Regular posters and contributors to the SFM may remember that – The Scottish Football Monitor

Regular posters and contributors to the SFM may remember that …

Comment on Two wrongs and a right by John Clark.

Regular posters and contributors to the SFM may remember that in October last year I wrote to Mr McRae, President of the SFA.I posted the text of my letter on 28th October (page 4 on the “Whose assets are they anyway?”, archived October 2015).
I had not received a reply or acknowledgement by 12th December, so I sent a reminder.
I received a reply to that reminder ,dated 16 December 2015, in which Mr McRae apologised for not having responded to my previous letter, and invited me to come and see him.
We arranged that I should visit him at Hampden on 19 January 2016 at 2.00 p.m.
Following the meeting, I wrote a summary of the conversation. I emailed that summary to Mr Darryl Broadfoot, Head of Communications, asking him to check whether my recollections were accurate, because I would be posting the summary on SFM.
I have not had a reply and I think I have waited a fair enough time.
So, here is the summary of an approximately 45 minute conversation.
I should first make it clear that Mr McRae said that he had no recollection of airing any of the views I had had relayed to me.
I should also say that I made it clear that while I contribute to SFM, I was not there as ‘officially representing’ SFM, although what I would say broadly reflected the view of many. ___________
“Note of informal meeting between [me] of Edinburgh, and Alan McRae, President of the SFA, with Darryl Broadfoot , Press Officer, at Hampden park, 2.00 pm Tuesday, 19th January.
Background:Mr [me] had written to Mr McRae in October 2015, to ask whether Mr McRae had really ( as had been reported to [me]) aired the following opinions: a) that Rangers FC were not Liquidatedb) that Rangers FC were put down to the third Division c)that Rangers FC were bought by Charles Green andd) that the team currently playing out of Ibrox Stadium and calling itself The Rangers Football Club Ltd is one and the same as the club known as Rangers Football Club, which is currently in Liquidation.
Mr McRae, through Mr Broadfoot, went through the points one by one.
On point one, There was no difficulty in agreeing that RFC had been Liquidated. That was accepted as a matter of fact.
On point two, Mr [me]argued that Mr Green’s new club had had to apply for league and SFA membership, and were therefore admitted as a new club to Scottish Football and allowed into SFL Third Division. They had as an emergency measure been granted conditional membership, and had had to seek the Administrators’ and Football Authorities’ agreement to the use of certain RFC(IL) players who had decided either to sign on with the new club, in order to play their first game as a new club. They were ‘put in ‘the Third Division as a new club, not as an existing club being relegated.Mr McRae , through Mr Broadfoot, argued that ‘put in’ and ‘admitted to’ are pretty much the same thing. The legal advice obtained was that Mr Green’s new club was not a new club, and the Authorities were stuck with that.Mr [me] referred to the 5-way Agreement, and made the point that two entities other than league or SFA representatives were signatories to that agreement: RFC(IL) and Mr Green’s new club. The two could not be one.Mr Broadfoot said that that was a matter of opinion. Mr [me] said that it was rather a matter of fact.Likewise, on the third point, there was disagreement. Mr Broadfoot, for Mr McRae, argued that Charles Green bought the club ( and Mr McRae personally added ‘and the “goodwill”’). Mr [me] pointed out that Mr G had NOT bought the club out of Administration, as had happened with other clubs, but merely had bought the assets of a former club that was NOT able to bought out of administration and was consequently Liquidated.
Mr Broadfoot said that Celtic and Rangers supporters might continue to disagree but that could only be expected. Mr [me] pointed out that this was not at all a Celtic-Rangers supporters’ issue, and that the Scottish Football Monitor , for instance, represented the views of supporters of many clubs.He further made the point that many sports administrative bodies had come under the spotlight in current times and people were naturally concerned that the governance of football should be above suspicion: and that substantial numbers feel that the Football Authorities have been at fault, in permitting a new club to claim to be an old club and pretend to the honours and titles etc etc.
Reference was made in the passing to some allegations that had been made that certain evidence relating to the Discounted Option Scheme had been withheld from the LNS commission, which occasioned Lord Nimmo Smith to be misled; and to the apparent negligent performance of the SFA administration under the previous President, who, both on account of his personal knowledge of the use of the DOS by Sir David Murray, and of his personal later receipt of an EBT , might reasonably have been expected to ensure a thorough and diligent examination of the information provided by clubs about payments to players. Mr Broadfoot ruled out discussion of the first of these matters because there was no evidence , and the second matter was also ruled out because, he asserted , the previous president is a man of the highest integrity. Mr [me] replied that work was in hand to provide to obtain evidence, and that the question of negligent performance of duties was not a question of ‘personal integrity’.
Mr Broadfoot opined that the future would show whether Scottish Football supporters were really concerned about the old club/ new club debate, if huge numbers turned their backs on the game.Mr [me]replied that a sport based on a false proposition, on what could be seen as a lie, no matter on what pragmatic reasons,would certainly wither if and when people thought the sport could be rigged.
Mr [me]was asked if , coming from Edinburgh, he was a Hibs or Hearts supporter., or perhaps a Celtic supporter. And whether he was going to tonight’s game. He replied that he was, as his name suggests , of Irish extraction and perhaps conclusions could be drawn. He would not be going to tonight’s game. And his interest in the present matter was rather more academic and objective than partisan.
The meeting ended cordially at about 2.45.pm “
_________________
I think I can say that Mr Broadfoot , opening the meeting, explained that for “purposes of this meeting, he was the SFA.” Mr McRae’s personal contribution to the conversation was therefore very little more than mentioned above, Mr Broadfoot doing most of the talking.
I will say further that I spoke to BP, and consulted one or two other posters before I went to the meeting, in order to make sure that my general understanding both of the principal events of the ‘saga’ and of the thrust of most of SFM’s contributors , who are drawn from supporters of many clubs,was sufficiently sound.
I give it as my opinion that I may have been invited to a personal meeting only because it might have been thought in some quarters that I was in possession of an electronic recording of what I told Mr McRae that he was reported as having said.And, finally, I declare here that my note of the meeting was written within two hours of the meeting, and reflects the substance of the conversation. It is exactly the note I sent by email to Broadfoot, except that I corrected a typo in the spelling of Darryll (I had ‘Caryll’), and have omitted my own surname. I also’justified’ the text.

