoon, but I'm not sure what that is about. Hopefully JC will be able to fill us in on this afternoon's proceedings.  Grier has a similar action underway against Police Scotland, but it is being heard under the processes and procedures of the commercial court at Glasgow Sheriff Court. The main proof hearing in that case is not scheduled until February 2019.

    In total there were 11 be-wigged legal beagles and another 8 or so other legal bods present in court today, so it will not be a cheap day out for whoever ends up footing the bill.

    View Comment

  16. upthehoops 15th November 2018 at 07:00
    39 4 Rate This

    easyJambo 14th November 2018 at 18:02

    Candeias second yellow card explained.

    ===========================

    I’m struggling to think of a yellow card which has caused such utter apoplexy among the media.
    ……………….
    From what i hear, he is the ibrox clubs better player these last few weeks.
    may struggle without him.

    View Comment

  17. Homunculus 15th November 2018 at 11:26

    '…Criminal prosecutions in Scotland are at the behest of the Lord Advocate. Crown Office and the Police act on his behalf.'

    ___________________

    Yes, of course.

    That is precisely why Counsel for King was challenging  TOP's 'minute'- he was arguing that because of the at least potential 'crime' element the Lord Advocate's concurrence should have been obtained, and that since it wasn't, the TOP's approach should be thrown out as being incompetent because only the Lord Advocate is in charge of criminal prosecutions.

    I think -but I might be mistaken that Counsel for TOP at the previous hearing said that they did in fact run it past the Lord Advocate but he declared  'no interest' i.e. he neither 'concurred' nor 'demurred'.

    View Comment

  18. "……this morning's proceedings at the CoS in the Whitehouse & Clark v Police Scotland and the Lord Advocate cases.  JC was planning to stay for the afternoon session.".

    _______________________________

    I went back in the afternoon for more punishment. This morning's session, neatly summarised by eJ in his post at 16.29, was very hard going.: amendments  to pleas-in-law all round ( pointless to try to record without having copies of the originals, and difficult to put in context: as well as being difficult to make out from the way people spoke. 

    And considerable talk of 'expenses' with  a strong motion from Mr Currie  asking that no 'caution'  be required to be put up  in respect of some period(s) of work done for Counsel for the first defender (the Chief constable) until full investigation had been carried out into some aspects of the police conduct.

    A lot of to-ing and fro-ing , with a bit of intervention by Lord Malcolm. Then the lunch-break.

    After lunch, Mr Currie resumed his point about police conduct, airing his opinion that it would be outrageous if expenses were allowed when it might be discovered that there had been misconduct.

    The point was noted by Lord Malcolm, but was robustly challenged by Ms McGuire, QC for the First defender.

    Lord Malcolm completed his notes, and moved on to quite another , and quite interesting, matter: a request by David Grier' s Counsel that he ( Grier) be allowed to 'intervene' in the process , not as a 'party' to the actual proceedings but as someone who is party to proceedings in Glasgow Sheriff court.

    It appears that documents which relate to the Whitehouse action against the Chief constable contain or may contain information relating to Grier's unconnected action in the Sheriff court have been requested but are not being released by the Police. Time is tight, with certain deadlines coming up soon, and Grier's QC wanted to by-pass the normal procedure of applying to the Sheriff  for an order, and instead wished to piggy-back on this Court of Session action, and seek, with Whitehouse's consent, to have this Court make the order to the Police to release the documents.

    This little discussion went on for a while , with reference to Rules of Court and  judgment by Lady Clark( which Lord Malcolm pointed out related to quite different circumstances…)

    There was some hesitancy on the parts of Ms McGuire for the CC and Mr Moynihan about whether they had in fact received any requests  and they needed some time to check and respond later. Mr Currie somehow got involved ( he has frequently complained about difficulty in getting documents, a fact which Lord Malcolm reminded him of )

    By 3.00 pm Lord Malcolm got them all settled and had a clear picture of what  Grier's QC was looking for and some idea of why he hadn't got it.

    He did not formally announce avizandum because he will announce his 'interlocutor' in a day or two. 

    And that was that.

    It was a great help that Grier's QC, although he spoke very rapidly ( twice lord Malcolm reined him in with 'you've given me a lot of information, that I can't take in so quickly'), spoke clearly and loudly enough to be heard quite comfortably.

