Celtic Shareholders who put forward a resolution to the Celtic AGM in 2013 are preparing for the 2019 AGM tomorrow and some of their conclusions are reproduced below. Celtic are planning to vote the current resolution of 2019 down after several years of kicking the can down the road after an agreement to adjourn the 2013 motion was agreed at that AGM.
Given the weight of evidence, and the prevarication that has gone on for this extended period of time, you don’t have to be a student of politics to infer that Celtic are failing their own shareholders over this.
There appears to have been, at best, a failure of SFA governance over this issue. At worst? Well that doesn’t really bear thinking about. That Celtic (and other clubs too) have been in possession of the evidence outlined below but have failed to act on it is a damning indictment of the quality of people running our clubs. Peter Lawwell’s words from 2008 about the integrity of competition seem hollow coming from the same lips as the man who has failed to pursue any kind of sporting integrity over upholding the rules of the game.
Of course we are talking about a fundamental difference in how people see the game. There are those of us who (some say naively) consider that upholding the aspects of fair play and competition are paramount, and those who see the commercial aspects of the game as the foremost consideration. A pragmatist might find a way to accommodate both, but there are apparently no pragmatists in boardrooms all over Scotland – just financial accountants.
It would be unfair to categorise the latter constituency as suffering from some kind of character defect of course. Doesn’t make you a bad person because short term financial gain is your thing.
But it puts you at odds with the paying punters – or at least some of them. As a Celtic fan myself, I’m not so sure that I can take any real joy from my own club’s success if I have come to the conclusion that they themselves are happy with a rigged competition. I am not so sure I can credibly throw stones at anyone who is caught cheating when I see that serious evidence of malpractice is being ignored and hidden under the rug by my own club.
I am sure there are those who feel the same as I do. Are there enough of us? Probably not, but the effect of it all from a personal perspective, is that it disconnects me from the process where common goals and objectives are shared between fans, players and clubs. That’s what clubs are for after all isn’t it?
In short, if the game is rigged, there is no common objective.
And consequently, many of us, deprived of that shared mission, that bond broken, will be forced to re-evaluate their relationship with their clubs.
We all have our own thoughts, but the urge to walk away forever is strong with me.
The Resolution 12 Story
In 2012, Celtic shareholders brought a resolution before the Celtic PLC AGM which asked the Celtic Board to refer certain matters to UEFA because they felt that the Scottish Football Association was compromised, no longer fit for purpose in relation to these matters, at least, and had failed Celtic and all the other football clubs in Scotland and in its duty as a Governing body, and it has separately failed UEFA as the Licensing Authority appointed by UEFA to grant licences to play in European Football in relation to Scottish teams.
The actual wording used was as follows;
“This AGM requests the Board exercise the provision contained in the Procedural Rules Governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body Article 10 with jurisdiction and investigation responsibilities identified in articles 3 & 11 (Note 1), by referring/bringing to the attention of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), the licensing administration practices of the Scottish Football Association (SFA), requesting the CFCB undertake a review and investigate the SFA’s implementation of UEFA & SFA license compliance requirements, with regard to qualification, administration and granting of licenses to compete in football competitions under both SFA and UEFA jurisdiction, since the implementation of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations of 2010.”
The response of the Celtic Board was to argue that this resolution was NOT NECESSARY because the board itself had already recognised that there had been failings within the SFA Licensing process, and they were already in correspondence with the SFA in relation to much the same issue.
The difference between the board and the Resolutioners was that the board wanted to continue corresponding with the SFA rather than refer the matter to UEFA or anyone else, whereas the Resolutioners argued that the SFA were hopelessly compromised, were unfit for purpose, could not of themselves remedy the situation they had created, and so wanted to refer the matter to UEFA as an independent and overseeing body whose rules had been flaunted, broken, ignored and to be frank, completely manipulated as a result of SFA inaction and inactivity.
After much discussion between the board and the Resolutioners, it was reluctantly agreed that the resolution should be adjourned and to allow the SFA to be given the opportunity to demonstrate that they could operate as a proper Governing body should and to answer all and any questions put to them via the Celtic PLC board and , where appropriate, the Resolutioners and ,if necessary, their solicitors.
In the interim period, it has become clear to the Resolutioners that the SFA are not fit for purpose, just as they originally argued, and that they are not, and never could have been, the appropriate body to consider and determine the failings in the licensing system that the Resolutioners had complained of.
This is not merely opinion on the part of the Resolutioners but is the determination and judgement of a formally constituted judicial panel appointed by the SFA itself.
The Resolutioners complain that the SFA have failed, and continue to fail in the following areas;
- They failed to oversee a fair and robust European Licence application process before and after March 2011 in respect of the appropriate season.
They had failed to mount any sort of investigation despite being contacted by HMRC from 2006 onwards in relation to the unlawful activities of a member club – they should have had a watching brief and requested regular updates from HMRC directly but didn’t. - They failed to properly apply the necessary tests demanded by UEFA in considering licence applications, and subsequently, through their then CEO, sought to justify their licensing process and the grant of certain licences on a number of different contradictory grounds – none of which stood scrutiny.
- They failed to monitor, update their records or make specific enquiries between 30th March 2011 and Mid May 2011 when the list of application grants was formally intimated to UEFA – and by which time there was widespread public rumour and speculation about the state of the tax affairs of a member club together with specific legal documents which outlined that there was indeed a tax bills due which would have disqualified that club from being granted a UEFA licence – had the rules been applied properly.
- They failed to grasp the situation between March 2011 and August 2011 when the Sheriff Officers were seen arriving at the same club and had still made no enquiry.
- They failed to carry out any monitoring duties at all post the grant of the licence, with then CEO Reagan telling Celtic that once a European licence was granted – which it was in April 2011 – all further compliance monitoring and any necessary action was the province of UEFA. This was later contradicted by UEFA themselves.
- They failed to monitor through the June 30th and September 30th, two key datelines specified with the UEFA regulations, and there exists a damning e-mail from one SFA officer to the offending club which effectively says that he hopes UEFA will be too busy to notice the deficiencies in the latest submissions sent by the SFA to UEFA in respect of the club concerned.
Throughout, the SFA denied that there were any failures in their procedures, that licences had been correctly granted, there had been no breaches of the rules and maintained that their procedures had been audited and approved by UEFA during the period.
According to the official UEFA website, no such Audit actually took place with the same website confirming which Football Associations were in fact audited at the relevant time. There is no mention of any SFA Audit.
The SFA claimed that not only was there nothing wrong with the grant of the licence, but that there was nothing for them to report during the post grant period as it was not their responsibility – and then added that even if something had been wrong, or was later found to be wrong with the grant, they could not report the matter to UEFA and could take no action because they were time barred from doing so.
