Time to Ditch the Geek Show

 

The link at the bottom of this piece points to an excellent blog by James Forrest on the ‘decline’ of the Old Firm, and particularly the viewing figures for the recent matches between Celtic and TRFC.

Whilst James, as you would expect is focusing on the consequences of the OF tag for Celtic, it is worthwhile considering that the decline in viewers is an excellent litmus test of the provenance of TRFC with regard to RFC.

Is it because the ‘you’re not Rangers anymore!’ faction is winning the argument?

Or might it be that viewers, voting with their feet, are simply indicating what many of us have said all along – that a brand name does not amount to serious competition.

There has been a presumption – particularly held in the MSM- that Scottish football badly needed a Rangers to provide a challenge to Celtic dominance. Our counter to that is that TRFC, representing the ‘Rangers’ constituency, are in no position to provide any such challenge.

Common sense dictated this.

Not that common sense came into it for our newsroom chums. At the beginning of last season, a whole troupe of hacks ventured their prediction that TRFC would win at least one trophy in that campaign. Again this season, despite the huge gulf in performance levels between TRFC and the top two, even more hacks are queuing up to offer their optimism on the Ibrox club’s chances of success and glory.

I am bound to say that those same hacks will be quick to point out Gordon Strachan’s shortcomings as Scotland manager whilst ironically demonstrating, through their predictive deficit,  that their football judgement has little if any bearing on L’actualité.

I am however disposed to charity. Perhaps what they meant was that TRFC, given its massive fan base, has the most potential (in time) to challenge Celtic. Then, absurdly, the same MSM choke the life out of that potential by assisting charlatan after charlatan on their way through the self-enriching revolving door at Ibrox.

The TRFC potential, if it exists in the foreseeable future, requires the Ibrox club to be rid of those who still, after decades of disgrace and disaster, sell the same false promises dressed up as moonbeams to the masses.

In actual fact, and as it stands right now, Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts have a significantly greater potential to challenge for honours; they are well run clubs who balance the books. Crucially, they have no debt, no directors whose presence on their boards effectively cuts off access to investment – and they put the emphasis on building Teams (capital T) and not collections of individuals with an exotic distant-past, questionable influence, and huge draw on salary resources .

Even more crucially, they have realistic expectations of where they want to be in the short to medium term.

TV audiences, relying on neutral fans hungry for a spectacle will not be – in fact are not –  conned by this OF sophistry. Without doubt in my view, Scottish football is a far more interesting and compelling place now than it was five years ago. The brand has grown in the absence of the Old Firm, and with the right nurture, can grow even stronger.

TRFC can be part of it all, but the expectations have to be commensurate with their circumstances. All the OF has to offer is a 350 year old conflict that few of us understand – or care to understand. The MSM championing of that embarrassment is a major reason why Scottish football cares less about quality and diversity than it should.

The audiences however, will not be fooled.

Celtic, Rangers, the SFA and everybody else in our game need to jettison the OF brand. It is no longer – if it ever was- relevant. Paying customers in the 21st century deserve better than a geek show.

https://thecelticblog.com/2017/10/blogs/falling-tv-viewing-figures-for-old-firm-games-is-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-big-lie/

Pic from the Film Noire classic, Nightmare Alley

Big Pink

Big Pink

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67.

A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

611 Comments
  1. Auldheid


    WOTTPI 15.20
    The DK that cannot afford to make an offer to buy shares is not the same DK who was  ready to invest millions to make “Rangers” a major force in Scottish football
    That is unless he wins the Euro Lottery and then he is the same DK they thought they were getting when he took over their club.
    If there was a brain in Derek Johnson’s head right now it would be planning an escape rather than try to answer just
    a) what impecunious meant and
    b) why he consistently backs losers.
    Has anyone every thought of stepping back from this farce that demean Scottish football and Scotland and said enough!
    No more bending reality until it is pretzel shaped because the truth will be easier to manage than prolonging an illusion.
    This whole saga insults the intelligence of anyone who has any and can only come from a place where intelligence is a stranger.

    View Comment
  2. jimbo

    jimbo


    You can’t beat a good court case.  Haven’t enjoyed myself so much on here since the Craig Whyte trial.04 12

    View Comment
  3. Tincks

    Tincks


    Alasdair Lamont‏ Verified account @BBCAlLamont 12 minutes ago Counsel says situation is stark. Does court have discretion? If it does what discretion does it have? Court over for today. Back tomorrow 10
    ————————————————————
    HomunculusOctober 12, 2017 at 16:07   
    I see he ended by throwing himself on the mercy of the Court.
    ————————————————————
    Hom,

    Agree, that this seems the only way to interpret the counsel’s statement.

    It strikes me that unless the Court gives DCK a “get out of jail free card” he might be running out of road. 

    View Comment
  4. jimbo

    jimbo


    “Counsel says situation is stark. Does court have discretion? If it does what discretion does it have?”

    That’s it in a nutshell, it’s what a court does when something isn’t specifically set out in law, where there is no precedent in civil law, they set a precedent.

    Just like employment law it evolves case by case.

    (I think!)

    View Comment
  5. woodstein

    woodstein


    Reading the dispatches from SFM reporters and tweets from Alasdair Lamont, I was reminded of this:-

     
    “Ernest Walter Saunders (born 21 October 1935) is a British former business manager, best known as one of the “Guinness Four”, a group of businessmen who attempted fraudulently to manipulate the share price of the Guinness company. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, but released after 10 months as he was believed to be suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, which is incurable.

    He subsequently made a full recovery.” 11
     
    Brass neck and blowtorches come to mind.

    View Comment
  6. Homunculus

    Homunculus


    So, does anyone think that the media in Scotland will report that the man who claimed he was going to (over) invest £30m – £50m in Rangers, and that he was willing to spend his kid’s inheritance, has now told the Court of Session that actually all of his assets are in a family trust and that the trustees don’t act on his “whims”.

