Imagine you are one of those people who have a nice big mahogany desk, with a gloss finish set in a big corner suite office which comes complete with a picture window, a break out area, a couch to lie down on in moments of stress, a quietly playing stereo sound system, fridge, plush carpet and loads of wee executive toy like things of your choosing.
Imagine, just for a moment, that outside your office you have the executive German car that is almost compulsory when you work in such an office. Added to that, you also have the benefit of a large six figure salary, a pension scheme, substantial holidays, a bonus scheme which nicely enhances your already excellent salary, fantastic perks and trips abroad as part of your job, and that you fill a position which leads to invitations to the most fantastic events, do’s, and sporting occasions imaginable.
Imagine the respect you must command from your peers, your family and friends.
Imagine the awe that you must be held in at dinner parties and social events when you are introduced to strangers for the first time– strangers who will have heard your name, and know of your position in society.
Imagine the personal and professional respect you must command from others in your field — or any other field for that matter — when you go to conferences and meetings in foreign cities and with foreign counterparts.
Imagine the envy that many others sometimes feel for someone who has succeeded in business and society to this extent.
Then imagine that the big office described above is at Hampden?
What a bummer!!
Now, I mention all of this because if you were one of the big cheeses at at Hampden, I wonder just what you do with yourself when the large rosewood door of your office closes behind you when you get in there each morning?
Maybe you make a coffee? Read the papers? Check the mail? Go to a meeting about the latest in 3G or is it 4G pitches being installed in a ground or two in the Shetlands?
However, no matter what you do and who you speak to THAT file is always there— always at the corner of your desk, neatly up there at the top left hand corner just beyond the desk top golf set and above the Newton’s cradle with the balls that spell your name or whatever.
That file– the one that relates to the finances, compliance, directors details and ownership of Rangers Football Club.
At least that is what the top of the file says. Though to be fair it is a continuation file… continuing from the one that was opened two months ago and is fit to burst already with reports, memo’s and letters- which in turn was a continuation of the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and on and on.
Maybe that is not the correct name for the club?
Maybe that is something that can be clarified at the next meeting with the Directors and CEO of the club— whoever they might be at that time?
No matter where you go in the room, you can see that file from every position. There is just no getting away from it.
Who owns The Rangers?
There are all sorts of reports, share prospectuses, memos, deeds, documents, contracts, letters, e-mails all asking the same thing. And there you are— none the wiser.
Please clarify this, please clarify that, are there any signed but unrecorded documents, or contracts?
Are the Companies House records accurate? is the Land register accurate?
At the end of the day you just lie on the couch, place a cold cloth over your head and hope it will all go away.
Then the accounts come out. Oh the figures are shocking and they confirm that most of the people you negotiated with to get their team playing football somewhere after the collapse and liquidation of RFC PLC have exited stage left with huge severance cheques.
They now live in France, or Singapore or the Cayman Islands and you can bet they will never darken a door in Mount Florida on a wet February morning ever again.
But that is not the worst of it — the bleeding internet is full of leaks— documents, letters, e-mails, contracts, company forms and all sorts.
You wouldn’t mind if the documents leaked were ones that you had seen before, but in the main they are things that you have never seen and never had disclosed.Every day someone calls and asks ” Have you seen the latest?” and of course you haven’t so you stand there feeling like a complete chookie!!!
Every day you call the compliance and monitoring guys:
” Eh have you seen this? Have you been notified that he is a director?”
” No boss – never seen that? Never knew it existed?”
” So who owns the company if that is correct?”
” Eh Dunno boss — not sure of anything over there any more!”
“Ok have you checked the titles with the lawyers?”
” yes but the title as registered looks ok, but there is no guarantee that it hasn’t been sold to someone else and they have not registered their title for the moment!”
” Have you spoken to the lawyers? Have you asked for clarification?”
” yes Boss — the Lawyers don’t really answer our questions– well at least not fully!”
” What about these accounts – there are 57 pages there – what do they tell us?”
” Well they tell us that the figures are not good, boss, but not immediately critical.”
” Are they paying their taxes?”
” Appear to be boss– but we can’t be sure.can we? We were told they were paying their taxes before and … well you know the rest.”
” Ok, but Pinsent masons rule out the Whyte guy being involved?”