Post the Craig Whyte Trial, where long held evidence was publicly noted and commented upon, Celtic and the SPFL publicly called for there to be a full independent Legal inquiry into all that had transpired during “the EBT years” and all aspects of how what had occurred, impacted on football Governance in Scotland.
The SFA rejected those calls and instead insisted on their own internal inquiry into the UEFA licence process for 2011/2012 – despite previously insisting that there had never been anything to investigate or report to UEFA who had entrusted them with the administration of their Licensing process.
The SFA wrote to every club in Scotland to say they were undertaking that investigation and later publicly announced that as a result of that investigation they had uncovered sufficient evidence to justify bringing formal charges alleging breaches of both SFA and UEFA rules.
This despite denying for a number of years that there had been any need for an investigation and despite reassuring Celtic that their licensing process was robust, had been conducted properly, and had not resulted in any incorrect grant of a licence.
The SFA appointed a judicial panel to hear those charges, determine whether they had been proven or not and then to hand out an appropriate punishment.
That Judicial panel have ruled that legally they (the SFA appointed panel) and the SFA itself cannot bring, hear, determine and act on those charges, nor consider the activities of the football club concerned in any judicial forum, because apparently the SFA had previously decided and formally entered into a contract which says that the SFA will not, and cannot, administer their normal Governmental and Judicial function (which would normally apply to any other club in Scotland and at any other time in the history of the SFA or UEFA) in relation to the acts concerned and the specific football club in question.
Instead, the Panel ruled that the charges concerned should be considered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport as a matter of contract and law – and could not be considered by an SFA appointed panel.
In other words, it has been judicially determined that the SFA cannot as a matter of law enforce its own rules or those of UEFA in relation to one club, and have signed away their entire right to oversee proper football Governance and the implementation of SFA and UEFA rules in this instance.
Further, that contract must have been known to all the appropriate SFA officers who decided and took part in the inquiry that led to the SFA bringing the disciplinary charges – Stuart Reagan, Andrew MacKinlay and Tony McGlennan – and when the SFA rejected Celtic’s call for a fully independent inquiry.
In effect, those same officers mounted their own internal inquiry and brought proceedings which they knew, or ought reasonably to have known, which would end in a legal dead end.
Such a course of action amounts to professional incompetence on a monumental scale – at best!
Further, subsequent SFA officials, assured the officers of Celtic Football Club that following the decision of the Independent Judicial Panel there was no reason why the SFA would not take the matter to CAS and in turn used the officials of Celtic Football Club to relay that message to the Resolutioners in the knowledge, and with the intention, that Celtic PLC shareholders would rely on those assurances and would act accordingly. Those actions and those assurances should now be the subject of a wholly separate inquiry.
Since those assurances were made to Celtic officials, Solicitors acting on behalf of shareholders have written to the SFA on no less than three occasions requesting clarification on what the SFA is doing, whether or not the decision from the independent tribunal advising that the matter should go to CAS will be implemented, and requesting a proposed timetable when this will happen. All such letters have been ignored or avoided by the SFA.
Subsequently, the current CEO of the SFA has stated that whether or not the matter should go to CAS will only be determined prior to Christmas 2019 – some 18 months after the ruling by the independent judicial panel.
This position is a complete volte face from what the SFA told Celtic officials immediately after the 2018 panel hearing.
The conclusion to all of this can only be that the SFA is not fit for purpose and that the governance of Scottish football is so bad, so broken and so far removed from normal judicial and corporate business practice that it must be looked at by an independent body if the matter is not referred to CAS.
Further, all of this must be made public, must be out in the open and must be properly disclosed otherwise any future investment in any club whether by private individuals, stock market listed entities, banks, loan houses, credit houses or whatever is predicated on the wholly fraudulent notion that the SFA will consistently apply its own rules or those of UEFA.
Celtic, as a respected member of UEFA, should not and cannot, stand back and allow this shambolic governance to continue unchecked and without external examination as to do so would be doing a total disservice to UEFA, and such a course of action would potentially make Celtic a party to the entire shambolic administration we have seen thus far.
The resolutioners have stated consistently since 2012 that SFA governance is not fit for purpose and have requested that this entire matter should be referred to UEFA as the overall governing body for European football and as a footballing authority who has entrusted the SFA to oversee the fair application of its rules in Scotland.
Despite what is now accepted as continued and regular SFA failure, that request has met with obfuscation and resistance.
However persistence beats resistance and no matter what the outcome of the 2019 Celtic AGM this is an issue which will not go away and is worthy of consideration and determination in a more formal legal forum.
The DR 'AGM's self-censorship' continues…
According to the DR there are 5 'burning issues' for the CFC AGM.
One of these is the Barrowfield development.
[Really? Must admit, I didn't have a Scooby about this.]
And yet Res.12 doesn't even get a mention.
Does nobody at the DR ever get embarrassed with their output?
John Clark 26th November 2019 at 14:11
Timtim 26th November 2019 at 11:40
'..Was he pushed or has he jumped?.' +++++++++++
=======
That's easy.
King 'was resigned'.
I'll get my P45…
Does King stepping down publicly change anything ? He is still the largest shareholder so retains significant control in any matters requiring a 75% vote . Would a Nomad now be happy to get involved ? a bank ? outside investors ? He stated he will stay on at Rangers*Retail Ltd until Ashley is defeated so his involvement still has that contaminating cold shoulder on others. Until his shares are sold and he holds no position at Ibrox he will continue to have a malign affect . Even if King is bought out it doesn't deal with the SDI settlement, Close, the shortfall, the 24m outstanding transfer fees, possible Hummel and Elite litigation and Memorial walls and that's just the known knowns.
AvatarHomunculus 26th November 2019 at 13:03 Does this make sense. If he wants to liquidate the PLC and move everyone's shares into the limited company he won't be on the board of that company, so by leaving just now it is less of an obstacle. No issues with that whole fit and proper nonsense. This is from his proclamation to his followers. "A consideration of our more devolved decision making has made me reconsider the question as to whether there continues to be benefit in a holding company for The Rangers Football Club versus the more traditional model of a single operating entity with a board that comprises executive and non-executive directors. I have therefore asked the company secretary to investigate the possibility of dismantling the holding company and issuing shareholders with the equivalent shares directly into the football operating company, The Rangers Football Club Limited. I would certainly rather own my shares directly in the football club. Further announcements will be made in due course if this proves to be viable and desirable." The question remains, what is the advantage in liquidating the holding company, killing off that entity.
———–
I know, I know, I keep raising that old debate, but I just can't let the following go. I will just leave it to the departing Lying King's own words this time as they really do not require any further comment from me.
'I would certainly rather own my shares directly in the football club.'