    Throwing money at a loss making football club, tens of millions of pounds would almost certainly be considered a tad reckless. 

    Surely one of these things can’t be true, and one has to assume that what he told the Court of Session is the true version. Heaven forfend that he would lie to a court … 

    View Comment
  7. Homunculus

    Homunculus


    JIMBO
    OCTOBER 12, 2017 at 16:29
    ===============================

    Or more simply, Lord Bannantyne simply comes back and says that in his opinion he is only there to enforce the decision not to question it. Therefore get the offer made.

    Which would put Dave King in an even more awkward position as he has already said he can’t. If he just does it now, without some sort of smokescreen, then he was lying to the CoS.

    View Comment
  8. jimbo

    jimbo


    For Lord Bannatyne to merely enforce (reinforce?) the decision of the TOP & TAB would do for me.  That in itself might be considered a precedent for cases like this.

    View Comment
  9. jimbo

    jimbo


    Of course if DK continued in his failure to comply then I think we would move into the rather more serious criminality of Contempt of Court.

    View Comment
  10. Christyboy

    Christyboy


    And this is the guy that was given the all clear !!! Shambles. Absolute shambles .

    View Comment
  11. paddy malarkey

    paddy malarkey


    Big Sam for me . He will be looking for a way to redeem his reputation and can work in a less than squeaky-clean environment .

    View Comment
  12. upthehoops


    It is at times like this I think of the comforting words spoken recently by Mr Regan that the SFA act with the utmost integrity at all times. If they didn’t they might allow all sorts of fly-by-nights and shysters to gain control at Ibrox only for court case after court case to follow.

    Yes, our game is indeed in safe hands!

    View Comment
  13. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    All this talk of a new scotland manager and we have a ready made replacement, well if he was still here the SMSM would be pushing it.

    View Comment
  14. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    here it is, hold on to your hat

    View Comment
  15. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    god it will just not load. computer say no…no wonder

    View Comment
  16. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    Attachment

    sorry mods last try

    View Comment
  17. naegreetin


    Re Scotland Job
    I’ve just heard Alex McLeish interviewed on BBC 5 Live saying he is interested in the job ! I take it he doesn’t get irony – he wants a job (circa £400K) paid for by the taxpayer via the SFA to help him settle his HMRC EBT bill . Brass neck isn’t in it !

    View Comment
  18. Jingso.Jimsie

    Jingso.Jimsie


    I note that STV News At Six failed to mention Mr. King’s little difficulty in court today.

    View Comment
  19. Corrupt official

    Corrupt official


       Jeezo !…What now for Sevco?….Regardless of any verdict reached, even if he wanted to, Big Liar can’t just pull £12m out of thin air, let alone any larger sums, after the court was informed he is a busted flush…….That must be music to T3B’s ears…But what will the tune be?
       Fill yir boots.

    View Comment
  20. fan of football


    Could the GASL not just say 
    It was the oldco king that bought the shares 
    not him he’s newco king

    View Comment
  21. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    file this one under bluster.

    View Comment
  22. theredpill

    theredpill


    May be of interest,apologies if posted already.
    http://club1872.co.uk/news/show-racism-the-red-card-apologises-to-club-1872/

    View Comment
  23. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    Attachment

    file under bluster

    View Comment
  24. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    Attachment

    All that talk

    View Comment
  25. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    Attachment

    UPTHEHOOPSOCTOBER 12, 2017 at 18:14 9 0  Rate This 
    It is at times like this I think of the comforting words spoken recently by Mr Regan that the SFA act with the utmost integrity at all times. If they didn’t they might allow all sorts of fly-by-nights and shysters to gain control at Ibrox only for court case after court case to follow.
    Yes, our game is indeed in safe hands!
    ——–safe hands indeed

    View Comment
  26. Corrupt official

    Corrupt official


    Caution….Strong language.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao5Kq0hJwzY

    View Comment
  27. jimbo

    jimbo


    Have to admit I’m confused with all this NOAL connection with DK.  Apparently NOAL was the vehicle used by DK to purchase the shares.  DK had control of these share movements.    Rangers website stated that DK & family had an interest in NOAL.

    Despite this DK now states that NOAL would have to be responsible for any future share offers, not him.

    Whereas he seemed to be interlinked with NOAL in 2015 he now seems to be keeping NOAL at a distance.

    What happened?

    Is NOAL actually his family trust?  Have I got that wrong?

    View Comment
  28. jimbo

    jimbo


    John Clarke come in please, I’m all posted out.  As you can see if you have read back Alisdair Lamont was tweeting throughout the day.  And EJ gave us a great summary of the mornings events (including your rumbling tummy!).

    But still looking forward to your observations from today.  Take your time now I know your not getting any younger and it probably takes you a wee while to fire up your PC. 22

    View Comment
  29. John Clark


    Fleshing out the tweeted reports,let me report as follows:

    The Petitioners were represented by Mr James McNeill, QC, with Ms Almira Delibegovic-Broome, with 5 other folk.

    The Respondent (Mr King) was represented by the Lord Davidsonof Glen, QC, with 2 others assisting.

    There were three Press people , and eJ ( in the morning only) and me and one other member of the public in the afternoon, until two other young men came in towards the end of the day.

    On the  way in this morning there ws a BBC cameraman, set up to take a picture of King if he appeared in person. ( I spent a minute or two giving the chap a history lesson on the saga, and the BBC’s less than glorious part in it). And, of course, King did not appear.