” Ah well not really – they don’t go into the company he says he owns – they sort of ignore that part!”
” But they carried out an independent investigation, surely?”
” True boss, but the independent investigation was only into what the non independent guys wanted investigating Boss, and they appear to have finished their report without speaking to all the witnesses.”
” Ok but the accounts – what do the accounts say about Whyte being the real owner — I mean they are from Deloittes for God sake – they must make the position clear?”
” Well we have had a look at them boss and in that regard the accounts are King Kenny!”
” King Kenny?”
” Aye King Kenny Boss – with regard to Whyte’s claim they say ” maybes aye– maybes naw” and they leave it at that”
” Jesus, well have you written to the Directors?”
” Aye – half the letters have come back marked “Gone away”.Boss”
” Do you know who the shareholders are?”
” Naw Boss”
“Do they have a bank account and a bank reference ?”
” Naw Boss”
” Who’s coming to the next meeting from their side?”
” Dunno Boss”
” Is there anything you can tell me that lets me close this file and get it off my desk for good?”
” Naw boss”
” Well who did we grant membership to last year?”
” The first time or the second time Boss?”
” What do you mean – first time or second time?”
” We started out granting membership to one company and then changed it to another”
” Two companies – owned by the same people?”
” Dunno Boss– but they sounded the same.”
” And which one got a licence?”
” Dunno boss”
” What?”
“Was the licence not granted by Mr Longmuir boss? And then ratified by us as a formality?”
” Why are you asking me, you are the compliance guys?”
” Aye but we were told it would all be ok by … well by someone ….. and by Mr Longmuir”
” When did he tell you that?”
” Told us one day at Ibrox Boss – I think it was at half time?”
” Half Time?”
” Aye – though it might have been full time boss ….. free bevvy and sandwiches so can’t quite remember”.
” Well who has the paperwork?”
” Lost boss”
” Lost?”
” Yes Boss – it was meant to come up from the SFL but never appeared. Turns out that the SFL was run as an unincorporated body and none of its records etc, are intact or have ever been audited …… Boss. Mr Ballantyne might have them in his garage Boss! ……… Boss? ….. are you still there? Boss?”
The man in the corner suite leaves the phone dangling, goes to his fridge for a cold drink and switches on the executive plasma hanging on the wall by way of the remote control on his desk.
The screen beams into life and an advert for the brand of soft drink that he is holding fills the wall. The very same brand of soft drink that has just been announced as the official soft drink to partner Scottish Football.
The executive, looks at his drinks can, looks at the file on the corner of the desk, looks at the abandoned phone and finally looks at the screen just as the speakers spell out clearly ………….. the benefits of coming from a long line of Fannies.
This is Scottish Football Administration in the 21st Century.
In the interests of clarity and for any SMSM readers this is what the Resolution asks of Celtic.
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.
It makes no mention of a Sevco licence (although that is mentioned along with Membership at Item 1 in the support material regarding SFA behaviour generally) but no where in the above does it mention the award of a SPL club licence to Sevco, or ask UEFA to investigate it. What it does say is did the SFA comply with Club Licensing rules for the SPL, which adopt the UEFA standard and which the SFA agreed to apply? Additionally SFL clubs were not subject to UEFA Club licensing standards, (National Club Licensing applies) so again it only refers to the granting of licences to Oldco. Club licensing is nothing to do with granting Sevco membership.
It should be. In fact membership should be conditional on a club being granted a licence but it is not. Membership is at the SFA’s discretion with no criteria listed. If the Club Financial Control Body were to investigate, one of the observations to the SFA would be that had UEFA FFP guidance 2010 been around a lot earlier and observed, Rangers would never have got into the position they found themselves in.
I understand Jim Larkin’s frustration, and empathise strongly. I also understand the reasons for Celtic’s position implied in Auldheid and Barcabhoy’s contributions – although my feeling is that Celtic, Dundee United and Aberdeen amongst others were not willing participants in refusing Sevco’s SPL application, having been forced to do so by pressure from their fans.
However I address mainly the notion that there is a safety concern which compels Celtic in particular to stay silent on these matters. My problem with that is two-fold, and my remarks are not only with regard to Celtic.