    The nature of the business and the number of QCs made it impossible for me to try to do my more usual type of report, I'm afraid. It would be dull reading, in any case,like this example;

    "Mr Currie: First defender, all pleas…..as for 3rd defender  (mumble, mumble).the third and fourth pleas…

    Lord Malcolm: The third plea should be sustained?

    MR Currie: 4th plea should be sustained..

    Lord Malcolm: What about plea-in-law 5?

    Mr currie: (mumble)

    Lord Malcolm: But that has already been….?

    Lord M: MsMcGuire, can we deal with the pleas-in-law?

    Ms McGuire: (mumble rapidly) … repel that plea-in-law/

    Lord M: I suppose I could just repel it quoad fourteen words?

    Mr Currie: (mumble).. I have no objection.

    Lord M: I'll allow pursuer's first plea by deleting 14 words"

    _______

    Not the most riveting of stuff, when you have no copy of the papers!broken heart

    View Comment

  19. It turns out that today's appeal wasn't about Lady Wolffe's recent decision. Indeed just yesterday she refused King leave to appeal, so the contempt hearing will proceed at the end of the month.

    Today's appeal was actually King appealing against TOP's claim for additional expenses due to the novelty and complexity of the case. The three Lords, led by the Lord President heard short submissions from both sides, went into a huddle for 45 seconds, then threw out King's appeal.

    I confirmed with a journalist present that King has been deemed liable for all fees incurred by both sides to date. 

    View Comment

  20. I would love to know who is paying these legal fees.  Dave King himself or will he manage to steer them on to the Ibrox accounts.  Which would be disgraceful of course.  But he does have history of using other peoples money.

    View Comment

  21. To add a little to eJ's summary, the business this morning was presided over Lord Carloway, with lords Drummond Young and Glennie.

    Mr Turner QC for the Takeover Panel reminded the Court that the TOP had used S 955 of the Companies Act 2006 for the first time ever. This novelty had occasioned additional work and therefore additional fees had been sought.

    He observed that the matter had been urgent,and that those who had instructed the TOP had acted accordingly to move forward. At every stage they had moved swiftly to get early dates , early dates resisted by the reclaimer..

    The novelty of using S 955 had occasioned a greater degree of specialist knowledge to be acquired and applied, and the fact that the reclaimer was domiciled in South Africa had required further time and labour:there were the fees for solicitors in South Africa

    The number of documents mentioned by the reclaimer do not include 200 pages and a further 300-page Hearing's bundle from the TOP Hearing.

    The case is being conducted in a very high degree of publicity[Mr Turner looked round at the three of us-eJ, Macmullan, and me as if to confirm that statement] and the level of scrutiny is very high.

    The TOP has a limited number of teeth, and public confidence in its first ever use of Section 955 requires that the TOP be thorough and diligent in its approach.

    And it's not as if the costs were relatively small. The case involves  involved millions of pounds.

    Mr Mitchell QC for King (the reclaimer) submitted that there was no work beyond the ordinary call of duty. The history here, he said, is that instructions were received on 23rd march 2017, the Petitioner acted on 31st March, and then in April 2017.

    Yes, he conceded, it's a novel question: but that can be said of anything.

    As far as the Inner and outer Houses had been concerned, the Inner House had a 3-hour hearing, the Outer House had a day and a half. And the issues before them were not complex. There was nothing to drive additional fees for solicitors.

    And there has not been a whisper of what specialised knowledge and skills had been required on the part of solicitors. Much of the work was routine and performed by junior staff.

    At this point, lord Drummond Young asked whether specialised knowledge and expertise in Company Law might not have been required?

    Mr Mitchell replied, not really. And as for the question of how the judge is to interpret S955 and apply it, well, that kind of question is par for the course.

    Counsel acted promptly. There was nothing out of the ordinary in the number of documents. By the standard of reclaiming motions it was not an unusual number. Even the initial bundle is only in the region of 300 pages.

    As for place,there was nothing more than is ever involved in respect of any non-European country.

    The 'public interest' is not a reason for additional  fees. Nor is the amount of money involved.

    In Mr Mitchell's submission, there is nothing in Mr Turner's motion.

    The three judges gathered in a wee huddle to deliberate.

    eJ, watch in hand, timed them at 45 seconds,before Lord Carloway delivered the Courts opinion.

    This was to grant additional fees in respect of points A, B and E of mr Turner's submission.

    ( Don't ask which of the points I've mentioned above are points A B and E.)