    Mr James McNeill QC finished his case at about 3.00 pm after a ten minute comfort stop. He finished by observing that the ‘order’ being sought is not a punishment but enforcement of a requirement of which King was aware, and is not lacking in fairness, practicality or utility.And it is necessary to go back to the importance of the message that the Court sends out. He said the The Takeover Panel Executive, the Committee Hearings, and the Takeover Appeal Board are charged with maintaining proper regulation of Takeovers: the Court needs to be cautious, and he discerned no reason why the Court should not make an order that Mr King make an offer…We do not know, he said, how many people have been disadvantaged, disenfranchised, but….

    Mr Davidson, began his submission at 3.00 pm, after there had been a ten-minute comfort break.

    He referred to Mr McNeill’s remark about how many had been disadvantaged and disenfranchise, saying that a message could equally well be sent out to the effect that 65% of shareholders were NOT disenfranchised,nor are they locked into control.The idea that shareholders cannot sell their shares is nonsense.

    He then turned to Section 955. He observed that the Court can make any order. The words used in the section are “….May make any order.” The Court has discretion in the matter…

    Judge: Mr McNeill did  the Court had no discretion, just that the Court cannot NOT make an order..

    Mr Davidson: If Parliament were going to impose on the Court they would have done so, and not used the word ‘may’.

    An order would not be efficacious, because the Respondent has no funds.

    Further, the Respondent is a separate person from the Trust.
    And the ‘offer’ price of 20p is too low.

    In  relation to funds, there is  conflict’ If we lookat the Affidavit and the Sovereign trust letter, Kig had no claim on the trust set up after the ” settlement ” with SARS.All the assets are the Trust’s.

    The Petitioner does not care if King does not have cash.But  under the Rules (Rule 9.5) ” consideration for the offer must be made in cash..”, and the offer document says ” if the offeror is other than a company the offer document must contain a description of how the offer is  to be financed”

    Again, Rule 24(8) ‘cash confirmation’ requires that the offer documents must have  certificate that resources are available.

    How can this be done, if there are no resources.

    So, if an order is made, the offer cannot be made under the rules, and then if the order is made and cannot be complied with , there would be ‘contempt’.

    The Court should not order when it knows it cannot secure compliance.

    Mr Davidson referred to the Court’s power Not to make an order that forces someone to be in contempt.

    He read from another [judgment? I missed the reference]about the effect on third parties .

    He then reminded the Court that the objective is to achieve “equality of treatment of shareholders” , not pushing King into ‘contempt’.

    He referred to a judgment of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords where Lord Hoffman observed that “one is not obliged in every case to quosh a decision..”, inferring that one was equally not obliged to exercise a power, where circumstances would make the exercise of that power pointless.

    And that, he said, is where we are:it would be pointless to make an offer. The point of the Code is not to be unnecessarily burdensome, but to benefit the shareholders. If no benefit can be achieved, there is little point!

    As for the price of 20p, the current price is 27p
    Judge: is the question of price relevant?
    Mr Davidson: Yes.But what is the point of making an offer that no one in his right mind….
    Judge: But say someone like Ashley or someone wants just tom get out, and is ready to pay…
    Mr Davidson: i’d need to see evidence…
    Judge: But no one knows what shareholders will do.
    Mr D: But the Panel knows the answer, they know that the price is 27p. There is no evidence that there are shareholders champing at the bit, ….to sell at 20p. The evidence is other!
    Judge: There’s nothing in the Code that says it has to be an offer that might be accepted!
    Mr D: The Panel has to think of the consequences, it doesn’t have to do it. And one has to have regard to funds. Is there another way of securing compliance?
    Mr Davidson made reference to a previous decision by the Panel in which the ‘concert party’ satisfied the Hearing that they had simply not known anything about the 30% rule, when they unwittingly acquired a 50% share in a takeover.The judgment in that case was Not to force them tomake an offer, but to sit down and discuss alternative ways of complying.
    The same, said Mr Davidson, could have been done here.
    Judge: Mr King was reminded of the 30% but went ahead anyway.

    Mr Davidson:Not everyone has a grip on the Code:did King know what he was doing?
    Judge: to some extent he does just go ahead!
    Mr davidson:…… If he understands what is meant..
    Judge: In the other case, the Court was satisfied that the people did not understand
    Mr Davidson: What he is being asked to do is tell shareholders ” dear shareholder, I’ll give you 25% less than the going rate, which I have no funds to do….”
    Judge: Do I have to take into account….this is not a Court of Appeal.
    Mr Davidson: king is not the Trust..
    Judge: You are saying that the Petitioners are not paying heed to Trust law, and that King is was merely running around [ wihout actual authority] simply trying to influence the trust ..
    Mr Davidson’s fina lpoint for the day was to re-assert that the Court does have the discretion NOT to make an order.
    Court rose at 4.00 p.m, to convene again at 10.00 .a.m. tomorrow.
    ——————
    This is perhaps too long to remain as a post-maybe the mods might want to shift it elsewhere for reference?

    View Comment
  30. John Clark


    an amendment: in the tenth para, it should read “Judge: Mr McNeill did not say  the Court had no discretion, just that the Court cannot NOT make an order..

    View Comment
  31. easyJambo


    John Clark October 12, 2017 at 21:22
    In relation to funds, there is conflict’ If we lookat the Affidavit and the Sovereign trust letter, Kig had no claim on the trust set up after the ” settlement ” with SARS.All the assets are the Trust’s.
    ======================
    Thanks for the updates JC.

    Re the above point, if the Trust changes (apparently preventing King from having access to funds), took place as part of the settlement with SARS on 29 August 2013, then how the hell did he manage to finance the purchase of shares at £2.37m on 2 Jan 2015, a £1.5m loan on 22 May 2015, a further loan of £2.2m before 31 Dec 2015, and possibly a share of the £2.9m advanced in October 2016?    