Where did the shares in TRFC , wholly owned by RIFC , originate from ? Charles Green stated that there was no need to purchase Craig Whyte's shareholding once the CVA was rejected , so I would assume Wavetower or somebody else still hold them ? Would this folding in of shares confirm it is a new club ?
paddy malarkey 26th November 2019 at 15:19
'..
Where did the shares in TRFC , wholly owned by RIFC originate from ..'
++++++++++++
CG set up SevcoScotland , he being the sole shareholder, with one share (nominal share capital was .£2).
Subsequently, share allocations were made to odds and sods, after the name was changed from SevcoScotland to TRFC.Ltd.
Put simply, these sods and odds of shareholders in TRFC Ltd became the first shareholders in RIFC plc by swapping their TRFC shares for shares in the newly incorporated RIFC plc .
No shares in the old Rangers existed, because that club was in liquidation and absolutely out of the game-both literally and metphorically!
John Clark 26th November 2019 at 15:48
No shares in the old Rangers existed, because that club was in liquidation and absolutely out of the game-both literally and metphorically!
————————————-
Just a small correction. Shares do still exist in Oldco, RFC 2012 plc (IL). To the best of my knowledge Wavetower/TRFCG still owns 85% and even Dave King through Metlika still owns 5%, as they were when the club went into liquidation.
The shares of course have no value, as the shareholders' claim to the liquidated assets is the lowest ranking of all, even below that of unsecured creditors.
Smugas 26th November 2019 at 13:14
Does converting the current shares in RIFC into an equivalent number of TRFC ones affect the various ownership %ages significantly EJ?
==============================
In a one for once share swap there would be no change to the %age holdings. If a shareholder owned 10% if RIFC, then they would own 10% of TRFCL.
However, part of the arrangement might introduce a new investor taking up additional newly issued shares, or one or more current shareholders might sell their stake to another shareholder, all of which could affect the bigger picture.
In their lionisation of DCK , TRFC fans seem to have forgotten that he voted against the cva which would have saved their old club , rather than having it sent to liquidation .
paddy @ 17.16
I don't think King voting for the cva would have made any difference , HMRC already had the required percentage to defeat it . However the fact he did should not be over looked. So who will fill his shoes? Talk is split between Woolhardt and a return of David Murray . I really cannot see Murray coming back , it took him years to get out , there is no handy bank to prop him up, I doubt the fans would welcome him and in any case he is one individual who should never pass a f+pp test . A return would certainly drag up his past and I doubt he would want that . Woolhardt? I know little about him except he is based in Hong Kong which isn't the most financially stable place at the moment . Investment wise Ibrox is not AAA rated so unless he is a gambler I would think there are far safer places to put your cash . Limping on til January to see the outcome of the SDI case and the results of the window seems like the only option , it would be foolish to invest any more than is necessary at this moment in time. Today the Directors allowed King his day in the sun , the storm clouds are gathering as the truth will eventually out and rain on his parade . Once safely back in Sth Africa he won't care too much.
easyJambo 26th November 2019 at 16:52
'..Just a small correction. Shares do still exist in Oldco,'
+++++++++++=+
A helpful clarification, thank you, eJ.
Would the folding in of RIFC shares into TRFC be a way of getting the shares listed on an exchange , giving Mr KIng a way out with some cash back ?
paddy malarkey 26th November 2019 at 18:42
======================================
It is entirely possible that they may want to list the company if they do this in my opinion.
They are now talking about raising £20m and I suspect it would be easier to do that if the investors actually had a market that they could trade those shares on.
It may very well be that King, and in particular his cold-shouldering would be a hurdle to that and part of the agreement to invest is for him to walk away. Allowing them to do what you are suggesting more easily.
IMO, King won't be leaving RIFC anytime soon.
He might resign from the Board, and stay in SA…
but like a lingering bad smell he will be in the RIFC background.
Over the last 4 years, when has King ever done anything in a simple, rational manner?
He must be close to retiring – and a chunk of his wealth is still tied up at Ibrox.
Just can't see him accepting a 'reasonable' offer for his shareholding – if an offer is actually forthcoming – and then quietly relocating permanently to SA.
IMO, he could still be the majority shareholder of RIFC if/when it has an insolvency event.
Which would be nice.
A proper business plan and budget. No ad hoc spending. No more director funding. Promote kids from the academy, and reduce the squad size to affordability levels……And the big liar out the door.
I imagine those would be the minimum demands of Uncle Mick, if they want him to go easy on them in January…………..
Just saying.
If they haven't already, those generous directors who donated millions to RIFC will wake up in a cold sweat thinking, 'What have I done?'.
I may be wrong, and to be fair, I usually am, but I think they have 2 options.
Option A: Sell TRFC and lose all the money you have put into RIFC.
Option B; Swap your shares in RIFC for 'new' ones in TRFC.
With Option B, you have the added bonus of Dave getting his share and still skulking about. You still have to invest more money and Ashley is waiting in the wings.
Very big rock and a very hard place.
I may be wrong, again, but I don't see many Chinese fortune cookies being cracked open any time soon at Ibrox.
I still expect TRFC to be sold to some conglomerate or another and that will involve Ashley.
finnmccool 26th November 2019 at 20:31
If they haven’t already, those generous directors who donated millions to RIFC will wake up in a cold sweat thinking, ‘What have I done?’.
………………
Takes me back to the time.
Malcolm Murray, i put a six-figure sum into the club to literally stop the lights going out at Ibrox at a time when we were in real danger.
………………
An interesting read this article.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2359833/Former-Rangers-chairman-Malcolm-Murray-breaks-silence-open-letter-fans.html
………………
Murray stepped down as chairman in May but stayed on the board, amid speculation of moves to oust him.
….
Mmmm sounds familiar.
………
He was replaced in the role by ex-Gers boss Walter Smith in what was regarded as a move to bring some stability to the club.
………….
I wonder if king will be replaced by an ex ger?
…………….
Malcolm Murray. ‘I was chairman of this great club for arguably the most difficult year in its long history.
…..
Something familiar about that.
……….
But what a finish.
….
Malcolm Murray. ‘I want our fans to be talking about football and the development of our rich history and culture. I hope to be the only chairman in our history to preside over a Third Division title!’
Resolution 12 and the broken bond
After reading the above and from what I knew previously it is increasingly obvious that those in suits have conspired to pull a fast one and are now compromised to act in an honest manner . Those at Celtic were willing to turn a blind eye for the good of the business in 2012 , only fan pressure and a noble individual from Kirkaldy delivered a degree of sporting integrity to proceedings. We witnessed the dog whistle politics from Green and McCoist and the threats that followed were certainly real enough for those on the other end. I "know" that there was concern that should Celtic have waded in with size 12s that repercussions were inevitable and the resulting poisonous atmosphere was a concern .