     

     

    View Comment

  22. JC @ 13.52 16 Nov 2018

    Many thanks for your & EJ's time & effort for the court appearence(s) – so a large legal bill heading to King – if he is convicted of contempt further costs & a sentence to follow as surely as a ban from Scottish football (via the SFA) – a position he never should have been in the first place i.e. fit & proper (not) – & spare us the bullsh*t that he is not directly involved with The Rangers FC as he is chairman of the holding company .

    View Comment

  23. easyJambo 16th November 2018 at 11:03
    Today’s appeal was actually King appealing against TOP’s claim for additional expenses due to the novelty and complexity of the case. The three Lords, led by the Lord President heard short submissions from both sides, went into a huddle for 45 seconds, then threw out King’s appeal.
    ……………………
    To me it looks like Mr king likes to kick the can down the road.With TOP and Mike Ashley.
    Appeal every court decision, if it goes against you, and then appeal the cost it takes when you appeal every court decision that you appeal.
    All very well in kicking the can, but a double whammy when you reach the end of appealing and are found guilty and the court agrees you to be deemed liable for all fees incurred by both sides to date.
    Could have been cheaper and more cost effective to have abide by the law in the first place and to stick with the contracts.

    View Comment

  24. John Clark 16th November 2018 at 13:52
    The case is being conducted in a very high degree of publicity[Mr Turner looked round at the three of us-eJ, Macmullan, and me as if to confirm that statement] and the level of scrutiny is very high.
    The TOP has a limited number of teeth, and public confidence in its first ever use of Section 955 requires that the TOP be thorough and diligent in its approach.
    …………..
    When they know the guys from TSFM are watching.
    Thanks again JC and easyJambo.
    ……………
    Ps who is Macmullan? was he the journalist present that easyJambo spoke to.

    View Comment

  25. I'm finally getting some confidence that the TOP will actually nail King to the mast.

    The fact that "the case is being conducted in a very high degree of publicity" leaves little room to hide this under the carpet, so much kudos must go to the 3 aforementioned for their relentless pursuit in these and other matters.

    King (or RIFC) now has another large legal bill , he is responsible for funding the shortfall to satisfy the accounts and it looks like the can has reached the end of the road as far as the 12m for the TOP is concerned. If he simply hides in Sth Africa where does that leave the running of the club? Where does it leave his fellow Directors ? and where does it leave the accountants ? If he is found guilty of contempt then the SFA must surely ban him but if they do they are signing the clubs death warrant as they currently only survive due to his funding promises. Panto season has arrived at the Kings Theatre , oh yes it has……

    View Comment

  26. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-chairman-dave-king-ordered-13600313.amp?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&__twitter_impression=true
    …………….
    Rangers chairman Dave King has been ordered to pay the legal costs of his attempt to stop a contempt of court action against him.
    …………
    naegreetin 16th November 2018 at 15:25
    & spare us the bullsh*t that he is not directly involved with The Rangers FC as he is chairman of the holding company .
    …….
    the Record has him as Rangers chairman.even though we know he is not.
    …………………….
    The South African resident’s own legal team failed to convince judge Lady Wolffe earlier this week that the contempt action should be stopped because the correct legal procedure hadn’t been followed.
    …………….How long until king appeals his own legal team are not very good and wants to appeal every court case they were involved in with him.
    Don’t count it out…

    View Comment

  27. Cluster One 16th November 2018 at 18:37

    Ps who is Macmullan? was he the journalist present that easyJambo spoke to.

    =================================

    JC always seems to have problems remembering his surname. It's James Mulholland. He's an agency court reporter, i.e. he will probably be paid a retainer by the agency for writing "x" court reports per week, with his earnings boosted each time a newspaper publishes one of his reports, as the Record did this afternoon. 

    View Comment

  28. Cluster One 16th November 2018 at 18:49

    From the article

     

    The case was originally brought to court over the actions of King and the so called "three bears" – businessmen George Letham, George Taylor and Douglas Park – during their takeover of Rangers in late 2014.

    Investigators for the panel concluded that the quartet acted in concert to acquire 30 per cent of the shares in Rangers.

    The money for the shares which the four men purchased came from offshore trusts which were in the name of King's family.

     

    I read that as all the shares being paid for by King's offshore family trusts and not by the other individuals named ?

    View Comment

  29. Cluster One 16th November 2018 at 18:37

    Ps who is Macmullan?

    easyJambo 16th November 2018 at 18:54

    '..JC always seems to have problems remembering his surname…'

    ______________________

    Ha,ha. I don't even know  a Macmullan except a Brigadier who was UK military attache to somewhere. And believe  me, there's no way our Mulholland is anything like that Brigadier!