    View Comment
  32. jimbo

    jimbo


    That was brilliant John, well done, it certainly did flesh out a lot of the tweets from AL.  Has given us a lot to muse over. Tomorrow will be interesting.

    View Comment
  33. John Clark


    easyJamboOctober 12, 2017 at 21:46
    ‘…how the hell did he manage to finance the purchase of shares at £2.37m on 2 Jan 2015, a £1.5m loan on 22 May 2015, a further loan of £2.2m before 31 Dec 2015, and possibly a share of the £2.9m advanced in October 2016. ‘
    _________
    Good question.
    But perhaps he applied to the family trust ( the way that the EBT chaps applied to their trusts!!) for the readies, and they agreed.
    Having listened to CW plead that he had no money, I sat astonished at what seems to be the inability of the Law to dig out and trace bank accounts. These days, I think even Swiss law has made it possible for the authorities to get info on the fabled ‘numbered accounts’.
    And if  you and the rest of us know that King had access to funds for those transactions,  why does counsel for the TOP not know? Or if he knows, why did he not ask questions?
    Common sense seems to be in short supply when it comes to drawing conclusions from actual matters of fact!

    View Comment
  34. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    easyJamboOctober 12, 2017 at 21:46   
    John Clark October 12, 2017 at 21:22In relation to funds, there is conflict’ If we lookat the Affidavit and the Sovereign trust letter, Kig had no claim on the trust set up after the ” settlement ” with SARS.All the assets are the Trust’s.======================Thanks for the updates JC.Re the above point, if the Trust changes, (apparently preventing King from having access to funds), took place as part of the settlement with SARS on 29 August 2013, then how the hell did he manage to finance the purchase of shares at £2.37m on 2 Jan 2015, a £1.5m loan on 22 May 2015, a further loan of £2.2m before 31 Dec 2015, and possibly a share of the £2.9m advanced in October 2016?
    ______________

    It was something that amazed me, on my one and only jury service experience, how so many obvious questions are missed or just not asked. Questions, or points, that could blow apart claims that the opposing counsel might make.

    Surely, even if the court was unaware of King’s ‘loans’ to RIFC (or just not allowed to mention them), there is an obvious question/point to ask/make that if King is so without funds, how on earth could he finance the purchase of shares, in an extremely dodgy venture (as are all/most football clubs)? Is King (his counsel) suggesting he spent his very last dime (last £2.37m) on his RIFC shares?

    Nobody spends £2.37m on any speculative investment if they don’t have even greater funds at their disposal to fall back on – unless it’s not their money they are spending, or it’s theirs, but for one reason or another, they need to ‘clean’ it!

    Now we can all accept, I am sure, that King may well not have the funds to finance a share offer, for he is a liar and a cheat, but if the court rules in his favour, or lets him off with a slap on the wrist, the Takeover Panel will be toothless forever more! And, of course, just because you don’t have the money to pay a fine, doesn’t mean you don’t get find, so it’s highly unlikely to be the case that just because you can’t afford to comply with a legal requirement, that the law says you don’t have to comply!

    Still, regardless of the outcome of this hearing, King appears to be a busted flush for TRFC, and his departure would more than likely help the club, rather than hinder it, unless there really is nobody out there with the wherewithal to rescue it!

    View Comment
  35. armchairsupporter


    EASYJAMBO
OCTOBER 12, 2017 at 21:46 


”… how the hell did he manage to finance the purchase of shares at £2.37m on 2 Jan 2015, a £1.5m loan on 22 May 2015, a further loan of £2.2m before 31 Dec 2015, and possibly a share of the £2.9m advanced in October 2016?”
    Other people’s money I should think, EJ. Did someone on here not once say that he had borrowed from one of the 3 bears or some such thing.
    Anyway great posts tonight. Thanks also to JC for keeping us updated.

    View Comment
  36. justshatered

    justshatered


    This may have been a question asked before so I apologize in advance.
    When Rangers entered Administration the TAX man made a claim as far as I’m aware for all of the National Insurance and Income Tax that Whyte had collected but never forwarded.I still find tn difficult to comprehend how this isn’t illegal but there I am, a simple guy.

    The Tax man also had the ongoing claim against the money paid to the EBT wheeze and submitted another claim for the Tax and National Insurance contribution that should have been paid on those payments.

    Given that HMRC won their case, and the Liquidators will adjust the pennies in the pound accordingly, how can HMRC continue to after the recipients of the EBT payments?

    While I have no sympathy for the individuals this seems, again to this simple guy, that HMRC will be getting paid twice; once through the Liquidators pennies in the pound and then billing the individuals.

    As for Dave King’s counsel today……………………………….. well who would have thought that a guy who attempted to hide cars, planes, bank accounts, property, and wine from the South African authorities would turn round and claim to be penniless!!
    Not me honest.

    Another question regarding this: If Dave King sells up and walks away would this ruling apply to the rest of the concert party?
    If it does not then this looks like a great sting by the rest of the concert party to have King as the fall guy. Remember there was the rumor that King borrowed the money from someone to buy the shares. It might have even been from someone who will gain if King goes.

    View Comment
  37. jimbo

    jimbo


    Can’t believe it The Daily Record has a very lengthy and informative story on todays goings on.

    “McNeill insisted King never offered “any evidence that Noal exercised any action independent of him”.
    And he’d had “ample opportunity” to provide documents proving there was no consort with the Three Bears but hadn’t done so.
    The panel said they had “no doubt” King controlled Noal voting rights and said he was able to remove members of the Rangers board to effect a “change of control” in early 2015.”

    Now isn’t that interesting?  King claims he has no shares in Rangers, has no influence on the actual shareholders (NOAL) and yet he was able to remove members of the Rangers Board!

    Something not quite adding up there!