John Clark Also Commented

Two wrongs and a right
Haywire, LUGOSI, and Jingo.Jimsie: many thanks for the references to Mariella.Quite an accomplished girl, and from the photo, quite a looker.


Two wrongs and a right
And, for such amusement as it may afford on a Sunday evening, having mentioned one author of former times, I must mention a modern author -an Australian- who was speaking on the radio book programme hosted by Mariella Frostrup who has a most seductive voice ( no idea what she looks like!). This author, quite a young-sounding female whose name escapes me ( possibly surnamed James), came out with this phrase: ” If we paid more attention to the radical particularities of observed phenomena..”.
For the rest of my short journey, I wondered whether, in discussing the O’Halloran business, we perhaps had not been paying close enough attention to such ‘radical particularities’. 2021
I wondered if we had not properly factored in the phenomenon of Mr Wright’s successes, and the possibility that he might very well tell his Board that if O’Halloran is allowed to walk for peanuts, he’ll walk as well.And if he tells his Board that, I’m pretty sure he will be listened to.


Two wrongs and a right
I fiddled about and found this: (and the word spelled ‘caution’ is pronounced as ‘cayshun’ in the language of the law.
From :’
‘ACT OF SEDERUNT (SHERIFF COURT ORDINARY CAUSE RULES) 1993 No.1956 (S.223)
SCHEDULE 1
Initiation and progress of causes
CHAPTER 27 CAUTION AND SECURITY’

Failure to find caution or give security27.9. Where a party fails to find caution or give other security (in this rule referred to as “the party in default”), any other party may apply by motion-(a) where the party in default is a pursuer, for decree of absolvitor; or(b) where the party in default is a defender or a third party, for decree by default or for such other finding or order as the sheriff thinks fit…….’
I would take it from that that if you don’t pony up, you lose!


Recent Comments by John Clark

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Talking about journalists, there is an email in my in-box from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

This is an excerpt from it:

“On March 9, 2016, employees of Mossack Fonseca, a Panamanian law firm that for decades had kept the financial secrets of global celebrities, oligarchs and criminals, made a stomach-churning discovery. Someone had copied huge amounts of data from its computers.Emails, contracts, banking statements – 11.5 million documents of the firm’s most sensitive client records, a staggering 2.6 terabytes of data – had been taken.
Suddenly, the day-to-day business of setting up shell companies in tax havens was no longer the priority. Instead, newly obtained Mossack Fonseca documents show, employees began working furiously on a new mission: find out who its clients were.
As a key player in the world of offshore finance, Mossack Fonseca had for years flouted rules requiring lawyers and other offshore specialists to identify and verify their clients, requirements designed to prevent aiding criminal activity.
Over the year, newly leaked documents show, Mossack Fonseca employees frantically emailed bankers, accountants and lawyers – the professionals who had hired the firm to set up shell companies for wealthy clients who wanted to remain anonymous – in an attempt to close the gaps in its recordkeeping.
Those intermediaries responded with panic and fury.“
THE CLIENT DISAPPEARED! I CAN NOT FIND HIM ANYMORE!!!!!!!,” Nicole Didi, a Swiss wealth management adviser, wrote in March 2017.
A long-time intermediary of Mossack Fonseca, she acted for 80 companies set up by the firm……..”

and so on.

Real, ‘Watergate’ kind of journalism is involved in this kind of reporting….