Credibility is now on the line , there's a saying about catching fleas and dogs that fits well here and time has come to decide where they stand , with fellow suits or with fellow fans. There's another famous saying "without fans football is nothing" to put that in terms a suit can understand "without fans there's no heat in the driveway" . If they choose to kick resolution 12 out they will have sent a very clear message , they are fools if they think the pitchforks won't come out for them. Given a choice between integrity and a tainted title I believe the majority of fans know which one has real value.
finnmccool 26th November 2019 @ 20:31
"I still expect TRFC to be sold to some conglomerate or another and that will involve Ashley."
I don't see that as viable after what has gone on , the fans just wouldn't accept any involvement from Ashley and a boycott would be inevitable. I also don't see the attraction for Ashley , he has what he wants , a retail deal tied up in barbed wire .
The internet is not all it's cracked up to be!
I've been trying to find an example of where a plc that existed only as the holding company of a football club which was its only source of revenue, decided to go into voluntary liquidation.
I haven't found one that could serve as a guide as to what King is on about.
What would be the mechanics of the transfer of RIFC plc shareholdings to a different company, TRFC Ltd?
Anybody?
@JC
The usual gobbledeygook John , I can only think King is laying the framework to say the holding company is irrelevant because he knows there's a good chance it won't exist much longer . I think we are headed back to a world of Kitkat analogies and incubators. Of course if HMRC hadn't miscalculated their tax demand then the original company would still exist and Dave wouldn't have had to ride in to save the day from unscrupulous men and spend fortunes in court and and and ….. he deserves a statue …. apparently.
Soup takers and myth makers spouting fantasy moonbeams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bae-p1f8phI
John Clark 26th November 2019 at 23:23
What would be the mechanics of the transfer of RIFC plc shareholdings to a different company, TRFC Ltd?
===========================
You might have to ask a company restructuring expert as to the benefits of taking such a step.
I think the mechanics are fairly simple. The RIFC shareholders pass a motion to issue shares in TRFCL on a one for one basis with those held in RIFC. The RIFC shareholders then pass a motion to dissolve the company (RIFC).
As long as the company (RIFC) can pay its current and contingent liabilities (its assets exceed its liabilities) then it can be shut down painlessly.
A new board will be appointed by TRFCL and everything just carries on.
The complications only arise if RIFC has contracts, debts or other obligations to meet. I don't believe that RIFC conducts any other business than running TRFCL.
As I stated previously RIFC runs at a loss, probably from the expenses of its directors, accountants and auditors fees, but that's about it (it "lost" £1.6m according to the latest accounts). That loss is offset against the cash invested in TRFCL, so basically the club pays RIFC's expenses.
I don't think that the process will be difficult or expensive.
TimTim
The Directors who gave so generously to RIFC are not stupid. They are far dumber than that.
RIFC is a sunk cost for them that can never be reclaimed.
King's end game is to have a 'switcheroo' of shares from the Bridge to the Engine Room and eventually sell or have an IPO to claw his money back. All that does is change the name of the money pit. SSDD, to quote another famous King.
If that happens, Ashley is still there with a decision on damages coming next year. There is no fight against Ashley. He won.
We know that TRFC has a need for cash to survive, to pay HMRC (must be!), Accounts payable, Ashley, Legal costs, future legal shennanigans, player transfer fees, Close Brothers, stadium upgrades…to name but a few. These are all on TRFC.
Why would Ashley have to be involved? Quid pro quo. Give me this and I will drop the claim. I will also make all the other merchandising claims go away. Sports Direct had revenues of £3.5 billion in 2018. Hummel has a turnover of £120 odd million.
If you want to make TRFC a saleable asset you must involve Ashley in whatever form that may take. IMHO.
Of course there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth and boycotts and tears of rage and recriminations blah blah.
But reality bites.
We know that TRFC is dying when the dead cat of RIFC is thrown on the table.
How much is TRFC worth? Ask Paul Daniels.
Trisidium
Brilliant post!
Big Pink
I don't see any ad's on the site with adblocker and privacy badger turned off for your domain.
Dear Mr King, (chair of RIFC PLC).
We recently received a letter from a Mr J. Clark, advising us that certain irregularities existed during the construction of RIFC PLC, and bejeezers, there is a prima facie case he is spot on.
We also conclude that RIFC PLC was a criminal construct from its very inception.
Our records show that you were not personally involved in this fraudulent act, but as the current PLC chairperson, it is encumbent upon you to dissolve this entity forthwith without delay.
We advise you instruct your company secretary to "Shut up shoap". .
Failure to do so will result in many bad things happening to the PLC.
Regards.
A man with considerable clout.
…………………………………………………………………..
Wouldn't that be brilliant. !
We will have to wait and see how the Celtic Board respond at today's AGM, but the SFA must be quietly smiling to themselves that they will soon be able to close the ongoing disciplinary case with no action taken. No need for CAS, and no need for their secretive 5-Way Agreement to be put under legal scrutiny.
What WOULD have to happen for Celtic, or indeed any club to demand answers on how the game is governed? Does the existence of 'Rangers' matter so much that any manner of wrongdoing can be overlooked? It seems that way to me.
So it looks like the City of London Police may be the only option left, but what price 'Senior Counsel' advising against it, just like they did in 2017 regarding an Independent Judicial Review.
They say cheats never win in the end – I disagree.
Thanks Tris for a timely, factual, well written and informative post.
When you look at the garbage that got placed on to the front page of Murdoch’s London Times (Shortbread Edition) last week and compare it with the content of your posting you really have to scratch your head in bewilderment.
The 4th estate and the BBC all read this site so their really is no excuse for the long time dereliction of their duties around how the SFA and SPFL reacted to in the run up, during and the aftermath of the liquidation of Rangers FC.
Good luck to the Resolutioners today from all of us.
I don't think today will see an end to the need for Resolution 12 or even provide a clear roadmap.
Some of the people involved in the early stuff like have moved on but the complicit chairmen from the inner sanctum 2011-2012 are still in post including Mr Lawwell and Mr Petrie who is now el Presidente.
They know where all the bodies were /are buried but just want to move on.
I spoke* to them both this morning as they breakfasted at Hotel du Vin. They were in good form, keen to speak to our forum ahead of the AGM and their message to us was business like
"Its business as normal in Scottish Football, nothing to see here and never was, move on….."
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1199606304857350144?s=21
A timely reminder that it was the company that was liquidated or was it the club? What if it was both? Now that would be something.
Stoopidity is repeating the same mistakes, etc…
The current lovefest across the SMSM about the selfless, philanthropic Dave King is indeed boak inducing.