Firstly, it doesn’t sound all that different from Stuart Regan’s claim that there would be civil unrest if Rangers were to fail. I can’t see how he is subjected (correctly in my opinion) to ridicule for that remark and yet the Celtic board should be congratulated on their wisdom for taking essentially the same tack.
Secondly, if my opinion above is in error then we have arrived at a situation where a host of clubs are, through fear, allowing one single club to drive a tank through the rules and the principles of the sport.
If there is a genuine case for believing this pragmatic approach is necessary, there is still the problem that significant numbers of fans will take the not unreasonable view that it is no longer a sport at all, but a cultural anachronism ruled by the threat of terror. Certainly not the traditional Saturday afternoon pursuit for working folk to relax by after a hard six and a half day shift.
How significant those numbers will be remains unclear, but if all TRFC need to do to get their own way is to play the Blue card, I suggest that the boards of every other club in the top flight will have an impossible task in convincing people that rolling over in the face of threats is a proper way to proceed.
However I don’t think my first point is flawed. I don’t believe that there is a real threat of civil unrest if Celtic or any other club stands up for sporting integrity. In fact I think that the use of this kind of language unfairly stereotypes and demonises the TRFC support without any real evidence to base it upon other than the ravings of a bunch of keyboard commandos.
I think that is the story we are being sold by those who really want a return to the “riches” of the Old Firm. Champions League football, even for the winner in a one horse race, is not guaranteed if that horse comes from a football backwater like Scotland. Old Firm rivalry on the other hand, driven by the sectarianism which has polarised our country and marginalised almost 40 clubs is.
I think the real problem is that throughout the clubs, the path of least resistance is the one which is being advocated. This instead of rebuilding the game through a significant redistribution of wealth, and playing the long game by looking not outwardly at European riches but in the first instance to look at ourselves, start afresh and restructure and regenerate.
We have often quite properly castigated TRFC for failing to take the opportunity to cleanse the Rangers brand, and to disassociate themselves from their toxic past. What I think we fail to see is that the rest of us had that opportunity as well, and we failed just as spectacularly as TRFC. Those who single out Celtic for criticism here should remember that the other clubs had the same opportunity to take the moral high ground – and failed also.
We have also said often that the key to this mess is to follow the money. Sadly, I think there is money in sectarianism, and that is what Scottish football appears to be voting for. Where else in the world can an organisation help themselves to what they want, when they want – and still be invited to return to do the same again? Where else in the world can you see the change for the better, as we have over the last year in the atmosphere and conduct of the sport – and yet pine for the poison that got us into the mess we currently find ourselves?
I am trying desperately not to judge clubs or individuals here, but I refuse to reward what is essentially a dysfunctional and corrupt “sport” that sees fear and division as an essential pre-requisite to its existence.
Barcabhoy says: (234)
October 14, 2013 at 10:00 pm
————————————————————————————————-
So the Celtic Board have to tread a fine line because either others are corrupt or others don’t care about corruption. Is that where we are with this argument?
I keep waiting on Bankier coming out and telling the fans to keep it down. Do you not know we’re running a PLC here with excellent results and a tremendous forecast and at a time when we’re just expanding the brand into an exciting global market? Is that Marks & Spencers I see on London Rd! Well if it is, I’m no buying.
I’d rather have the screwballs who were in charge before the Bunnet landed than this mob. At least it resembled a football club then, not a very good one admittedly but still a football club. There are a rake of supporting reasons why I willnae go back http://etims.net/?p=3746 but the main one, in street parlance, is I don’t like getting the piff ripped out of me.
Markybhoy says: (22)
October 15, 2013 at 1:00 am (Edit)
I’d rather have the screwballs who were in charge before the Bunnet landed than this mob. At least it resembled a football club then, not a very good one admittedly but still a football club. There are a rake of supporting reasons why I willnae go back http://etims.net/?p=3746 but the main one, in street parlance, is I don’t like getting the piff ripped out of me.
_______________________________________________________________
Marky,
You had me up to the Fergus remark. I knew the man during his time here, and I have absolutely no doubt that he would have stood for none of what went on last summer.
Others who knew him may have varying mileage on this of course and this is just my opinion, but Fergus didn’t sidestep truth because it was inconvenient or uncomfortable – and I think he would have taken a more long term view of the financial side of things (although possibly not so liberal on the redistribution of wealth thing 👿 )
bigpink56 – since I made the comment about safety, I’ll answer your question
Difference between Reagan’s concern and Celtic’s concern is that one was made by the establishment to ensure a vehicle was enabled for the Peepil to have somewhere to voice their historical pleasures – Celtic’s concern is actually happening.