Puts our SMSM people who choose not to ask questions, not of guys like Putin or extremely powerful Arabian princes and such like, but of a tuppence-ha’penny Football Governance body  like the SFA, in a very, very poor light indeed.

To their shame.


To Comply or not to Comply ?
Cluster OneJune 23, 2018 at 22:27
‘May 22, to respond.June 26 principal hearing JC.’
easyJamboJune 23, 2018 at 22:36
‘The “Principal Hearing” is scheduled for that date….’
____________________
Thanks to you both.

I was beginning to think that fumes from Solvite wallpaper paste and B&Q’s best paint and whatnot had addled my brains!
—————-
One would have thought that the new CEO , eager to show a desire to be ‘transparent’ would have taken the initiative by calling a Press conference , or at least circulating the Scottish press, to give the kind of information about the mechanics of the ‘hearing’ that you  mention, eJ.

Are ‘charges’ under the Protocol being brought? Or is it a meeting merely to consider the ‘facts’ to decide whether ‘charges’ ought to be brought, and what those ‘charges’ might be and against which ‘legal person’? And such like.

I think if I had a ‘Press card’ I’d be persistent in asking Maxwell  for such info, and assuring him that an unwillingness to answer would be taken as a sign of a desire to be anything but ‘transparent’.

If, if, there was jiggery-pokery and lying and agreements to lie, then we would be in the realms of conspiracy to defraud ( a conspiracy which had very practical consequences for one plc, and perhaps for  other football businesses)

That is, the matter ceases to be simply an internal matter of football rules, but becomes  one with potential implications under both  criminal and civil law.

Any journalist who thinks it is  a piddling little trifle is no journalist! 


To Comply or not to Comply ?
Last time I was properly focussed on the blog I think we were looking forward to the SFA’s consideration of the Compliance Officer’s report of his findings following his investigation into the deceitful (possibly criminal)award of a UEFA competitions licence to RFC(IL) in 2011.

The date for this was to be 26th June, I think.

Can anyone reassure me that I didn’t imagine this? 


To Comply or not to Comply ?
Abbot of ClonmacnoisJune 22, 2018 at 22:42
‘….Rangers FC was found guilty by Lord Nimmo Smith of breaking the player registration rules of the SFA and SPL: 11 seasons, 500+ league, domestic cup and European matches, registration offences.
Guilty: Important point.’
______________________
A very important point, indeed. 
Which ought to have resulted in every match played while fielding even ONE ineligible player being awarded to the opposing team, and the expulsion of RFC(IL) aka Rangers 2012 from Scottish Football. For their monstrous cheating over such a long period of time. And SDM deserves to be stripped of his knighthood every bit as much as Goodwin was stripped of his. 
[Goodwin was operating in the purely business world whee, perhaps, lying and cheating may be the order of the day.
SDM was running a feckin football club, a sport! for heaven’s sake.]
But then arose the incredible Bryson, put on God’s earth to spin the most fantastic tale ever to be heard, believed and accepted by Scottish Football: that an ineligible player is not ineligible if  his ineligibility is discovered at a date later than the date he was deemed to be eligible!
Dante’s ‘Hell’ needs an extra circle for people like Bryson, I think.
And I will be first in the queue with the pitchfork trident up his jaxie, shoving him in deeper, to make him all square and level in the brimstone.07


To Comply or not to Comply ?
easyJamboJune 22, 2018 at 10:31
‘A quick update from this morning’s CoS hearing on the RFC (2012)/BDO v Henderson & Jones/ Wavetower/Sevco 5088 hearing………….
JC was there taking his usual copious notes, so will probably add more to the above.’
______________________
Just one possible amendment to make, eJ:

When Lord Bannatyne ‘cut through the Gordian knot’ with his
“I am minded to refuse [the [request for ] the specification, but respondent to produce within one week the [Collyer Bristow] settlement agreement [ in confidential envelope]…..would that suit you, Mr Fairlie?” , Mr Fairlie said he was content.

The judge then asked Mr Dunlop whether he was ok with that.

Mr Dunlop said “Yes. I will ask Collyer Bristow if they will waive and I will produce [the document]within 7 days of ‘caution’ being found.”

(This was ‘caution’ in the sum of £25K the amount of which had been agreed between Counsel before today and was not therefore  going to be argued about today  (although Mr Fairlie, when telling the judge about that agreement, represented that the whole question of ‘caution’ will need to be looked at later, perhaps in the hearing in early September)

And, of course, Lord Bannatyne had earlier established that it had  been agreed  that ‘caution’ was to be lodged within 14 days of today.

I took it that the ‘one week-fom -today’ timescale for production of the settlement agreement  was therefore amended to one week within H&J lodging the agreed amount of ‘caution’. That is, that the settlement agreement is not required to be produced until after  ‘caution’ has been lodged, which can be be up to 14 days from now.

But perhaps I misunderstood.

As for the rest, your summary is  spot on.


SSL Certificates