All praising coverage, as a result of the announcement that King had decided to do walking away…
or doing a runner before the whole facade crumbles around Ibrox.
And then it will be someone else's fault that the club died.
Just like David Murray in 2011.
Stoopid.
"Given the weight of evidence, and the prevarication that has gone on for this extended period of time, you don’t have to be a student of politics to infer that Celtic are failing their own shareholders over this."
The resolution will be voted on by the Celtic shareholders, it is they who will decide whether it is passed, not the board.
The same shareholders will also vote on whether they want to keep that board in place.
If Celtic, or Celtic's board are "failing their own shareholders" it is up to those shareholders to remove that board.
While awaiting the latest development on a Resolution that's nearly as old as one of Glasgow's clubs I read GASH's AGM speech. Jabba clearly doesn't care what he writes and GASH clearly doesn't care what he reads.
In the tsunami of BS a standout was the last thing GASH said; he would be staying on the Board of Rangers Retail Limited until the litigation with Sports Direct was over. Why did this get a mention? The last I heard of RRL was GASH and Paul Murray were on the hook personally for acting the goat and the way out was for GASH to have it leaked that he had torn up the contract whereas it later came out SD got the current deal (not with RRL but TRFCL) and SD got £3 million. So what does RRL have to do with anything?
I know it's GASH we're dealing with but even dupliticious sociopaths must have reasons for what they say. Unless I'm missing something or making a schoolboy error in thinking anything GASH says should be given any thought the reference to RRL could have been replaced by Sevco/Newco/Anyco/MemorialWallsWereUs/WiFiNoMore/FacepaintersPaid and it would have the same relevance; namely, none.
Meanwhile, Auldheid et al, Unleash Hell.
After seeing the reaction of the Rangers fans to King's running away I have finally removed all doubt from my mind that they occupy a different universe. If Rangers fans had been passengers on the Titanic they would have spent their last moments in the death cold waters of the Atlantic frantically searching for the ship's captain so they could shake his hand and say what wonderful job he'd done "captain, they way you left Southampton is something I'll never forget"etc etc.
The most interesting part from their AGM was this suggestion of removing the holding company.Could it be they've realized that if you need to liquidate a football club and claim it's only an invisible holding company that is being killed then best not to have a visible holding company?
They are done cooked and goosed for one simple reason:they cannot afford first and they cannot stomach second.
LUGOSI 27th November 2019 at 11:01
=====================================================
According to Companies House Rangers Retail Ltd has one director, Dave King.
A company must have at least one human being as a director as I understand it.
Why would he mention Rangers Retail in his speech, I suppose someone has to pay the legal fees etc and he won't want to do that himself, even if they relate to him personally
I see Ross Desmond, son of Dermot, has been sent to the Celtic AGM to proxy for his Father. I guess Res 12 will be decided on share numbers held and not a show of hands.
Homunculus 27th November 2019 at 11:24
LUGOSI 27th November 2019 at 11:01
=====================================================
According to Companies House Rangers Retail Ltd has one director, Dave King.
A company must have at least one human being as a director as I understand it.
Why would he mention Rangers Retail in his speech, I suppose someone has to pay the legal fees etc and he won't want to do that himself, even if they relate to him personally
=======================================
Steps had been taken in May 2019 to have RRL dissolved and struck off the register, but some unidentified person or company objected to this action in June, so the dissolution is currently temporarily suspended.
The Celtic AGM has now reached Resolution 11. Not far to go now.
Edit: from the Record:
Here we go – Resolution 12
This is the one everyone is interested in.
Bankier jokes that he needs a glass of water for this.
The representative coming forward jokes he needs more than water.
Shareholder speaks on Resolution 12
There are real present dangers in football
It’s been a six year wait for Resolution 12.
The joke was Resolution 12 was in long grass – it’s more like the jungle
The shareholder says the club is allowed to take on the resolution in good faith.
It’s an administrative and judicial mess from the SFA.
……… continued from above.
We have been waiting for answers in years and this board maintains we should leave in SFA hands.
Is the board crazy?
Shareholders demands answers before the next season ticket renewal date and garners huge applause in the room.
Bankier responds to Resolution 12 motion
The chairman insists “we know how important this is” but makes it clear that shareholders must know exactly what they’re voting on.
Peter (Lawwell) raised the core issue in 2011 before Resolution 12 in 2013.
Regrettably the SFA declined call for a review.
Understand the long and complex investigation into the licensing issue remains ongoing.
The shareholders thoughts come first and foremost but this has been a matter for the football authorities.
Celtic’s best bet is to focus on Celtic.
Bankier calls to vote against Resolution 12
It will go to a poll.
That will happen after a Q&A.
A final post re Resolution 12
Results of the poll will be announced on the company's website and via a press release later.
there are “a lot of grumblings in the room” in response to that announcement.
First of the resolution 12 questions
Shareholder describes the board’s approach to the matter as “strange” and asks if they are “accepting cheating”.
The shareholder also says Bankier is “dubious” for recommending to vote against.
Lawwell responds:
Lawwell states that UEFA have no interest in the matter, as it’s outwith the five year period so any sanctions would have disappeared.
What will be done to take on Green Brigade?
The shareholder wants warnings outside the stadium about bad behaviour.
Lawwell:
A small minority are a challenge in terms of safety and protecting club’s reputation.
Societal issues manifest themselves through football.
We built the standing section for safety.
The Green Brigade provide youth, colour and passion but the concern is they don’t believe they are doing anything wrong.
They are breaking the law. We have closed 14 rows because of this. When you see certain banners and hear certain songs my heart sinks.
It allows our enemies to put us in with our rivals. We are not the same, we are different.
We had to take action to avoid stricter sanctions from UEFA.
Just a wee thought. Any monies King has loaned RIFC/TRFC will now remain that, loans, until paid off, or written off – by a man who has almost certainly got a chip on his shoulder.
PMGB is pointing out today that in his address to the masses yesterday, King advised that he'd already loaned the club £5m since the start of the season. On leaving the board he will lose his extensive control over the club as well as whatever personal advantages his position at the club gave him. I wonder how long it will be until he wants that £5m back! Not to mention the point PMGB made that that £5m was required rather early in the season, even for a club with TRFC's track record.
……….. continued
Cheeky question directed at Lawwell!
A shareholder refers to Lawwell’s comments that last year was difficult, then points to the chief executive’s remuneration.
Another fan says Lawwell is worth every penny and Bankier responds.
Lennon defends Lawwell
Peter Lawwell is the best.
You have to pay for him. He makes unpopular decision but he is worth every penny he is paid
Shareholder complains about the difficulty in getting tickets for away games
Lawwell responds by saying he sympathises with fans who miss out on tickets. Says the club must look at same fans getting tickets all the time.
