Comment on Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review) by LUGOSI.

    Big Pink 6th September 2019 at 16:54

    Have you all left?

    Big Pink 8th September 2019 at 01:39

    Does seem spooky. Unusual and spooky.

    I can only speak for myself but recent/current events may be overshadowing football. For a couple of years we've watched POTUS and thought we've found someone who lies more glibly and more shamelessly than Dave "No Shares But Club Owner" King.

    Surely we can't lower the bar?

    "Hold my beer" said Boris.

    Boris has managed to out-Trump Trump and he's done it in days.

    Big Pink is correct about spooky and unusual but it's nothing to do with posting on here. It's spooky and unusual to hear about Tories who have been booted out or resigned being referred to as the Good Guys who are looking after democracy, who are following their consciences and are acting in the national interest. A quick skim through the 21 MPs booted out during the week would not throw up a history of Good Guys. I don't think any of them has done other than consistently act and vote in a narrow, self-serving fashion which hasn't given two hoots for democracy, conscience or national interest. You don't have to go further back than last night to find a Conservative MP resigning from the Cabinet and leaving the Tory Party for what seem to be being touted as laudable reasons. Even if you were unaware of Amber Rudd's views and history 5 minutes on Google would inform you on what she cares about what the people think, what she can and can't do with a seemingly clear conscience and the specific part of the nation she thinks has more of an interest than the rest.

    The current playing fast and loose with the law, facts and how you treat the public could have come straight out of the SFA/SPFL/MSM playbook. Anything goes so long as mission accomplished. Time will tell, in both cases, if we get the right outcome.

    In the meantime to keep a grip on sanity I suggest reading the parody Sweary Bercow Twitter account. Mr Bercow, even with his own flaws, may become the Tory who stopped or possibly ended the Tories.

    Spooky and unusual but not a worry.

    LUGOSI Also Commented

    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    Is anyone allowed to report unsourced UEFA decisions?


    As a reward for acting like normal human beings on one occasion in a mere 329 years The Rangers may sell an extra 3,000 tickets for their next home European fixture.


    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    Isn't there yet another staunch Court Hearing today?

    Memorial Walls Ltd v The Rangers Football Club Ltd?

    You've got to love that "The". You've got to be sure you're suing the proper party. You'd look silly suing Rangers Football Club Ltd or A Rangers Football Club Ltd or Any Rangers Football Club Ltd.

    From memory the Referee is Bannatyne, Lord, so the Court should be fully aware of the history of at least one of the parties. There is the potential for confusion if it is thought that the dispute concerns a Wall as a Memorial to a misfortune in 2012. To be consistent the dispute should not be about A Wall; it should be about The Wall.

    Hopefully there will be no traditional singing from the The Rangers end of the Court.

    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    In the less than two days since the UEFA "bombshell" disciplinary decision (which would have been no "bombshell" at all to the The Rangers officials who would have been informed of the citing within days of the match in July) I've read and heard some of the most dishonest, disingenuous, misguided and delusional tosh the quality and integrity of which is rapidly approaching "Club dies/Haud oan, naw it disnae" proportions.

    If one were to believe press, radio, online fora and the The Rangers support utterances you would be left with the impression that there was an open question as to what singing was and was not acceptable.

    You can have your own opinion on the Walls of Derry and whether or not such a song has anything to do with football. Such is not the case with the Walls of William.

    It is over ten years since William Walls v The Procurator Fiscal, Kilmarnock [2009] HCJAC 59 in which the Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary exocetted the suggestions that singing about Fenian bastards and FTP was not sectarian and that the Famine Song was not racist. I paraphrase but the Opinion of the Court was: Aye they 'ucking are."

    It is noteworthy that in the Walls v PF Kilmarnock case a notable absence in the repertoire was the always popular The Billy Boys; a charming ditty about murdering Roman Catholics. Had it been included presumably the conviction at Sheriff Court level would have been appealed on the ground that singing about being up to your knees in Fenian blood is merely a reference to bloodletting, an accepted medical procedure in the Seventeenth Century.

    Fanciful? Perhaps, but not any more fanciful than the actual proposition advanced in the Appeal Court (Findlay QC) that the Famine Song should be equated with God Save The Queen and Flower of Scotland. Unsurprisingly GSTQ and FOS was met with GTF.