    Apologies to all, including Mulholland and the shade of the Brigadier.

     

     

    View Comment

  30. easyJambo 16th November 2018 at 18:54
    Thanks for clarification.
    ………………….
    paddy malarkey 16th November 2018 at 19:27
    ………..
    I believe it’s not the only thing they got wrong in the article.
    ………………………….
    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/02/rangers-board-douglas-park-three-bears
    The Rangers board has welcomed the purchase of 13.3m shares by millionaire businessman Douglas Park’s Three Bears group.

    It was revealed on New Year’s Eve that the club’s largest shareholder Laxey Partners had sold its 16% stake to Park and his associates George Letham and George Taylor.

    The Laxey chairman, Colin Kingsnorth, claimed he was handing the shares to the three wealthy supporters so they could lead the fight against Mike Ashley’s Ibrox involvement, after labelling the Rangers chairman David Somers a “wet fish”.
    ……………………………………
    Dave Ki staged a dramatic return to the Rangers power battle on Friday in a move that places huge pressure on the current boardroom regime.
    The South Africa-based businessman purchased a near 15 per cent stake in the club by buying up shares held by fund managers Artemis and Miton.
    Former Ibrox director King is acting independently of the group comprising wealthy supporters Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor, who bought out Laxey Partners earlier this week to raise their total holding to 19 per cent.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2894708/Dave-King-buys-14-5-stake-Rangers-former-Ibrox-director-makes-pitch-power.html

    View Comment

  31. paddy malarkey 16th November 2018 at 19:27

    '……..I read that as all the shares being paid for by King's offshore family trusts and not by the other individuals named ?'

    ________________________

    Yes, pm.

    "The Executive relied on this Rule in holding that in the circumstances of this case it was just for Mr King alone to incur the obligation to extend a Rule 9 offer.From the Hearing

     "The Executive concluded that Mr King thereby incurred an obligation under rule 9 of the Code to procure the making of an offer for all Rangers shares not held by NOAL or by those with whom he had acted in concert.'

    see this link to the Panel Hearing Committee's findings (para 96)

    https://www.sfm.scot/stevie-g-the-real-deal/comment-page-21/#comment-22002
     

    View Comment

  32. Douglas Fraser‏Verified account @BBCDouglasF 2m2 minutes ago

    BREAKING: Johnston Press, Edinburgh HQd owner of @thescotsman @ipapernews @yorkshirepost +200 local papers is set to go into administration. Its board has filed intention to transfer assets to new company owned by its bondholders.

    @Johnston_Press last month put itself up for sale, as it couldn’t refinance its debt: “Following considerable interest in the Formal Sale Process, the Board concluded none of the offers received deliver sufficient value and has ended the Formal Sale Process”…

    A blow for the SMSM

    I wonder if the Scotsman and Edinburgh Evening News will survive in their current print and online forms.

    View Comment

  33. Hi , JC ,

    I understand that King is being held legally responsible and incurred the obligation , it was more the source of funds , given that King's family offshore trusts paid all the money for the shares and nothing from the 3 Bears ? Or am I being obtuse ?v

    View Comment

  34. easyJambo 16th November 2018 at 22:06

    '..Johnston Press, Edinburgh HQd owner of @thescotsman @ipapernews @yorkshirepost +200 local papers is set to go into administration.'

    ______________________

    A blow for the SMSM indeed.

    And I think it behoves us to remember that the 'SMSM' that we refer to on this blog is shorthand for those writing about Scottish Football in the Scottish media who are propagators of the 'Big Lie' and deniers of death-by-losing entitlement to compete in Scottish Football. 

    The death of a newspaper is not a good thing in itself and not a cause for celebration in any democratic society. If "The Scotsman" were to die , I would grieve for the loss of some excellent writers and good features.

    Those who help prop up a failed Football Governance body……..Not a lot of sympathy do I have for them.

     

    View Comment

  35. paddy malarkey 16th November 2018 at 22:23

    Hi , JC ,

    I understand that King is being held legally responsible and incurred the obligation , it was more the source of funds , given that King's family offshore trusts paid all the money for the shares and nothing from the 3 Bears ? Or am I being obtuse ?