We have to identify away fans and take action
Excellent reporting, thank you to all.
Petrie and Dickson still have executive positions at the SFA – does that concern you?
Lawwell:
Lawwell insists he has never seen the ‘five-way agreement’. Says he and Celtic have never had any involvement.
THE board are asked whether there was any follow-up to their blistering statement about referee John Beaton.
Celtic blasted the whistler and called on him to explain his decisions after last December's defeat to Rangers.
Lawwell answers that the club had a meeting concerning this and received an explanation.
But he insists it was a private meeting and therefore a private matter.
He adds that it is difficult to talk about individual referees, decisions and matches.
Lennon admits he'd like to sign Victor Wanyama
Shareholder question: What players are we looking for in January?
Shareholder asks for hotel and museum update
Lawwell:
Ian Bankier is bringing the meeting to a close
That’s it for the Q&A.
The meeting is coming to a close but there will be a poll on Resolution 12 in the lobby.
Celtic will announce the results later but, given the board are against it, it’s not likely to pass.
Something just struck me regarding the big liar's intention to wind up RIFC and do a share transfer switcheroo to Sevco.
It is my understanding that the assets of Crumbledome and Minty's Park are under Sevco ownership.
Much was made at the time that "The Club", should own the assets.
Transferring the assets from Sevco to RIFC would smell a bit whiffy…..However, in reverse….?
Is it Herr Liar's intention to attach himself to the assets, as the largest shareholder in them?
For the Celtic board to recommend voting against resolution12 and offer no reasoning other than we tried and the matter has now withered on the uefa footballing vine is disingenuous and shows contempt for the hard work of the minority shareholders in pursuing the matter so doggedly.They appear to be unwilling to recognise the secular argument that a potential fraud may have been committed which damaged the value of shareholdings in Celtic and other related parties by denying an opportunity to increase revenue through access to the CL. I was expecting at least some kind of power point presentation to attempt a justification of their position but no, a straight forward 'b**ger off' was even worse than that! We are now left with a situation where Celtic are willing to accept/support the SFA as it currently operates and surely that is not in the interest of scottish football as a whole.
With Peter Lawwell categorically denying any prior knowledge or involvement in the notorious 5 way agreement it seems clear there is no danger of any 'blowback' on Celtic if/when the resolutioners refer the matter to the police to investigate fraud.I hope they do so.
Re the Celtic AGM and Res 12, I will await Auldheid's response as to how he thought things went.
However, I do think that they missed a trick by not seeking (insisting?) on a show of hands in the hall, before accepting the Board's decision to go down the poll route. (assuming that there wasn’t a show of hands)
It wouldn't make a difference to the outcome, but it would have provided for a public demonstration of the strength of feeling among the small shareholders and that the Board and the major shareholders were out of step with the average fan.
gunnerb @ 14.36
Much as I agree, and sympathise, with you (Celtic's cowardly inaction is deplorable), do you honestly think that the police in this country (Scotland) would progress a fraud investigation? The Establishment must be upheld!
I thought they had EJ,
from the DR live report
"It will go to a poll though, because of the amount of “fors” on the floor "
Was this not a show of hands?
CO @13.47
Are you suggesting King will move the shares then call an admin then vote against a cva in order to get his money back from the sale of the stadium ? I certainly wouldn't put it past him but where on the creditors list would he be? I would also question whether this would be allowed without him passing a f+pp , even relinquishing his seat on the board does not remove his influence when he has 25.6% of the shares .
'Celtic boss Neil Lennon said he'd be interested in bringing back Victor Wanyama – but his current midfield might be so good he doesn't need to'
Roughly translates as 'No chance we'll be going for him'
Amongst a lot of other 'guff' e.g. re Resolution 12, from today's AGM, this just irks me (I don't doubt the quality of the current midfielders, but just be honest please).
On a lighter note elsewhere in Scottish football, I note Morelos value is now in excess of 40 mill – but he's still goin' nowhere (straight from GSL's mouth!)
Therein in bold is your problem gunnerb. They (Celtic) have moved heaven and earth to do nothing to ensure that the interests of what THEY perceive to be "Scottish Football" have been preserved.
Whatever fantasy notion you might have as to its make up is neither here nor there to them as proven by the exaggerated shoulder shrugging today.
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1199722966134743041?s=21
To be filed under “you couldn’t make it up”
Timtim 27th November 2019 at 15:20
CO @13.47
Are you suggesting King will move the shares then call an admin then vote against a cva in order to get his money back from the sale of the stadium ?
——————
Mebbes aye, mebbes naw.
At the moment he has shares in a non trading, and aside from an under-funded debt laden Co that runs a club struggling for survival, non asset company. Sevco own the SFA membership and SPFL share. …..In other words his shares are worth diddly squat.
He is adding value to shares that held no value previously, by attaching them directly to the assets of Sevco. How he proposes to advantage himself via that situation may be numerous and situationally dependent..
I doubt he would have to "call", for admin, but rather sit back and wait should it happen.
I am of course assuming that BDO have dealt with wee Craigy's floating charge and the assets are now unencumbered. ………….Surely you jest that the SFA may be assed about his direct involvement. If anything, it is slightly more honest than his current shadow position.
Timtim 27th November 2019 at 15:20
CO @13.47
Are you suggesting King will move the shares then call an admin then vote against a cva in order to get his money back from the sale of the stadium ?
——————
Mebbes aye, mebbes naw.
At the moment he has shares in a non trading, and aside from an under-funded debt laden Co that runs a club struggling for survival, non asset company. Sevco own the SFA membership and SPFL share. …..In other words his shares are worth diddly squat.
He is adding value to shares that held no value previously, by attaching them directly to the assets of Sevco. How he proposes to advantage himself via that situation may be numerous and situationally dependent..
I doubt he would have to "call", for admin, but rather sit back and wait should it happen.
I am of course assuming that BDO have dealt with wee Craigy's floating charge and the assets are now unencumbered. ………….Surely you jest that the SFA may be assed about his direct involvement. If anything, it is slightly more honest than his current shadow position.
Sorry, I don't know how I am double posting.
Resolution 12 poll outcome
Resolution 12 – Licensing Practices
Votes cast: 89,391,947
Votes in favour: 2,508,944 – 2.81%
Votes against: 86,883,003 – 97.19%
Votes withheld 93,997
OUTCOME: RESOLUTION FAILED
Ex Ludo 27th November 2019 at 16:38
8
1
Rate This
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1199722966134743041?s=21
To be filed under “you couldn’t make it up”
…………………..
https://twitter.com/jduffin24/status/1199671169848414209/photo/2
The picture below reminds me of today's Celtic plc AGM- you can just about feel the Truthfulness and Integrity of the top table in The Great Hall of the People nearly as strongly as I could feel truthfulness and integrity fairly ooze from the top table this morning!