    It's doubly fortunate that TBB didn't feature as in addition to the intrinsic problem of defending its content a couple of years earlier (2006?) UEFA had expressly banned it.

    We are where we are but nobody can say it is a surprise. For years if not decades this day was coming. Now those in positions where they could have done something, or anything, about it have to have their feet held to the fire (unless this would be contrary to a tradition which has to be staunchly defended).

    In no particular order the SFA, the SPFL, Police Scotland, clubs' inhouse stewarding, clubs' supporters associations and the goverment, both at national and local level, require to have a stated position on this question and further require a stated policy of what action will be taken.

    All reasonably minded people, whether they follow football or not, are entitled to know what kind of society they live in. If it's a society that is going to allow this type of behaviour, with the occasional interference from pesky outsiders, to continue those reasonably minded people would be forgiven if they took the view:

    Racism? Sectarianism? Offensive Behaviour?-

    Surrender? No.

    Recent Comments by LUGOSI

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Jabba really doesn't get the Squirrel/Dead Cat concept, does he?

    The idea is to distract and stop people looking at things which may be unhelpful. Instead Jabba is flagging up that something less than wholesome is coming down the tracks and rather than being distracted we are all concentrated on the undoubtedly bad news to come.

    Good work, Evil Genius/Useful Idiot.

    Even a brief look at the stauncher sites last night showed a desperate clutching at straws which was doomed to fail. It's a rum day when Spoutpish, sub nomine TheLawMan, came across as a voice of reason (compared to the rest) but he kind of gave the game away when he opined that one of the lowpoints was when 12 people failed to find Craig Whyte Guilty. I did not attend the Trial but I'm sure Spoutpish did. If you attended the Moon Landing, assisted in the hunt for Moby Dick and were on the Grassy Knoll you're not going to miss the Trial Of The Man Who Killed My Club. Given that he self-identifies, inter alia, as TheLawMan did he not look at the Jury and wonder why three random persons were sitting beside them?

    T'Rangers Statement O'Clock, which is a corner that the MSM and those enraged thereby have boxed them into, should be a thing of beauty.

    HMRC Statement:-

    "We won.

    We can count."

    TRFC Statement:- (?)

    "Naw ye didnae.

    Naw ye cannae."

    In Whose Interests
    I hadn't looked at this site for a couple of days and when I did I saw the number of Thumbs Downs and asked myself the obvious question: What's Spoutpish been saying now?

    Reading further I found out that an innocuous comment about Trade Marks and Intellectual Property concerning the "Old Firm" was the trigger. 

    This matter was raised and discussed in the past without any resolution.

    It may be that Celtic are blocking T'Rangers taking over the "Old Firm" and monopolising it for whatever means. It may be that Celtic are operating or co-operating with T'Rangers for whatever means.

    I think Celtic have been asked in the past what the position is and if there had been a meaningful definitive answer there would be no discussion now.

    The origin of the "Old Firm" phrase is not clear. The two versions I've heard are commentators referring to the old, firm friends and a reference to the Old Firm of a commercial, business, limited company nature.

    Either way the phrase has no relevance or sensible meaning today.

    A simple two word phrase falls on both counts.

    Before anything can be called "Old" you have to wait for a lot longer than seven years to pass.

    Before anything can be "Firm", be it in partnership based on friendship or finance, you are going to need something other than the attitude, noise, behaviour, actions and statements coming from one half of this putative "Firm" before the other half would want or need anything to do with it.

    From memory Celtic have gone out of their way not to to utilise the phrase preferring the neutral derby description. Celtic fans took a page in the Sunday Herald to expressly state that the next game between Celtic and T'Rangers was the first meeting between the clubs. Nothing Firm or Old about it.

    If you're looking for evidence to support the "it's the same club" view Peter Lawwell wasn't helping when he famously, at a Celtic AGM no less, in response to a question from the floor about the media reporting Rangers as a club founded in 1872, said "Rory Bremner can pretend to be Tony Blair." For a man much maligned, possibly fairly on occasion, his view is crystal clear.