    ===================================

    It's a mistake in the article.  King's "trust", NOAL, only bought shares for the benefit of King.  The three bears bought their own shares from Laxey, who wouldn't do business with King.

    View Comment

  36. redlichtie 16th November 2018 at 23:22
    18 2 Rate This

    Some irony surely that the Chief Executive of Johnston Press is a Mr David King!

    Scottish Football needs a strong SMSM.
    ………………
    One can only hope Mike Ashley does not get involved, All these Dave king’s to deal with

    View Comment

  37. Cluster One 17th November 2018 at 11:28

    theredpill 17th November 2018 at 10:45
    0 0 Rate This

    May be of interest to a certain poster.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46238619
    …………………….
    Appeal! it’s the in thing i hear.

    Arbroath-haters! Where’s the addresses for UEFA, CAS, FIFA, European Court of Justice, RSPB, etc. Most likely a plot by those Gable Endies…

     

    Scottish Football needs a strong and lawyered-up Arbroath.

    View Comment

  38. redlichtie 17th November 2018 at 11:40

    '…Where’s the addresses for UEFA, CAS, FIFA, European Court of Justice, RSPB, etc. Most likely a plot by those Gable Endies…'

    __________________

    " An SFA spokesperson , who does wee homers for quite a new club, issued this statement:  ' This action shows the utter fearlessness and  personal integrity of the SFA, and  its  commitment to the impartial administration of justice and the overriding necessity of maintaining the highest standard of integrity in every aspect of Sport.

    Not even the powerful manager of an historic club, recognised as part of the fabric of Scottish society since 1878  and even with all his powerful friends in the SMSM at his beck and call, can hope to avoid condign punishment for whatever it was that he done(sic)" (by the way, whit did he dae?)

    View Comment

  39. John Clark 17th November 2018 at 12:17 (by the way, whit did he dae?) ……………… Think he said TRFC are a new club…Automatic 8 match ban.enlightenedmailheart
    DCK is to appeal it and want’s a 9 match ban.

    View Comment

  40. Been getting a few taxis recently and have found myself involuntarily listening to Clyde SSB.

    You would think by now they would have at least changed the name: there is a distinct lack of anything "Super" about the show.

    Anyway, I have developed an automatic response whenever Keevins' or Johnstone's voice comes over the airwaves: hackles come out and I typically swear loudly in the direction of the radio…followed by a swift apology to the wife and driver.

    I know, I should just ignore them but I just can't believe that they are still spouting their inane, unresearched p!sh after all these years.

    Those two should have been binned about 20 years ago, IMO.

    smiley

    View Comment

  41. Portbhoy 17th November 2018 at 13:36

    "Since it's no' busy, another howler from keevins"

    Possibly the last football truth that the auld duffer ever uttered! 

    And what powerful influences could possibly have been required to change the  mind of so upright, steadfast, reliable gentleman of the Press?

    Will future generations shower honour and tribute upon him, and number him with Woodward and Bernstein, Galizia and Colvin and other such heroic journalists?

     

     

    View Comment

  42. StevieBC 17th November 2018 at 14:07
    Anyway, I have developed an automatic response whenever Keevins’ or Johnstone’s voice comes over the airwaves: hackles come out and I typically swear loudly in the direction of the radio…followed by a swift apology to the wife and driver.

    I know, I should just ignore them but I just can’t believe that they are still spouting their inane, unresearched p!sh after all these years.
    ………………
    I stopped listening to Clyde SSB. When after this.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1059549504905592832/photo/1
    DJ was all happy with glee when he told a caller “Let’s wait and see what Ally spends the £30 million on”

    View Comment

  43. Portbhoy 17th November 2018 at 15:00

    '..A real journalist!!  [and link to Ian Archer]

    And that link prompted me to refer to this link

    https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/a-permanent-embarrassment-and-an-occasional-disgrace/comment-page-111/
     

    And I was prompted to do so in order  to remind myself and anybody else that RTC ( the person) and the RTC blog was not about Rangers Football Club and any religiously sectarian philosophy, but about Rangers Football Club as a club the Chairman of which cheated Scottish Football for a decade, and brought about the inglorious death of that club by his megalomaniac( as I would judge) fantasies , while his own business empire proved to be founded on sand.
    (but he made sure he was all right!)

