0
    0

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

    StevieBC 23rd February 2019 at 13:51

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

    **************

    Ha-ha!

    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.

     

    John Clark Also Commented

    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"

    https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/organisation/working-at-the-scottish-fa/vacancies/referee-administration-manager/?rid=1537

    <

    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.

     

     

     


    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    Cluster One 22nd February 2019 at 11:04

    '..nor will the Scottish FA countenance such a notion,” Maxwell said in a statement'

    *******************

    If there was no discussion of the possibility of utilising the services of referees from outside Scotland, on whose authority does the  CEO speak when he makes such  a definitive statement which rules out  future discussion?

    What if there were to be another referees' strike, or other sudden circumstance which reduced the number of Scottish referees available at any given time?

     


    Recent Comments by John Clark

    In Whose Interests
    Avatar Timtim 20th September 2019 at 21:04

    '.. others particularly Andrew Dickson and Stewart Robertson as Directors of TRFC '

    +++++++++++++++++

    Ach, those guys,I believe, are mere puppets!

    And probably haven't the savvy to realise that their position legally may set them up as fall guys!

    In no way, in my opinion, are these guys 'directing' TRFC Ltd.

    They are, I believe,  but servants, doing their master's  bidding: but servants who ,in my belief, will be disowned by their master if and when everything may go pear-shaped.!

    And they may be too young to know that claiming to have been merely obeying orders was not a particularly successful argument for a number of Nazi war criminals.

    God Almighty!

     


    In Whose Interests
    John Clark 20th September 2019 at 23:52

    '.. and the very Regulating authority buys into the whole deceitful farrago, '

    +++++++++++++++++

    And this reminds me that my email of last Friday to the FCA has not yet been even acknowledged,let alone reponded to.

    Keep in mind: Charles Green set up a new football club

    A club so new that it had to apply for membership of a League in order to be allowed into membership of the SFA.

    A club , initially called Sevco Scotland, and renamed The Rangers Football Club Ltd,whose shares were

    were subsequently purchased by a new company called Rangers International Football Club plc, which  then went on to offer to the public investor shares in the Rangers Football Club of 1872!

    No wonder the FCA has failed to acknowledge my correspondence!

    Mr Bailey and Mr Randell  may think that what John Clark has to say can be contemptuously dismissed.

    The fact remains that RIFC plc in its Prospectus certainly implied that prospective investors would be investing in 'Rangers of 1872',with its world record sporting achievements, and not in some gimcrack club manufactured by Charles Green in 2012 falsely claiming to be the Rangers of my grandfather's day, and being accepted by dishonest and dishonourable governance people as being such.

    What might the FCA do if it is alleged that an IPO was founded on an untruth? That prospective investors worldwide were being offered shares not in 'the most successful club in the world' but in a brand new football club that had not even kicked a ball?

    I fear that it will do what those whose purpose in life is 'money' rather than 'principle'.

    And if that is the case, may they be end up in Dante's fourth circle of hell.

    And very bad cess to them!broken heart

     

     


    In Whose Interests
    macfurgly 20th September 2019 at 23:25

    '..  I concur. '

    ++++++++++++++++

    And I'm sure that most ordinary folk can see the weakness of a system that ( as exemplified by  the Thomas Cook example currently) allows feckin companies to blackmail Government and the rest of us by the threat of the loss of jobs if they are not bailed out!

    They f.ck up, as did  RBS and the banks generally, and the rest of us suffer while the individuals responsible ( or greedily irresponsible) get off quite happily, profits made!

    A bit like the Rangers saga:

    Some cheating football club owner cheats the taxman (i.e us!) , an asset stripper cheats the creditors, and a bunch of phoneys tries to make money by using the name and brand of a dead club, and the very Regulating authority buys into the whole deceitful farrago, succumbs to a kind of blackmail, makes liars of itself, and destroys any belief that Scottish Football is anything but rotten at the core by accommodating the cheats.


    In Whose Interests
    Jingso.Jimsie 20th September 2019 at 16:49

    '.. is it TRFC or RIFC being referenced re potential administration events? '

    ++++++++++++++

    As I understand it, in the court cases v SDIR, TRFC Ltd is the defender. This means that it was a director of the actual football club that signed the deals on behalf of the football club(not of RIFC plc) and it is the club and its assets that are at risk if they cannot pay their bills.

    Of course, if TRFC Ltd were to enter Administration  and fail to find a way out of Administration, it would enter Liquidation, and thereby cease to be a club entitled to play in Scottish Professional Football (that is, it would suffer death as a football club just as Rangers of 1872 did)

    The Liquidators would sell all the assets, which would leave the Board of RIFC plc without  a chair or a marble step to put their ars.s on ,and without a right to occupy any of the premises.So, with no raison d'etre, RIFC plc would be dissolved.

     


    In Whose Interests
    Timtim 20th September 2019 at 11:29

    '.. A set fee of 750k ? a pre pack admin .'

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    That sent me to read up a little on 'pre-packs'

    And honest to God, if ever there was a legalised form of robbery that gives carte blanche to people like some of those lying, devious, unprincipled and unscrupulous felons that we have read about over the years, it's the use of pre-packs to stiff creditors!

    The historically much-lauded 'invention' of 'limited companies' and 'limited liability' and the 'corporate veil' allows absolute scoundrels to profit from debt-laden companies and then bunk off with swag without any real penalty;with many a Tulkinghorn-type lawyer and low life financial adviser there to share in the booty.

    Bring back the debtors' prison! Or at least mark with public shame and disgrace those directors whose incompetence and /or criminal tendencies damage others