We have had in the past few years – an assault on our manager by a person using sectarian abuse on the side of a pitch, the same manager who has received bombs and bullets by mail and has in the last week been pictured on FB with a TRFC supporter holding a knife to his throat. We have had a young fan had his throat cut because he was a Celtic fan and the murderer defended by our favourite karaoke singer Mr Findlay. We also had 4 people arrested in the field next to our training ground with a gun while the team was training. The club’s staff have been given training on opening mail.
Which of these incidents would anyone think was just banter or deserved?
However I agree with you that Celtic SHOULD be able to comment without worrying about threats and repercussions. However people should not be endangered without just cause as to be honest, the problem is not just Celtics – it is all our problem.
Exiled Celt says: (701)
October 15, 2013 at 1:41 am
bigpink56 – since I made the comment about safety, I’ll answer your question
Difference between Reagan’s concern and Celtic’s concern is that one was made by the establishment to ensure a vehicle was enabled for the Peepil to have somewhere to voice their historical pleasures – Celtic’s concern is actually happening.
__________________________________________________________________________
In which case, Regan’s claim was also based on those same facts (although I don’t accept the NL situation as evidence of widespread TRFC terror). If as you say there is evidence that violence could result, then Regan was also correct was he not (regardless of your inference on his motives) and undeserving of the ridicule we heaped upon him when he said it?
You also make the assumption that the reasoning behind both concerns is different. I respectfully disagree with you there. I think BOTH are establishment moves to keep the Rangers market alive – or of course both are equally concerned about violence.
Assuming there are only black hats at the SFA and white ones at CP blows smoke on the issue for me. I think the SFA are rotten and corrupt (certainly if you are a sporting purist), but the clubs are no less culpable of that charge.
As long as the clubs rubber stamp the SFA/SPL behaviour over the last few years, they are as deserving of any criticism or credit aimed at the authorities in my view. We can’t just dish out double standards like they were SFA memberships or Euro licences 🙂
Bigpink56
I think you’ve got me wrong. I said the screwballs before the wee man. I’m a McCann man. Was back then too. If you read my comment on etims you’ll see I said he would’ve had a field day with events over the past two years.
Apologies Markybhoy
Getting late and I misunderstood 🙂
Good to know we agree.
Reagan was only concerned with unrest IF TRFC were not allowed to gain a place in SPL/SFL – they did and so unrest was saved as far as he was concerned. He has never shown any concern to DUFC fans for the SC tie nor Celtic for all the comments and fancy French spoken by Charles during last season.
I think Reagan is no longer concerned about anything!
I would like to know more about the pressure from the establishment brought to bear on our clubs as Turnbull alluded to – did Celtic and other SPL clubs also get any “advice” on how to proceed – were any pressures brought to bear? This is why we have an interesting AGM to come where we may find out more exactly our position.
We know the SFA/UK and Scottish Govt/Scottish press and establishment all conspired to ensure Triggers Broom continuation – let’s see what else is out there.
IMO
There is no way the stranglehold the peepil’s clubs have in our game was ever going to be broken in a year or two the ludicrous and utterly bewildering decisions made in their favour in all this is testament to that .
No this has to be a long term project ,one step at a time and I think the Celtic board know this only too well .
We have outgrown the peepil and only the constraint of being trapped in Scottish football holds us back from leaving them behind with all their bigotry and bile built on division and hate .
Some say the board desire Sevco 2012 in the SPFL ,I say the board are realistic and know there are too many peepil willing to do all they can to ensure that happens and know they have to pick their battles .
IMO the best we can do is to get well placed to try and counter the inevitable cheating and honest mistakes that will surely occur to make up for a team having to live within it’s means .
I think I read in a post that the DR had said that PL could have the deciding vote on king being allowed into Sevco ,if so .that is what Celtic are up against .
IMO there is going to be a Sevco 1,2,3,4,5, in the SPFL and nothing Celtic do will prevent it ,with PL in place at the SFA maybe now the peepil’s meeting will have to take place outside that boardroom but it’s the first step ,next step is to begin getting people in who have more than one clubs interests at heart .
