Comment on To Comply or not to Comply ? by Allyjambo.

    BBC reporting here that both Brown and Naismith have been cited to appear before the beaks.



    Allyjambo Also Commented

    To Comply or not to Comply ?
    Sometimes I think technology is taking football down a road where the after-match reviews of incidents will provide bigger news than the game itself. According to a tweet by Jonathan Sutherland this is to be reviewed by the Compliance Officer too:



    Hopefully this use of technology will cut out, or reduce, the thuggish behaviour in our game, but I doubt it will because for too many players it's a part of their makeup.


    What annoys me most, though, is that these players are very skilful and should be good enough to rise above this kind of behaviour. For the record, in my opinion, this, and both of Naismith's kicks, should have resulted in red cards if the match officials had spotted them. I am certain that, in Naismith's case, the latest Ibrox appeal made it rather difficult for the officials to 'spot' the first, and encouraged them to go soft on the second incident. 


    I am not trying to do bit of whataboutery here, or tit for tat 'your guy's as bad as ours', more highlighting the problems this use of technology brings and how overturning one red card can create future problems for the game by making things harder for the referees in match situations.


    To Comply or not to Comply ?
    TheLawMan2 11th August 2018 at 11:54  



    Jimmy Bones 10th August 2018 at 22:15  

    Hello again – EJ: I am in complete accord with your "tiresome discussion" comment earlier today in respect of the whataboutery on Morelos's red card. I would add that it is a continuation of LW2 and SJ's efforts to derail the blog into meaningless arguments which deflect from the objectives of the blog.




    Everybody talks about Morelos for days – Nothing said.


    I respond – "tiresome" and "derailing the blog"


    Seriously ???





    We haven't been discussing 'Morelos', he's genuinely not that interesting. We've been discussing the overturning of the red card that was, surprisingly, given, then unsurprisingly, but without merit, overturned.


    It is the deflections away from the topic at hand that are so tiresome and designed to derail the blog that has people looking for ways to stop these apparently concerted efforts.

    To Comply or not to Comply ?
    I see Mark Dingwall is now calling for his cohorts to boycott House of Fraser stores. The bears are truly going up in the world! What a family photo album this will make; that's me picketing outside Sports Direct, then we went up in the world and this is me outside House of Fraser…


    Wouldn't it be Karma if Big Mike announced the orange tops would only be sold in House of Fraser storesmail


    Sorry, can't copy over link to Sun tweet.smiley



    Recent Comments by Allyjambo

    Dear Mr Bankier
    macfurgly 8th December 2018 at 18:41 15 0 Rate This easyJambo 8th December 2018 at 18:00 Allyjambo 8th December 2018 at 18:18 ————————- What strikes me about this is that it has taken so long for this apparent loophole in the Takeover Code to be exploited. We have been following the RIFC saga, but as far as I can make out, the Takeover Code has been regulating the whole of UK business since 1968 and with Statutory Powers since 2006. Has no-one tried this dodge before? King seems to have successfully undermined the fundamental principle of the Code, to protect the interests of small shareholders, simply by ignoring it completely until it suited him to comply. Every day is a school day right enough. I wonder how many other regulations governing the UK economy are being undermined as easily. I'm no lawyer, but if what King has done is OK by the TOP, then I can't see where the small shareholders could get a foothold in law to challenge it.



    Still no more than my opinion, and an uneducated one at that, but I believe the directors of all companies have a duty to preserve the rights of all shareholders and not to take actions that might, in any way, remove the rights, or diminish the share value, of all shareholders.


    The RIFC plc directors were all fully aware of King's protracted losing battle with the TOP and the law of the land, yet they proceeded with a policy that might well protect the company chairman from his duty under the law while knowingly taking action that would very likely end in them depriving shareholders of their rights under the law – rights that were currently being protected in the courts.


    I'd be very surprised if those small shareholders don't have some grounds to sue RIFC, or maybe the individual directors, but would imagine that that would depend on the outcome of the offer and whether or not there is a take-up that would have taken King over the 50% prior to the rights issue.


    Wouldn't it be so Kingesq if this did result in King passing the cost of his misdeed to the club or his fellow directors? And I wouldn't be surprised if he knew/thought it might be the case from the very beginning.



    Dear Mr Bankier
    macfurgly 8th December 2018 at 14:50


    I am of the opinion that the recent RIFC share issue shows exactly why the TOP was set up – to prevent the railroading of smaller shareholders by unscrupulous directors. We can see how King has initially taken control then used his influence over the less astute (and in this case, emotionally attached) shareholders to take control of the business and sideline shareholders who do not want the company to be run by King.


    Like most, I am baffled by the leniency being shown to King, for he has used his delaying tactics to secure a situation that might well enable him to achieve the end he has sought, at the expense of those who would have taken up the offer. These people will have lost out on (in some cases) a substantial amount of money while seeing their already diminished in value shareholdings become virtually worthless.  It seems incredible that the courts would allow someone to abuse the system in this way.


    I do, though, have a wee thought (hope, actually) that this might well backfire on RIFC/TRFC and that, having been denied what King was legally ordered to offer them, the shareholders sue the company (RIFC) for having acted in a way that denied them the opportunity to recoup part of their investment that is now diminished further. I suspect, though, that, should this be possible, they would have to be able to show (by way of the level of uptake of King's offer) that the share issue has directly prevented King reaching the required 50% before they can proceed.

    Dear Mr Bankier
    Ex Ludo 6th December 2018 at 17:35


    I wonder if the SFA suits are aware! This must have come as quite a shock for themdevil

    Dear Mr Bankier
    I remember from a good number of years ago that BBC Scotland sent a news team to Lithuania to investigate Romanov, on what was then no more than rumours/a hunch. They ended up showing a half-hour program of not very much. Now, on their very doorstep, with clear allegations (from a man in a position to know) in court that criminal money was used by one of our football clubs (regardless of it's age) not one member of our media is showing the least bit of interest.


    It's not even worth asking why that might be.



    Dear Mr Bankier
    HirsutePursuit 30th November 2018 at 01:30


    That's an interesting situation, HP, and one I'd like to see played out. I had wondered, though, if, in view of the success of King's delaying tactics, and should he be found in contempt, will the sentence handed down reflect this and be the severest penalty available as a result? (Rhetorical question 🙄)


    There is still, of course, the question of the 'cold shoulder' and how the financial world will view it in light of they way King has played fast and loose with the law. Will it result in a much wider effect than the mere 'cold shoulder', and could it have implications for the club and, for aiding and abetting King in his manoeuvres, the rest of the concert party.