    View Comment

  44. I've just read this from Phil:

    https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/11/17/the-benefit-of-gallows-humour-at-sevco/#comment-36798

    If Rangers International Football Club plc along with Elite Group.com go ahead with opening a store in the centre of Glasgow selling "RFC" branded merchandise in contravention of recent High Court judgements telling them that they must not then, will that company run the risk of being held in Contempt of Court with all of the attendant financial penalties that can be imposed by the court?

    If so then it would appear that a suicide beckons.

    View Comment

  45. StevieBC 17th November 2018 at 14:07

     

    Been getting a few taxis recently and have found myself involuntarily listening to Clyde SSB.

    You would think by now they would have at least changed the name: there is a distinct lack of anything "Super" about the show.

    Anyway, I have developed an automatic response whenever Keevins' or Johnstone's voice comes over the airwaves: hackles come out and I typically swear loudly in the direction of the radio…followed by a swift apology to the wife and driver.

    I know, I should just ignore them but I just can't believe that they are still spouting their inane, unresearched p!sh after all these years.

    Those two should have been binned about 20 years ago, IMO.

    smiley

     

    You are missing the point. There is no need for research so long as there are two bitterly opposed sides to Glasgow football and I don't mean the Thistle v Queens derby (forget Clyde they legged it years ago but in the wrong direction, should have been EK)

    Derek is a paid propagandist by Rangers much in the same way that on Traynors show Andrew in Bridge of Weir was actually Allys pal but Traynor always managed to get him on the show.

    The BBC eventually woke up to the Traynor "I support Airdrie" bias shortly before he was forced off but in his last shows Cosgrove from the "most ill informed show on radio" had to babysit him on air.

    View Comment

  46. I can think of no legitimate reason for a PLC paying personal legal bills for one of its shareholders. How could they possibly justify that.

    It could only be considered a dividend if he was getting it as a shareholder, which is not possible because if it was that then every other shareholder would be entitled to the same.

    It can only then be considered a payment, but a payment to him as an employee, not a shareholder. 

    I don't know if Phil is correct or not with regards King's legal bills being paid by the PLC (and indirectly the club as it is the PLC's only source of income) however if he is correct then a few questions occur.

     

    1, How is it reflected in the accounts.

    2, Is it taxable income in the UK, if so how is King declaring it.

    3, How are they justifying spending the shareholders' money in this way, or rather increasing the losses.

    If Phil is correct this is really rather significant. It looks like the board of the PLC, and King in particular, treating the shareholders' money as if it is their own.

    View Comment

  47. Bogs Dollox 18th November 2018 at 00:47

    "….much in the same way that on Traynors show Andrew in Bridge of Weir was actually Allys pal but Traynor always managed to get him on the show."

    ____________________

    Not fifteen  minutes ago I listened to one James Boyle, the man credited with setting up BBC Radio Scotland (40 years ago, apparently).

    Let me quote an observation he made: "..the BBC is ill served by anything that damages it."

    Was there ever anything more damaging to BBC Radio Scotland than the eager readiness with which it suppressed, and continues to suppress,  any discussion of the ridiculous nonsense behind the propagation of the offensively untrue proposition that a football club which only came into being six years ago is the same club which legally ceased to be entitled to participate in Scottish professional football when, by reason of massive debts, it died in the market place-went bust into Liquidation?

    We know, now, as never before, that the BBC is not above a shabby thing , and has employees prepared to ignore truth and reality.

    And if the BBC can do that in the matter of local sport, what might it do in much more serious matters?

    View Comment

  48. I was present today to see the unveiling of a statue to Celtic legend Bobby Lennox in his home town of Saltcoats.  Aside from Bobby, also present were Jim Craig, John Clark, Bertie Auld, Danny McGrain, Roy Aitken, George McCluskey, Peter Lawwell, John Grieg and Andy Cameron. All of those people took ample time to shake hands and pose for photos with anyone who asked.

    It was a lovely reminder of how respectful football can be, amidst the acrimony we sometimes seem permanently mired in, and a fitting tribute to one of the greatest players this country has ever produced. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    View Comment

  49. Celtic’s Annual General Meeting will be held at Celtic Park at 11.30 am on Wednesday 21 November 2018.
    ……………
    Will be an interesting AGM this year i think.

    View Comment

  50. I notice some talk of a source of revenue for Scotland's youngest team by opening a store in St Enoch Square, Glasgow.

    Not sure how that's going to work out if they think the word "PARTIME" exists and that there should be an apostrophe in "WEEKEND SALE'S".

    Each to their own.

    Or to there owing.

     

    View Comment

Comments are closed.