    As far as the Thumbs Downs are concerned it is hard to take seriously any discussion about any Ibrox based entity concerning itself with Property, particularly when it is Intellectual.

    I can see the point of Thumbs Ups but without some accompanying comment I don't see the point of simply TDing.

    Unless it's Spoutpish when TD says it all.

    In Whose Interests
    John Clark 5th November 2019 at 00:31

    Care has to be taken when dealing with "judicial knowledge". Sometimes it includes things that you wouldn't expect it to and vice versa. Like most legal concepts it's practically limitless.

    One small example is that there is a difference between judicial knowledge and personal knowledge. For example, on more than one occasion an Appeal has been successful on the basis that the lower Court had taken into account previous convictions which had not been properly laid before the lower Court and admitted or proven. The Appeal Court view was that the previous convictions were not within judicial knowledge and not admissible. More than once the lower Court had proceeded as it did because the Judge, usually a Sheriff or a Justice of the Peace, was the person who had found the person Guilty and jailed or fined them. Personal knowledge, which would appear better than general judicial knowledge, was not within judicial knowledge.

    What is or isn't within judicial knowledge; Tuesday follows Monday, English Law has to be proven, is an interesting philosophical subject but in the real world where you want to get things done the prudent approach is to assume you have to prove everything. In more than one case where GASH has been involved I don't understand why, when issues of credibility arise, the opposing party's List of Authorities does not include the South African Court Decisions and the portions thereof, which are so familiar that none of us will ever again hear the phrase "glib and shameless" without thinking of GASH, read aloud to the Court. GASH might say that was in South Africa. Court should say so a South African Court would just ignore anything in a Scottish Decision.

    Who knows what weight it would carry but you wouldn't have to worry if it was or was not within judicial knowledge. We know that reference to it would not bring any shame; that's one of the few upsides to being shameless. We also know that reference to it would remind those who already knew and bring it to the attention of those who didn't know or who prefer to ignore or forget. 

    Facts, judicial or otherwise, can be awkward. Even more awkward can be legal fiction, eg GASH is as honest as you are or I am.

    I can't speak for you but I'm not having that.

    In Whose Interests
    As a rule when I am presented with Accounts (or anything with numbers) my instinct is to leave it to those who know of what they speak to provide analysis. My only contribution when numbers are added/subtracted and reference is made to mathematics is to pettily quibble by pointing out it's arithmetic. Others on this site; easyJambo (and for once I hope I've spelled that correctly- I'm forever writing his name with a capital initial) Homunculus, StevieBC, Timtim and more are in a better position to highlight parts of the most recent financial statement from T'Rangers and the conclusions or inferences that can be drawn therefrom.

    Without having to bother about things like Profit and Loss Accounts, Balance Sheets and other things which I will readily confess make my eyes glaze over like a Ming vase the things that catch my attention are things which simply cry out for attention and answers.

    Some, if not all, of these things have been commented on but they're worth repeating.

    Why are we still being told the Thoughts Of Chairman Dave? That's Club Chairman Dave? Didn't the same Club Chairman's last Statement following the Cold Shouldering say he didn't hold any shares in his own name? I recall MASH going to the Court of Session about GASH not being a fit and proper person and the case ended when the SFA belatedly said he had no connection to the Club so they hadn't decided one way or another. Do the SFA not read or follow what is being said by or on behalf of its members? It's binary; either GASH is involved with the Club or he isn't. If he is his forty-odd criminal convictions raise obvious questions about fitness and propriety. Factor in his conduct with the Take Over Panel and the decision that followed and you answer those questions. Not F&P then, not now and should never be. To say otherwise is tantamount to saying there might be a future place in Scottish football for Craig Whyte. We know that's not going to happen and compared to what GASH has done and is continuing to do Craig Whyte was a rank amateur.

    What happened to Metro Bank? All that I knew was that The World's Most Successful… banked with an institution which I had only heard of as a free newspaper on the train. So last year/Financial Statement:- Metro; this year:- Barclays plc. What happened? What changed? I assume Barclays keep up to speed with news which might affect them so does this mean Cold Shouldering has zero affect? If it does why Metro no more? The Auditors, Campbell Dallas(?) clearly see no problem with Cold Shouldering or if they do it's not big enough to stop them picking up Audit fees. Ordinarily whenever anything changes down Ibrox way the merde polishers are out, e.g. Close Brothers loans are overdrafts, so why didn't we get a Statement, accompanied by trumpets, bugles, trombones and hautboys, that Barclays are now the Chosen Ones and We Have Always Been At War With Metro Bank?