People at the top table talked about never having hand or part or knowledge of what was in the 5-Way Agreement, about UEFA not being interested in the UEFA licence matter, about acting in the best interests of Celtic plc, about leaving it to the Football Authorities,…
I and many others smelled what that great actress Karen Power famously smelled in 'Still Game'!
By far the majority of the shareholders present in the hall raised their hands and voted for Resolution 12. But of course, the big shareholders ,basically as unprincipled as any big shareholder in another club, voted it down in the poll.
Looks like it may be a wee trip to the Police station to suggest that a crime may have been committed and would they look into it, please.
Because we simply cannot let such a seriously questionable matter as whether the SFA helped diddle Celtic shareholders out of some serious money in order to aid a club in serious financial difficulty go un-investigated. If the Celtic Board don’t think it’s for them to initiate police action, we’ will do it.
JC @ 18.55
——————————————-
Because we simply cannot let such a seriously questionable matter as whether the SFA helped diddle Celtic shareholders out of some serious money in order to aid a club in serious financial difficulty go un-investigated. If the Celtic Board don’t think it’s for them to initiate police action, we’ will do it.
—————————————————————-
But, as I understand it John, it was Celtic shareholders that (again) voted down this motion. Not your wee shareholder but the money men (how much does DD earn from his "preferrence" shares?). Fans! nah suckers!
easyJambo 27th November 2019 at 13:02
From your post,eJ
'…Lawwell states that UEFA have no interest in the matter, as it’s outwith the five year period so any sanctions would have disappeared.'
+++++++++++++
I think that that was disingenuous of Lawwell.
I think he knows damn well that the principal issue is not about sanctions against 'Rangers' ( whether the real Rangers of 1872 or the new club TRFC) , but about the possibility that the Governance body of Scottish Football may have been party to a deception by granting a UEFA licence to an unentitled club.
and as to
'What could our motive be for having all the info and not doing our best? What are you suggesting?
I can think of at least three possible motives behind Celtic's unwillingness to refer this to the Police:
money
and
money
and
money/fear of seismic backlash.
On the money front:
They made much about being a self-contained, profitable business and took umbrage at the suggestion that they needed a prosperous, healthy Rangers.
But I believe that they were quite, quite, happy to go with Big Lie ; happy to go with the myth that the 'Old Firm' tag is still meaningful even though one cheek of that ar.e. is no more; happy that a seven- year old club is regarded by the ECA as the 140 year-old club that was a founder member of that Association, and happy that that seven-year old club should be allowed to pass itself off as being the most successful club in the world!
on the money/backlash front
Lawwell made much of the 'fact' that Celtic were 'on to' the licence issue before ever the Requisitioners of Res 12 raised the matter.
In my opinion, Celtic chose at the time to ignore it, for fear of creating big problems for Rangers of 1872 , and for fear of being seen as acting maliciously against 'Rangers', hastening their downfall and perhaps being 'responsible' for one or two or more worthies going into the pokey if investigations established that big-time sports cheating and/or crime had been committed.
Not that I am prejudging any issue. I simply believe that there is sufficient evidence to require an investigation. The more that specious reasons have been given for years for not having a thorough independent investigation , the more reason there is to suspect that people have something to hide.
I am disappointed that the Celtic Board tried to flannel their way out their responsibilities to shareholders.
And if it ever is established that the licence was issued wrongfully and criminally, that Board will have no defence to the charge of being negligent in its duties to its shareholders. Shrugging the shoulders and saying 'nothing to do with us, mate' will be no defence.
The Celtic Board have a huge shareholder majority behind them regarding any actions they take, or don't take. The Board can argue convincingly that any financial loss suffered by Celtic over the Res12 issue, is more than compensated for by the continued existence of a football environment in which the PLC makes pots of money.
That football environment is predicated upon the continuation of the "Old Firm" at any price. Part of that price (in the Board's view) is allowing the deep corruption at the heart of the SFA to continue unreformed.
I am not an advocate for any of this, far from it. I walked away years ago, over Ogilvie's enthronement for a second term as SFA President, unopposed by Celtic. That episode, forgotten no doubt by most on here, was the writing on the wall for me.
Everything that has happened since has confirmed me in my view that the Celtic Board have no intention whatsoever of rocking the boat. I can understand why. But it sticks in my craw, and always will.
Honesty has no price, in my world. To say that Celtic were totally unaware of the contents of the 5 Way Agreement? Sorry chaps on the Board, but I'm not buying that one.
These days I watch St Roch's when I can. That's football for me now. A breath of clean air.
Sevco may have much more difficulty attracting new monies to the business this time around.
EIS and VCT reliefs were available to this brand new organisation first time around.
Such benefits will not be an option this time, meaning reliance will be upon fans and wealthy individuals with money to burn.
https://www.seedrs.com/learn/guides/eis-tax-relief
https://www.pruadviser.co.uk/knowledge-literature/knowledge-library/eis-vct-seis/
bordersdon 27th November 2019 at 20:33
'..as I understand it John, it was Celtic shareholders that (again) voted down this motion. .'
+++++++++++++
Technically, bordersdon, the Resolution 12 on the 2013 Agenda was not voted upon then, but was 'put on the long finger', and 'carried forward' in effect year on year until today's AGM. [ a Resolution must sooner or later be cleared by vote: it lies on the table until that is done]
The assumption ( or my assumption ) over the years since 2013 was that the Celtic plc Board (in whatever half-hearted, token gesture way) were trying to 'action' it, purely as football matter, and were only too ready to accept what the SFA ( and Dave King in his turn) had to say , when he told them in effect to eff off and that it was a matter for the CAS etc. and that the SFA had no jurisdiction and the CO could take a running jump to himself/herself
I appreciate the difficulties that faced the Celtic board caused by the fact that the very governance body was/is alleged to be part of the alleged 'disciplinary' offence.
It is for that reason that I think that Celtic plc should simply have asked for a police investigation. Such an investigation would have been able to obtain documents/email traffic (eg from HMRC and the SFA) that both of those bodies could not legally release to a third party: material which would show whether or not there was any substance in the allegations.
If the police honestly did not find enough grounds for referring to the COPFS , problem solved. Hands clean all round.
And note that 'honestly'.
One begins to feel that one has to be ready to suspect any body, when one is already suspicious of a particular body.
Was Football governance guilty? Has there been a cover up? Can there be an independent investigation at this stage?
That's the kind of corrosive damage that is the result of the buggering about and refusal of the Celtic Board to accede to the request that they should push with all their might for a full, open investigation right from the off, and not take 'no' for an answer.
Gordon 27th November 2019 at 23:23
'…EIS and VCT reliefs were available to this brand new organisation first time around.'