On the subject of the 2011 European Licence, most of us will remember the e-mails posted on the CF account, which allege that (1) Rangers at that time were twitchy to say the least about UEFA questioning their status (2) The SFA basically saying to Rangers ‘looks like they’ve accepted, we won’t ask any more if you don’t.’ If these e-mails are authentic, there is real reason to believe that the SFA saw reason at the time to question the validity of their own actions. I am sure the Celtic Board are as aware of these allegations as much as we all are, but can they officially sit at the AGM and raise them? I’d say no. Shareholders surely can though, but I’d imagine the Board will be duty bound to caution there is no way of proving their authenticity.
Barcabhoy says: (234)
October 14, 2013 at 10:00 pm
Here’s the real world…
…………………………………
Barcabhoy I normally agree with you but not totally here.
Someone has to make the first stand.
In my real world the Premier League heads decided that it was a “Business” decision and that the way their own clubs would maximise their personal clubs revenues was to find a way to keep the blue club at the top table.
It was a decision by all the clubs. They were all either in agreement or were well “whipped” because none came out publicly against the proposal.
Although I fully accept and agree that the move to phoenix Rangers straight back to the top was driven by the inner circle and the diddyer Premier League clubs with no committee places or pals in high places were given the plan as a fait accompli.
I also believe there were subsequent financial readjustments to those who maybe had lost out and was told this by someone who would be in the know.
Either way that doesn’t matter.
I applaud what Auldheid and the Celtic shareholders are doing because no other club ‘s supporters have the opportunity or integrity or maybe just the chance to do it. I am fully behind the move – if you haven’t also visit the latest James Forrest “Fields of Green” post on the subject. It is one of his best.
The Celtic Board will not be happy with having to address these particular issues and will have a plan to Jerrymander them or sideline them in some way.
Sadly all the Premier League clubs were and remain complicit but as in an Orwellian world “some more than others” and by that I would put Messrs Milne, Thompson, Petrie and Lawwell in the front line.
(And Thompson was unhappy but never said why when he subsequently left a committee role if my memory serves me well).
Good luck Auldheid et al.
jimlarkin says: (550)
October 14, 2013 at 7:38 pm
……………………………
I agree Jim…in what other industry would a PLC accept..indeed ask its shareholders to ignore such a set of issues that clearly would have financially affected their investment and operational success?
Only in Scotland!
Exiled Celt says: (702)
October 15, 2013 at 2:21 am
(& BigPink and Markybhoy)
At the time Regan advised us all of the chances of civil unrest many of us questioned what it was he actually meant; threats? more intimidation? or actual all out rioting – maybe like we had seen a few years earlier in Manchester by Chelsea fans? 😉 The phrase itself would suggest someithing more significant. What struck me though is that those that would have carried out this civil unrest were, apparently, always a ‘small minority’ – and that the old club had made significant efforts and progress to remove this ‘element’ from their support before it died. Seems to me that one side of this picture doesn’t relate to the other. And of course, the MSM would have reminded us, the celtic fans are just as bad.
Congratulations to this website and its due homage to Rangers Tax Case for keeping scrutiny over the attempts by so many to obscure the truth. My assumption is that The Rangers will run out of money soon and be liquidated. The SFA will hope that keeps attention of them and particularly Campbell Ogilvie ‘s part in rule breaking.
Seems to me that this scene has been written for the sole purpose of delaying the AGM, and to double check that all the “T’s are crossed and “i’s” are dotted for the final switcheroo.
Plenty of time to ensure the manoeuvre runs smoothly. Gives the lawyers a little more time to ensure that they have found the loophole that will allow the chosen ones to sit again on the board, and to fabricate the spin that will ensure DK and MM are seen to be perfectly entitled to resume their positions within the “institution.” Enough time to ensure all the current leeches have bled the carcass dry before handing the corpse back to “Real Rangers Men”; after all they have done the dirty work n’est-ce- pas?
IMO the final draft of the script that we will be fed, has been cleared to go to copy.
Our delightful SMSM will be memorising it ASAP. I can envisage them huddled together in Q&A sessions to ensure they are all reading from the same sheet.. ….I dread the cacophony that will be heralded from them imminently . Its a good job that people on here know the difference between theory and reality because IMO the fine line that separates the two is going to be erased very soon.