    View Comment
  38. John Clark


    For the sake of completeness (is that a real word?) I’ll try to flesh out this morning’s proceedings as best as I can, [feckin rumbling tum kind of threw me; but I’ve clicked with the (female)court usher/macer! I complimented her on the acuity of her hearing! She was at least 10 yards away!]

    But I  think that it’s worth mentioning now that Counsel for the Petitioners used this kind of language on the ‘impecunious’ plea:
    ” I say that reliance on ‘impecuniosity’ is not relevant.He was warned of the likelihood of consequences but he went ahead.
    But if I’m wrong and it is relevant, this could be a rogue’s charter. It would be open to someone to structure their affairs.
    Also, it would be a charter for someone who had no funds to persuade someone to give him the money.”

    I take comfort from that, in so far as it seems that the Takeover Panel are ready to say ‘make the order, give him a deadline, and then if he still does not comply, jail him, otherwise there will be an epidemic of dodgy takeovers and the entire regulatory system of the market will be well and truly f…ed. And the prospect of a  jail sentence might suddenly bring to King’s recollection that, of course, there’s some money in the kids’ piggy banks that I can access.’

    And that brings me back to the fact that civil contempt is not a crime, and therefore is not an extraditable offence. So, if your man was to be held to be in contempt and sentenced to imprisonment, he can sit in South Africa ( and possibly in many European countries ) and V-sign the Scottish Courts!

    View Comment
  39. oddjob

    oddjob


    Just Shattered,
    HMRC would have had to prove that there was an intention to permanently deprive the Revenue of taxes due when Whyte was in control, before prosecuting. 
    It may be, that the ongoing ‘Big’ and Wee” tax Cases convinced HMRC to go down the insolvency route.
    Also, it is a legal requirement for all individuals in employment, to declare their Total Annual income to HMRC.
    So, as I said sometime ago, in response to Jimbo, there are more cherries to bite.

    View Comment
  40. Bogs Dollox


    John ClarkOctober 12, 2017 at 23:20 

    And that brings me back to the fact that civil contempt is not a crime, and therefore is not an extraditable offence. So, if your man was to be held to be in contempt and sentenced to imprisonment, he can sit in South Africa ( and possibly in many European countries ) and V-sign the Scottish Courts!
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    If Lord Bannatyne does not rule in favour of TOP to enforce the offer to other shareholders it doesn’t alter the fact that King has broken their rules and the “cold shoulder” treatment will still follow. It will be impossible for him to continue as a Director of RIFC without it impacting negatively on that company – they’d never get an overdraft!

    FWIW – I think the implications for market regulation are much too significant were King to prevail at the CoS. Therefore, I’m predicting a home win for TOP.

    View Comment
  41. Bogs Dollox


    oddjobOctober 12, 2017 at 23:33 
    Just Shattered, HMRC would have had to prove that there was an intention to permanently deprive the Revenue of taxes due when Whyte was in control, before prosecuting.  It may be, that the ongoing ‘Big’ and Wee” tax Cases convinced HMRC to go down the insolvency route. Also, it is a legal requirement for all individuals in employment, to declare their Total Annual income to HMRC. So, as I said sometime ago, in response to Jimbo, there are more cherries to bite.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    If HMRC recovered say 20% of the PAYE due on the EBT cheats remuneration would the cheat not be given a credit for this and only have to pay the 80% outstanding?

    The reality is that a lot of money will be owed by the cheats but they have had so much time to ship their assets over to wives etc that they will just be made bankrupt for 3 years and won’t pay a penny.

    View Comment
  42. John Clark


    Bogs DolloxOctober 12, 2017 at 23:41
    ‘… “cold shoulder” treatment will still follow. It will be impossible for him to continue as a Director of RIFC without it impacting negatively on that company – they’d never get an overdraft!FWIW – I think the implications for market regulation are much too significant were King to prevail at the CoS. Therefore, I’m predicting a home win for TOP.’
    ________
    I think, and hope, you are right.

    The guy is a LIEability.

    Worse than that, he couldn’t even begin to outsmart the arch-cheat, who has managed to  screw Scottish Football , causing the SFA to prostitute itself by selling sporting integrity for the sake of a few bob, and yet  retain his knightly honour.

    View Comment
  43. Homunculus

    Homunculus


    ODDJOBOCTOBER 12, 2017 at 23:33  
    Just Shattered,HMRC would have had to prove that there was an intention to permanently deprive the Revenue of taxes due when Whyte was in control, before prosecuting. 

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

    No they wouldn’t. 

    Fraudulent evasion does not require the intention to permanently deprive. 

    View Comment
  44. oddjob

    oddjob


    Bogs Dollox,
    I said on this site,about five years ago, that the EBT recipients were In a Catch 22 situation
    I said that, no matter the outcome of the Big Tax Case, the EBT recipients would be the losers, in that they would be pursued by either BDO for repayment of the “loans” or for the Income Tax due as on Paye Etc.
    I believe, considering that HMRC are batting from both sides of the net, that some equitable settlement may be reached, preferably to the benefit of the other creditors.

    View Comment
  45. oddjob

    oddjob


    Homunculus
    I Made no reference to “Fraudulent Evasion”.
    Collecting money on behalf of someone else, with no intention to pass it on is quite simp!y Theft,not Evasion.
    ,

    View Comment
  46. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    Credit where it is due (even to a member of the SMSM) for as well as his live twitter coverage of the hearing, Alasdair Lamont has made a fair fist of making a non-TRFC facing report for the BBC. 

    Unfortunately, while sticking to the evidence presented, he fails to question the impact on TRFC of the claim that King doesn’t have the £11-12m required to make the offer, in that, if he doesn’t have it to, potentially, keep himself out of jail, what chance is there of him ever producing it for the benefit of the club? But more importantly, he (and every other member of the SMSM) should be shouting the question, ‘did Dave King lie to the bears when claiming he could fund the club to the tune of between £20-£30m?’

