Comment on We’re Gonny Need Another Baw. by John Clark.

    Trisidium 22nd December 2018 at 11:09

    '…As long as we persist though, there can be no satisfactory victory for the cheats and the liars.'


    And may the ghosts of their Christmases past and present turn their festive food to ashes in their mouths, and their  drink to reindeer p..h!

    And let the ghosts of their Christmases to come hold up the mirror of truth to their faces that they might see themselves as the pitiable wretches that they have made of themselves for all time to come in the annals of sport.

    And may the most guilty celebrate in the fullness of time a Christmas or five in HMP Barlinnie after trial and conviction for conspiracy to defraud.

    John Clark Also Commented

    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    StevieBC 23rd February 2019 at 13:51

    '..JC, go on, go on, go on… burn your bus pass and apply!..'



    You know, it's been a wheen o' years since I saw a job application form, so I might be wholly wrong in considering the SFA's application form wholly out-dated and possibly (at least unconsciously) potentially prejudicial to certain applicants.

    Have a look at it and see if you agree.

    I don't think I'd be too happy to complete such a form.


    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    I don't know how long this vacancy ad has been on the SFA website. Has someone quit very recently, or is it a new post?

    "Referee Administration Manager

    Closing Date: Monday 4th March 2019


    Job Title         Referee Administration Manager

    Reporting to    Head of Referee Operations"



    p style=”margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px”> 

    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    Finloch 22nd February 2019 at 08:45

    '….there is an unspoken nod and a wink realisation that the divide has been and is indeed still good for differentiation/polarisation and hence business at both of our two biggest clubs


    Not to mention being still good for the SMSM! – which, instead of hounding out all of the financial rogues who brought Rangers of 1872 to ruin ,and ripping apart the rottenness at the heart of Scottish Football governance made manifest first by the UEFA licence scam and then by 5-Way Agreement , bent and continues to bend every effort into propagating untruths and myths.




    Recent Comments by John Clark

    Bad Money?
    Allyjambo 21st July 2019 at 09:59

    '…that no action can be taken against a dead club..'


    Oh, I don't know about that, Aj.

    The history books could/should show that Rangers FC of 1872 died an utterly dishonourable death, not occasioned by the run-of-the-mill  business failure that even perfectly honest businesses can suffer but a death caused by its serial cheating both of the Football Authorities and of HMRC over  a number of years.

    Post-mortem expulsion from Scottish Football is entirely possible and appropriate.

    And of course the absurd pretence that TRFC Ltd is the same club as that monstrous cheat of a club should be forthwith abandoned, and Scottish Football put back on the path of Sporting truth.


    Bad Money?
    Allyjambo 21st July 2019 at 09:59

    '..Of course, anyone involved at Rangers at the time the (potential) fraud took place might feel the effects of any fallout, maybe even a criminal investigation.'


    Have you had a wee read at this link, Aj 


    from which I take this excerpt:

    "..It is generally the case that examples of personal criminal liability for directors flow from the corporate criminal liability of the company of which they are a director. Having establishing the corporate criminal liability, the personal liability of the director depends upon their role in the company and the link to the criminal act(s).

    Although the personal liability of a director is dependent upon the company having committed a criminal act it can be established even if the company has not been or is not being prosecuted.[my underlining]

    The existence of personal criminal liability of directors is intended to ensure the accountability of those in senior positions at companies engaging in criminal conduct…"

    There are some delicious sections in the Fraud Act 2006, e.g.

    "12. Liability of company officers for offences by company

    (1)Subsection (2) applies if an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate.

    (2)If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of—

    (a)a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or

    (b)a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

    he (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."

    And, of course, the directors of a company in Liquidation are still accountable for their acts as directors of that company notwithstanding the Liquidation or the fact that they had resigned before the Liquidation

    And, further, I suspect that if a  wayward director had been acting in collusion with wayward directors of another company the directors of that other company could find themselves also being prosecuted.

    Speaking entirely in the abstract, it is entirely right and proper that allegations of potentially fraudulent behaviour by company directors should be thoroughly ad independently investigated, for their sake if the allegations are shown to be unfounded, and for the sake of the rest of us if there is found to be truth in the allegations.

    Bad Money?
    Auldheid 20th July 2019 at 12:58

    '…and Celtic really should pass Res12 or a derivative at the next AGM.'


    It's late of a Saturday night, Auldheid, but a wee alarm bell is ringing. 

    The Res12 people would have to be careful NOT to withdraw the Res 12 motion that has been in 'adjournment' (for 6 feckin years!)  before they are certain that a replacement, differently worded, resolution will definitely appear on the agenda at this Autumn's agm and be debated and voted upon. 

    There is nothing the Celtic Board would like better than to have Res 12 withdrawn! 

    And they are no angels in this matter: if Res 12 is withdrawn,  they would try everything to prevent a new Resolution getting on to the agenda.

    After 6 years, it is clear that they, no more than the SFA, want the licence issue really and thoroughly investigated.

    Phew! Jings, crivvens and michty me! Forgive my moment of panic. I'm sure the Res12 folk are more aware of these things than I!


    Bad Money?
    Allyjambo 20th July 2019 at 10:25

    '…John, in what context did McFadden find the 'need' to utter the following in the build up to a Motherwell v Morton match?'


    I had only just switched on the steam radio when I heard McFadden speak. I didn't recognise his voice and was wondering who it was that was speaking about 'Rangers' ,and how well they are doing, fifteen minutes before the Motherwell/Morton kick-off!

    I assume that there had been some general chat about the premier league teams in general and the conversation had reached 'Rangers', with the BBC heads perhaps bowing  in homage at each mention of the holy name!angry 

    Bad Money?
    Highlander 20th July 2019 at 10:10

    '.., the BBC's main driver in adopting their sacrosanct policy was advice supplied by the Scottish Football Association,..'


    In strict fairness , Highlander,to the BBC executives, who defended their use of 'new club'/'old club' by reference to Scots law, they were constitutionally bound to obey the order issued by the BBC Trust not to use those descriptions.

    Happily, the BBC Trust [ set up by Royal Charter, not by Parliament ]was itself dissolved in 2017, having previously been accused by a former Director-General, Mark Thomson,  of 'fundamentally misleading' Parliament in the scandal over large pay-offs to senior executives.

    It is amusing to read this extract from the Editorial Standards Committee's report: 

    "The ECS said it was "satisfied that although there had been a breach of the editorial guidelines in relation to due accuracy and the use of clear and precise language, it had not seen anything to suggest that the BBC had knowingly and materially misled its audience". (in the way, perhaps, that the Trust was alleged to have tried 'knowingly and materially' to mislead Parliament!)

    Sadly, by complying with the order, and abandoning truth thereby,the BBC has been knowingly and materially misleading its audience since 2013!

    The dissolution of the Trust two years ago should have been seized by the BBC to begin again to report the truth on their own account, or at least raise the question with Ofcom, which took over the monitoring of editorial standards.

    If the BBC can speak untruth in the simple matter of Sport, what bigger untruths will it be reporting on, say, Brexit, where matters of real national importance are at stake, rather than the piddly little affairs of a seven year old football club trying to live on a bunch of lies?