    Does Financial Fair Play mean anything in Scotland? If it does there's one glaring example of a Club which can be used to explain how the rules apply. If the figures coming out of Ibrox over the last few years don't fall foul of FFP it's hard to imagine what would.

    Mention has been made of the report that legal and professional fees had gone up by £3.6 million. As easyJambo pointed out that's £70,000 a week or £10,000 a day. Think about that. Yesterday down Ibrox way not much was happening but by the time it got dark they had lost ten grand. Not ten grand on players or world-class breakfasts but on legal and professional fees. And the same thing will happen today and tomorrow. Those figures appear pretty striking but what struck me was that those figures are not their legal and professional fees; rather they are what those fees have "gone up by". So ten grand a day is in addition to what they spent on those fees last year; a year punctuated by MASH and Take Over Panel proceedings all of which they lost. This and next year are unlikely to be cheaper as MASH aren't going away and even T'Rangers concede they've lost the Memorial Walls case. Any others? Elite? Hummell? 32 Red? The Wi-Fi case? The owners of the St Enoch Square shop? The Erzyermacaroon Man?

    I await details but am I roughly right thinking they've 'fessed up to +£10 million lost, +£10 million spent since on players and c.£10 million needed to see out this season?

    What's the problem?

    £10 million + £10 million + £10 million= 1 Morelos. Plus change.

    In Whose Interests
    I was going to read the most recent decision in the seemingly neverending saga of T'Rangers when I noticed it was 82 pages long and decided I'd leave it until I had more time. Even a cursory glance at the report shows that the same names keep coming up; on the bench, in the dock, on the Prosecution/Pursuers side, on the Defence/Defenders side. To select one name at random Senior Counsel for the First Pursuer, Paul Whitehouse, is Dunlop QC. I think Roddy Dunlop QC must have featured in more T'Rangers related cases than most. He certainly appeared, without success, in the Supreme Court when he argued EBTs were fine. He has also featured in some appeal(s) against SFA decisions. In between I am sure he has featured in a number of court cases although I can't remember on which side. I'm not sure that there were many cases in which he was standing up to The Man but if Police Scotland and the Lord Advocate don't count as The Man I don't know what does.

    Even before reading this decision I get the feeling the Lord Advocate might emerge lighter in the pocket but relatively unscathed while Police Scotland might have bigger problems. At some point someone is going to ask how much time and money was spent on an inquiry into seven(?) potential accused which ended up with one going to trial and acquitted with the rest not even getting to trial far less convicted of anything. Following this the public purse is going to take a severe hit, already in legal bills and potentially in reparation claims. It is possible to have smoke without fire. Ask any smoker. It is also possible to have fire without smoke. Police Scotland seem to be in danger of spontaneous self-combustion. It's hard to see how they talk themselves out of the situation they created although if they're looking for inspiration they could look at the SFA and SPFL.

    As ever with T'Rangers it's nigh on impossible to keep up with things.

    In the middle of all these things whatever happened to Imran Ahmed? Who was he? What did he do? Who is he? Where is he now? From memory he was the only one who had the smarts to the extent that he was the only one who didn't have at least one overnight stay at a Police Office before appearing in Court. At least a couple of his former business colleagues had not just an overnighter but an overweekender before appearing in Court and then being pushed out of Glasgow Sheriff Court to cameras, press and baying mobs. As far as I know Imran Ahmed has never been in Court in connection with T'Rangers although I recall that at one point he recognised a gravy train when he saw one and there was talk of suing for wrongful prosecution. When you see a chance odds are you're a chancer but if you're Imran Ahmed and you look around you why not?

    Maybe, as a bit of light relief, we'll get some Accounts and an update from Sports Direct.

    Accounts=We're not telling you.

    Sports Direct=Next year's away strip will be green, white and gold as a tribute to Glasgow Corporation buses.