Paulmac2 says: (745)
October 15, 2013 at 8:17 am
2 0 Rate This
jimlarkin says: (550)
October 14, 2013 at 7:38 pm
……………………………
I agree Jim…in what other industry would a PLC accept..indeed ask its shareholders to ignore such a set of issues that clearly would have financially affected their investment and operational success?
Only in Scotland!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Exactly
But the point is – why ?!
For money. (Obliterating any sporting integrity)
They know, that the Celtic mugs will continue to pour cash in to scottish football and the mugs will turn up for games to be televised.
Just the same as the switcheroo at SEVCO. They knew the blue mugs would do the same, knowing that the blue sheep would follow follow and continue to spend the blue pound (to Get BACK (sic) to the top)
Let them get on with it. That’ sway the Tour de France was ruined for so many years.
They all knew what was going on and they went along with it, because there was little alternative and that is why lance Armstrong ‘donated’ money to The UCI
. . . The same way that Celtic ‘earn’ money from UEFA for the SFA.
They’re all in it together – for the MONEY
And the only way possible to get the point across – is DO NOT give Celtic or the SFA any more of your hard earned money, until their hand is forced.
If you keep giving celtic money – you are complicit in this charade and are condoning the Cheating perpetrated by Rangers(1872) and Sevco(2012)
It’s up to the individual to make their own minds up, but unless you stop the money that Celtic and the SFA take for granted, then absolutely nothing will change and the bending, ignoring, bastardis1ng of the rules will continue, on the basis of if it was the other way about, the same would have been done for Celtic – sh1te !
Slightly confusing with not only the goings on at Ibrox but also rumblings from Celtic fans towards their board.
I just read the Paul Brennen blog from yesterday which also dealt with the Celtic situation posters here have been discussing. It helped clarify things a bit for those of us not familiar with the internal goings on over at Celtic Park: http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=13917
With my media monitor hat on I was impressed by some of the very clued up callers on the SSB podcast from yesterday. Without intolerant Keevins, the more or less ignorant DJ, and ‘Chic Dalziel’ this show manages to foster quite a bit of debate. Respect to the fans who make the effort to phone in and argue for fair play and for the SFA be held to account. It would much easier to switch off right enough, but several callers are opening the eyes of the pundits who, in turn, won’t be able to claim ignorance on the big issues.
I’m in two minds about the CFC AGM resolution. I totally agree with the sentiment and appreciate that a group has pulled this together even though it may show up their own club. I firmly believe the vast majority of fans are of this mindset also and the apparent lack of same in Rangers/Sevco has been the outstanding feature of this charade.
However, I have a few reservations.
1. Is it a bit of a squirrel? However, more importantly.
2. I’m sure it’s well drafted (ok, it sounds right!) but is it’s a bit obtuse, a bit “nudge,nudge”, as if there’s a crime of whose name we cannot speak? “AGM requests board…as per UEFA…referring/attention…of CFCB…the SFA implementation of UEFA and SFA…qualification…licenses etc.” Basically a very well drafted set of words that avoid the R word and that may or may not lead to someone possibly connecting the resolution with the licensing of Rangers/Sevco if, and it’s a big if, they already know AND accept that this is what they are being asked to do. We are assuming that UEFA will leap on the chance to do something about the forces of evil but to respond to this resolution they would, at the absolute most, have to do just do exactly as requested; take a look at the SFA’s licensing and administration practices since 2010.
3. Finally, I think we are all looking to blame the SFA and the SPL teams for this which is a bit of a “get out of jail card” for Rangers/Sevco: however, still worth doing. I think it might be better if we tabled a few direct questions for the record at all the SPL AGM. Of course it would be easier if the MSM did this but no chance. What about for example?
“Were you aware of the 5 way agreement at time of signature?”
“Did you participate in a vote to approve the agreement.” (Not sure if anyone can divulge how they voted?
“Were there any side letters to the 5 way agreement?”
“Did you participate in a vote to approve any side letters?’
“Why was the proposal to amend the 11-1 vote dropped/’ (Ok, that one is for me!)
The point being that no one has been asked to go on the record on these questions and that’s because it’s a no go area; they were either complicit in the scam or it was carried out independently of them and therefore “illegally” IMO. As you can see I’m not a lawyer so please, no pedantry on the wording.