    One thing is clear, Dave King has either continuously lied to every single bear in the world, or has just lied (for the umpteenth time) in a court of law! Regardless of the result of the case, the SMSM should have that fact plastered all over their latest copy!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41604582?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sportsound&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=scotland

    View Comment
  47. Homunculus

    Homunculus


    ODDJOB
    OCTOBER 13, 2017 at 00:52
    ===============================

    You said “HMRC would have had to prove that there was an intention to permanently deprive the Revenue of taxes due when Whyte was in control, before prosecuting. ”

    That is simply not true. If HMRC were prosecuting anyone it would be in relation to the fraudulent evasion of tax, not theft. Tax fraud is a matter assigned to them, they can legally investigate and report it. Theft is not a matter assigned to them, they cannot investigate it.

    Theft requires an intention to permanently deprive, tax fraud doesn’t. 

    View Comment
  48. scottc

    scottc


    ARMCHAIRSUPPORTER
    OCTOBER 12, 2017 at 22:28
    Other people’s money I should think, EJ. Did someone on here not once say that he had borrowed from one of the 3 bears or some such thing.Anyway great posts tonight. Thanks also to JC for keeping us updated.

     
    https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/08/29/the-carlos-and-dave-show/

    View Comment
  49. jimbo

    jimbo


    Alisdair Lamont not at court today

    View Comment
  50. scottc

    scottc


    JIMBO

    OCTOBER 13, 2017 at 10:28  
    Alisdair Lamont not at court today

    Hopefully someone else will live tweet it. If I had known I might have gone down there myself, being unexpectedly at home

    View Comment
  51. jimbo

    jimbo


    I checked James Doleman he’s not there either.  However I think EJ & JC are attending so we will get updates from them.  Just not live.  I think it’s only journalists who are given permission to tweet live from inside the court.

    View Comment
  52. Jingso.Jimsie

    Jingso.Jimsie


    https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2016/10/Rangers-Reports-and-Accounts-2016.pdf

    At the bottom of page 55 is this little gem:

    ‘New Oasis Asset Limited

    Shareholder

    On 22 May 2015, the company entered into a loan agreement with New Oasis Asset Limited totalling £1.5m repayable in December 2015. Since this date, this loan has been available on demand and New Oasis Asset Limited has advised that they will extend the facilities available whilst the funds are required by the Club.

    In December 2015, a further loan facility of £3m was agreed, of which £2.2m has been drawn down at the year-end. This amount remains outstanding at 30 June 2016 and is due for repayment in December 2017.

    New Oasis Asset Limited is a company controlled by the Group Chairman, Mr D King. No interest or fees are to be charged in respect of the facilities and the loan is being provided on an unsecured basis.’

    View Comment
  53. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    An excellent blog from James Forrest, pulling together what we’ve all known and said all along about King and his relationship with TRFC’s sycophants at Hampden and the SMSM.

    If only one hack had the decency, the guts and the honesty to hold up his hands and say, ‘we all got it wrong, about King and every other spiv at Ibrox. We must apologise to every Scottish football supporter for letting them down by our willingness to publish, without question, whatever we were told!’

    https://thecelticblog.com/2017/10/blogs/the-scottish-media-owes-us-all-an-apology-tonight-for-selling-dave-kings-lies/

    View Comment
  54. naegreetin


    Re Lack of BBC coverage at TOP/King COS
    You have to wonder if there is something sinister about the BBC’s decision not to cover what is both an important sport & business case – do they fear reporting something negative (potentially) regarding matters Ibrox related ?
    I tweeted Lamont querying whether he had a bigger story to cover to-day – v. strange .

    View Comment
  55. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    Jingso.JimsieOctober 13, 2017 at 11:04   
    https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2016/10/Rangers-Reports-and-Accounts-2016.pdfAt the bottom of page 55 is this little gem:‘New Oasis Asset LimitedShareholderOn 22 May 2015, the company entered into a loan agreement with New Oasis Asset Limited totalling £1.5m repayable in December 2015. Since this date, this loan has been available on demand and New Oasis Asset Limited has advised that they will extend the facilities available whilst the funds are required by the Club.In December 2015, a further loan facility of £3m was agreed, of which £2.2m has been drawn down at the year-end. This amount remains outstanding at 30 June 2016 and is due for repayment in December 2017. New Oasis Asset Limited is a company controlled by the Group Chairman, Mr D King. No interest or fees are to be charged in respect of the facilities and the loan is being provided on an unsecured basis.’
    ________________________

    If the court decision today forces King out of Ibrox, will he be prepared to leave this interest free loan at a club/business he must know/believe is on a shoogly peg? It’s one thing accepting a loss to enable you access to funds you are otherwise unable to touch, but to risk losing it all, or to never see it again? Might be better to pull the plug and get some, at least, of it back, I’d imagine!

    Here’s a wicked wee thought, for this Friday the 13th; would a heartless spiv, like King, find a way out of his ToP dilemma by forcing RIFC/TRFC into liquidation, so that there is no company left for him to make an offer to buy shares in? I suspect such a plan, if possible, would be time critical, and depend on how long he would be allowed before making his offer (ie, would it leave him time to call in his loan), but can anybody possibly be forced to buy shares in a company undergoing an insolvency event until, either, it comes out the other side intact (CVA), or falls into liquidation? 

    A rather naughty idea, I know, but I am sure it’s the kind of thing King wouldn’t balk at if he thought it would keep him out of jail/avoid the cold shoulder, with some of his money back! Something, perhaps, to bear in mind (a delaying tactic) if King tries to appeal (while he’s already appealed the ToP decision, he might be able to appeal the CoS decision, as it might be deemed a separate case) whatever the court decides.