+++++++++++
It's away past my bedtime, Gordon, but reading your post conjured up Octopus, and reminded me that long , long ago I was looking for a link between SDM /Octopus/ Ticketus and how the obscure ,small time operator Craig Whyte had been pointed in the Ticketus direction. I think at the time I had thought that SDM was into that Venture Capital line, which fed into the possibility that CW might possibly have been SDM's stooge.
I did not follow through on my early , amateurish researches, not even sure what tree I might have been barking up! And my curiosity was piqued by 'Radar's' 'wealth off the radar' nonsense about an absolute nonentity of a gobsh.te.
neepheid 27th November 2019 at 22:18
EDIT
"That football environment is predicated upon the continuation of the "Old Firm" at any price. Part of that price (in the Board's view) is allowing the deep corruption at the heart of the SFA to continue unreformed.
I am not an advocate for any of this, far from it. I walked away years ago''
I too walked away years back neepheid, and took my offspring and their heirs with me too!. Celtic lost a deal of merchandising and match day revenue from my family but I suppose others have stepped in to fill that insignificant breech.Like an addict it has been difficult and I have been back once to an Aberdeen game but for unforseen circumstances I had to leave before kick off.I feel hypocritical at times because I cheer Celtic on as an armchair supporter but before it was to beat the 'gers, now it is a fervent hope to crush the imposters.This is what the corruption of Scottish football has done to a passionate football supporting family, it has made us all cynics…or perhaps opened our eyes to the way of the world.I did enjoy the copa de libertadores final on BBC2 mind. Stumbled upon it by accident and what an enthralling match and finish.Recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it yet.
And shame to say wild geese family thought it a grand idea to buy a paving stone for me at Celtic park for a birthday present this year.Gritted teeth and thanks amid confused emotions…grhhh
Thanks for the updates and insights EJ and John.
As I write Radio Shortbread has been on in the background for around an hour or so and there has been no mention of anything that happened at the AGM and in particular nothing on Resolution 12.
I'd say the Celtic Board had enough time (6 years or so) and got their ducks in a row.
They will be feeling happy that they have not been mandated by their shareholders to do anything more than make ticket allocations for away games more transparent.
And the radio silence will be seen as a job well done.
Celtic are not going to do anything other than carry on with the business.
They know they have many shareholders who feel the club has let them down but they also know some fans might sympathise and even grumble a little but when it comes down to it most fans simply want to beat their local rivals, in what is (to fans of other clubs) essentially a Glasgow District League.
In the reports Lawwell, in the finest tradition of defensive politicians with maybe something to hide, said that " He has never seen the ‘five-way agreement, and Celtic have never had any involvement".
I've never seen the 5 way agreement either.
Not the actual agreement.
Celtic were never going to be in the room when the final draft (after many) was signed by Rangers, Sevco, the SFA and the other two league organisations, that is if it was ever actually signed.
So saying Celtic had no involvement with "The 5 Way Agreement" could indeed be technically correct if we allow for the imprecision of our English language.
But were Celtic involved in the discussions about the stark implications of the financial troubles at Rangers and the various commercial options as they cascaded out of control and ended up with the immediate and eleventh hour need for a new company and club?
I don't think there is any doubt and if I was a shareholder I'd have thought that not to be involved in such momentous events at the time was a dereliction of fiduciary duty.
And there is the conundrum that Mr Lawwell, Mr Desmond and the club faced and it was made worse or maybe simpler by the pressure of time.
We're in the run in to an election and are drowning in politicians blind-sighting us all as they seek to control their particular agendas.
That is what we saw happening at the Celtic AGM yesterday.
Finloch@08.34
To quote Billy Connolly “no matter who you vote for the Government always gets back in”
So Celtic had no say whatsoever in the 5 way agreement that set up the continuation twaddle going forwards and their representative (I forget his name, how appropriate) was on holiday the day the LNS findings dealing with the backwards stuff was released and was therefore unable to provide any input.
So there truly is nothing to see here and would we all just mind moving along please.
I seldom post but very much enjoy the contributions of many on this site.
Until yesterday, the focus of the Requisitioners has been quite rightly on the incompetence/corruption at the SFA.
Yesterday's casual dismissal of Resolution 12 now places Celtic plc in the eye of the storm that awaits, should the Requisitioners decide to continue with their action.
The plc board are intelligent businessmen. Surely they must know this. They must have assessed the risk and decided that they can see this through.
I fell totally disheartened.
Like others, I stopped attending Celtic Park in 2012 at the first whiff of Celtic's complicity in this mess. I am now a livestream viewer who while, thoroughly enjoying the football we play, feels anger and regret that the game I love is so utterly corrupt.
I hope there is a winnable option open to the Resolution 12 guys, but this is no longer about getting our game back, it's just about trying to get some punishment for the guilty.
From Andrew Smith, in today's 'The Scotsman' print edition:
"…Resolution 12 dates back to the Scottish FA's decision to license Rangers to participate in the Champions League in season 2012 despite their failing to meet the criteria [my italics] due to unpaid taxes"
A bold assertion of the facts, for which Andrew Smith deserves recognition.
[Also in the 'Scotman,' we have some numptie of an ex-Captain in the British Army postulating that TRFC may change the fact that soccer success has not come to the economic powerhouse that is China, following TRFC's decision to establish a Soccer School in Shanghai, with the Yew Cheung International School to which Hateley and Gibson paid a visit earlier this year.]
Allyjambo 27th November 2019 at 13:09
It is also worthy of note that he is charging them interest, apparently the SA authorities would not sanction anything else. It appears he is impecunious when it suits and the SA authorities curtail his activities at other times.
It may be worth keeping an eye out for any new securities being registered.
South Africa sounds like a lovely place to live.
The Authorities give financial advice, assistance and directions to residents even when those residents have been convicted of tax fraud, narrowly avoided eighty odd years in jail and have been charged with dozens of similar and worse crimes.
How helpful must the South African Authorities be to decent, honest, law abiding residents?
I have read the comments with regards Dave King having to put his money in so early in the season, I believe that originated from PMG. That would suggest a cash flow issue, in addition to a turnover one.
That loan is I believe part of the way in which they are dealing with the £10m shortfall . People have questioned why it would be needed so early in the season, surely cash flow issues would come later on.
I think it is generally agreed that this shortfall was caused by the purchase of two players, Kent and Hellander if memory serves. Basically they bought players they couldn't afford in order to compete and have had to borrow the money.
It does occur though, what terms were the players bought under. If they have to come up with so much of the money straight away, and to clear the debt within the season that would suggest that the other clubs have not given them very much by way of "time to pay". Though to be fair the structure of these deals is not something I am particularly up on.