    King’s QC must be costing a bomb, I wonder who he’s got meeting that bill?

    View Comment
  56. jimbo

    jimbo


    Checked AL tweet earlier and many people are not happy at the BBC not covering this like yesterday.  As one reply mentioned, a two day case and the BBC decide to cover only one day! 

    I mean the ‘story’ is of interest on two levels, football and business.  And it’s a biggie!

    Typical BBC Scotland.

    View Comment
  57. naegreetin


    Re AJ @ 11.34 13 Oct

    Also can King appeal against any decision given against him by Lord Bannytyne & so kick the can further down the road ?

    View Comment
  58. naegreetin


    Re my post above – sorry AJ you already asked my question in your post (must pay more attention !)

    View Comment
  59. easyJambo


    Hearing finished. We will probably have to wait for a month or two  for a decision though.

    Not much to report from today’s proceedings. The judge did have concerns about what discretion he had or didn’t have when coming to a decision and I don’t think he was any clearer by the end of the discussions.

    The only quote of note came from Mr McNeill when he described King as “not an unwitting innocent “

    View Comment
  60. jimbo

    jimbo


    Thanks EJ.  Wonder what a judge does in that circumstance when he’s unsure of his position.  Does he consult his peers or his superior?

    View Comment
  61. Smugas


    The only quote of note came from Mr McNeill when he described King as “not an unwitting innocent “

    There has to be an anagram competition in there somewhere…

    View Comment
  62. easyJambo


    jimbo October 13, 2017 at 12:15 
    Thanks EJ.  Wonder what a judge does in that circumstance when he’s unsure of his position.  Does he consult his peers or his superior?
    ===========================
    I don’t know, but I guess that he might talk to the Lord President (Lord Carloway).

    I hope Lord Bannatyne doesn’t get hung up over the nuances of the law (as the FTTT majority did) and just rules on the facts of the case.

    If the decision goes in favour of the TOP, then I guess that King could prolong matters by appealing the decision to the Inner House and have the case heard by three judges.

    King’s counsel did suggest that the judge might want to consider a further proof hearing, to confirm that status of King’s resources and the price to be offered, before making a final judgement.

    View Comment
  63. easyJambo


    JC was in court before me so caught the hearing that was heard by Lord Bannatyne before the King case resumed.  It was The Football Company Limited v Glasgow City Council. I’ll leave JC to comment on the detail of it, but it was related to the damage to the LED advertising boards that occurred following the 2016 Scottish Cup Final.

    View Comment
  64. sannoffymesssoitizz

    sannoffymesssoitizz


    justshatered October 12, 2017 at 22:31 
    “This may have been a question asked before so I apologize in advance. When Rangers entered Administration the TAX man made a claim as far as I’m aware for all of the National Insurance and Income Tax that Whyte had collected but never forwarded.I still find tn difficult to comprehend how this isn’t illegal but there I am, a simple guy.”
    =============================
    In law it was Rangers Football Club plc that failed to remit deductions of income tax and Class 1/1A NIC of the PAYE Regulations, not Craig Whyte.

    View Comment
  65. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    easyJamboOctober 13, 2017 at 12:09   
    Hearing finished. We will probably have to wait for a month or two  for a decision though.Not much to report from today’s proceedings. The judge did have concerns about what discretion he had or didn’t have when coming to a decision and I don’t think he was any clearer by the end of the discussions.The only quote of note came from Mr McNeill when he described King as “not an unwitting innocent “
    ____________________

    Thanks for that, EJ, it possibly explains why the BBC didn’t fork out the train fare for Alasdair Lamont! Nothing really worth tweeting about.

    The delay for a judgement possibly gives King time to remove RIFC/TRFC from the list of operating UK companies (see my earlier post) if he is so minded, thus relieving himself of the need to make an offer for shares should the court uphold the ToP’s decision.

    View Comment
  66. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    jimboOctober 13, 2017 at 12:15   
    Thanks EJ.  Wonder what a judge does in that circumstance when he’s unsure of his position.  Does he consult his peers or his superior?
    _______________-

    Tosses a coin, Jimbo, tosses a coin. Hence the well known legal maxim, often heard from the dock, ‘the judge is a ….King tosser’12

    View Comment
  67. easyJambo


    Wattie back in court next week re his pension fund.

    LORD BANNATYNE – L McNamara, Clerk
    Wednesday 18th October between 9.30am and 10.00am
    Preliminary Hearing
    CA84/17 Walter Smith v Neil Caisley &c – Drummond Miller LLP – BBM Solicitors

    View Comment
  68. oddjob

    oddjob


    Homunculus,
    The Revenue have a history of using the Theft Act of 1968, Section 72, to Prosecute.
    For Example check

    http://www.accountingevidence.com/blog/2012/07
    This is a report by Bartfields Forensic Accountants Ltd.
    In The early days of Vat, it was not uncommon for HMCE to use the Theft Act to pursue repayment frauds.
    Sorry I can’t post the link.

    View Comment
  69. jimbo

    jimbo


    Smugas,

    “not an unwitting innocent “ 

    Anagram as requested (It’s rubbish but the best I could do):

    Not a cent – nun – nit wit noggin.

    Excuse my unconventional spelling of none!

    View Comment
  70. John Clark


    easyJamboOctober 13, 2017 at 12:40
    ‘..JC was in court before me so caught the hearing that was heard by Lord Bannatyne before the King case resumed. It was The Football Company Limited v Glasgow City Council. 
    ________
    Yes, indeed, and quite entertaining.
    The judge ,Lord Bannatyne, sat around the clerk’s table with the parties.

    The Football Company appears to be trying to get the City Council  be held liable for damages under the Riotous Assembly(Scotland)Act 1822., which says

    ”  In every case where  any damage or injury shall be done to any…church, chapel or other building for religious worship, or to any house, shop, or other building whatsoever, or any fixtures attached thereto, or any furniture, goods, or commodities therein, by the act or acts of any unlawful, riotous, or tumultuous assembly of persons, or by the act or acts of any person or persons engaged in or making part of such unlawful, riotous, or tumultuous assembly, the party injured or damnified thereby shall be entitled to recover full compensation for the loss or injury, by summary action against the council …..within whose area]the loss or injury shall have been sustained, . . .  which action shall and may be brought before any competent court in Scotland.”

    The parties have already agreed some points,but there are issues over liability, quantum, and the evidence required.

    Lord Bannatyne was told there would be video evidence, and a time-line from Sheriff Bowen’s report of the Cup Final pitch celebration ( the judge said it was important that the time-line on the video matched exactly that in the report). And some police evidence and other witnesses will be called.

    On quantum, a laugh was raised when it was observed that the City telling the company that their track-side advertising equipment could simply be repaired was like telling someone whose colour TV is broken that it can be repaired to show programmes in black and white!
    On liability, the critical question is: at what point did the crowd of spectators become a ‘riotous assembly?

    The judge asked each party to submit their view on that question.

    And that was that. The actual case will be heard much later.

    (But why is such a matter going to the Court of Session? It sounds more like a Sheriff Court matter)

    View Comment
  71. Jingso.Jimsie

    Jingso.Jimsie


    JOHN CLARK

    OCTOBER 13, 2017 at 14:36
    ———————————

    From your report, I read that the SFA & their stadium offshoot (Hampden Park Ltd) have bumped the responsibility for damage onto Glasgow City Council, despite it being a match in an SFA-controlled  competition & played at a venue managed/operated by one of their subsidiaries.

    That seems far too clever for the SFA. Who are these people 01101921

    View Comment
  72. Homunculus

    Homunculus


    ODDJOBOCTOBER 13, 2017 at 14:11 Rate This
    ================================
    From your link

    “Recently Dilawar Ravjani was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment following conviction for conspiracy to cheat the public revenue.”

    “The offence of ‘Conspiracy to Cheat the Public Revenue’ is a common law offence in England & Wales with a history going back hundreds of years.”

    “The common law offence of ‘Cheat’ had applied more widely but was abolished by s32(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 except in relation to the public revenue.”

    With regards your second part, HMRC investigate VAT offences under Section 72(1) of the VAT Act, Section 72(2) makes false repayment claims an offence under Section 72(1). If the prosecutor then decides to actually charge the person it is up to them what to indict the accused with. 

    It is more common for HMRC to use the Fraud Act nowadays, but that is not available in Scotland, neither is the “Conspiracy to Cheat the Public Revenue” as it is under English common law. In Scotland HMRC may report the matter to the Procurator Fiscal as a tax fraud, however the PF then indicts the person under the common law. That is a matter entirely up to them.

    One last part, the PF will always expect a matter to be reported to them as a statutory offence if one exists. They will then decide to use the common law if they believe it is a better option.

    View Comment
  73. easyJambo


    How prescient of RTC ……………. from 11th September re chairmen coming out in support of moving on.

    Rangers Tax-Case‏ @rangerstaxcase 
    How long would be a decent interval before announcing “regional” SFA-organised games in Edinburgh and Aberdeen?

    ……….. and today’s announcement from the SFA:

    Scottish FA‏Verified account @ScottishFA 
    SCOTLAND | Aberdeen to host Scotland v Netherlands in an International Challenge Match on Thursday 9 November: http://scotfa.co/sconednov

    View Comment
  74. easyJambo


    Talking of Fraud  ……. A statement from Accies chairman Les Gray

    http://www.hamiltonacciesfc.co.uk/club-statement-2/

    The following is a club statement from the Chairman:
    Hamilton Academical FC have been the target of an elaborate fraud resulting in the loss of a substantial sum of monies. 
    The Police Service Scotland and our Bank are working closely with the club conducting a criminal investigation to pursue those individuals responsible. 
    At this point it is imperative that we remain calm and work together as we go through one of the most difficult situations we have faced as a club. 
    In the interim, the Directors intend to inject funds to meet the club’s ongoing obligations until the investigation is complete to ensure continuity. 
    It is our intention to host a media briefing to go into more detail when the initial legal and banking investigations reveal the facts. This will allow us to give full disclosure of the event. 
    No further comment will be made at this time as the Police investigation continues. 
    Les Gray
    Chairman

    View Comment
  75. easyJambo


    How the SA business media have covered the King takeover case.
    https://www.biznews.com/undictated/2017/10/13/micromegas-dave-king-rangers-fans/

    In September 2013, Joburg-based serial entrepreneur Dave King paid an eye-watering R706m to SA Revenue Services after a 13 year fight. His refusal to accept authority has now landed the JSE-listed MICROMega chairman back in more hot water. He is the focus of a well publicised court case brought by the UK’s Takeover Panel.

    King and his cohorts acquired effective control of the listed football club Rangers FC two years ago at a price of 20p. UK rules require him to make an identical offer to all other shareholders. King refused, arguing that as the market price had since risen to 32p, it was a fool’s errand.

    The Takeover Appeals Board then ordered King to make the offer by April. He refused once more. So a well publicised court case started in Edinburgh yesterday, one which is turning into a huge embarrassment for the serial entrepreneur. Specifically because of a boast before becoming Rangers chairman that he would inject £30m of his own money into the club.

    Yesterday King’s lawyers admitted their client doesn’t even have the £11m required to make the stand-by offer to other shareholders – much less what he promised. For Rangers fans, that news is likely to enjoy the popularity of a green and white jumper, colours of arch rivals Celtic.

    View Comment

Comments are closed.

SSL Certificates