Why is it ONLY Celtic shareholders asking their board for clarity in certain matters. Have other clubs no shareholders with doubts or questions. We all have expressed doubts in the way SFA have dealt with Sevco from begging, it effects all clubs and every club matters, this is our game and questions should be asked at every level after all SMSM never will. This is what we do and the more shareholders that ask the better.
jimlarkin says: (551)
October 15, 2013 at 9:02 am
“…If you keep giving celtic money –”
——
Let’s have a little bit of balance here, please.
Address that request to all the clubs as vehemently, and I’m with you.
Single out Celtic, and you’re on your own.
The problems in Scottish Football are not now and have never been the fault of Celtic ( except, of course, that their success turned the likes of SDM into a monster of envy and jealousy), who do not intend to make themselves the whipping boy for a sectarian, unbalanced press and rabid element of thugs.
It is not for Celtic alone to stand up for truth and integrity.
The Celtic support at least are trying to encourage the Celtic Board to stay on the path of integrity by acting properly as Directors with duties towards their shareholders, duties to see that the business community ( the SFA etc) that they operate in is abiding by its own Articles and Rules, and not illicitly and in biased fashion, harming the economic and business interests of the body as a whole.
If the majority of clubs’ supporters, shareholders etc put similar pressure on their clubs, enough to give them courage to support the move for investigation and change, things might really happen.
Yesterday I posed the question was King trying to double dupe the Spivs.
After yesterday’s court fiasco I am now wondering if CM and BS are wholly incompetent or given the following
Inabilitlty to tell fans what IPO money was left
Inability to accurately forecast loses
Questioning the SFA when you know the answers
Making a balls up of the Chairman King announcement
Taking a nonstarter to court
Are they building up a portfolio of ‘P#%! Friend’ moments to ensure they can exit stage left ASAP
wottpi says: (1226)
October 15, 2013 at 10:11 am
1 0 Rate This
… Are they building up a portfolio of ‘P#%! Friend’ moments to ensure they can exit stage left ASAP
———-
It’s a bit like the build up to the Charles Green & Imran Ahmad exit right enough. But at least you could see CM & BS as the follow-up act. I don’t see who takes over now, well, apart from two brothers.
john clarke says: (1243)
October 15, 2013 at 9:59 am
0 0 Rate This
jimlarkin says: (551)
October 15, 2013 at 9:02 am
“…If you keep giving celtic money –”
——
Let’s have a little bit of balance here, please.
Address that request to all the clubs as vehemently, and I’m with you.
Single out Celtic, and you’re on your own.
The problems in Scottish Football are not now and have never been the fault of Celtic ( except, of course, that their success turned the likes of SDM into a monster of envy and jealousy), who do not intend to make themselves the whipping boy for a sectarian, unbalanced press and rabid element of thugs.
It is not for Celtic alone to stand up for truth and integrity.
The Celtic support at least are trying to encourage the Celtic Board to stay on the path of integrity by acting properly as Directors with duties towards their shareholders, duties to see that the business community ( the SFA etc) that they operate in is abiding by its own Articles and Rules, and not illicitly and in biased fashion, harming the economic and business interests of the body as a whole.
If the majority of clubs’ supporters, shareholders etc put similar pressure on their clubs, enough to give them courage to support the move for investigation and change, things might really happen.
********************************************************************************************************
You raise a good point, but . . .
The difference is, Celtic Were in a position (financial) to at least give the steroid Rangers a run for their
£10erz, other clubs not so, but were dragged along on the financial coat tails.
All I am saying is – the Celtic board know what the feelings of a great many of the members of the Celtic supporters Trust are, regarding the way The SFA allowed Rangers* to illegally compete in the premium European competition – at Celtic’s expense and detriment.
The Celtic board – do not want to go down that avenue.
By doings so, they are doing a disservice to Me and all other shareholders who have given their proxy votes to the Celtic supporters Trust, who want to get to the truth.
Why oppose it?
Why did Celtic not oppose Campbell Ogilvie”s re-election?
Why did Celtic not want to get rid of Doncaster and Regan?
Why did Celtic say nothing about a ‘secret’ 5 way agreement?
Why have Celtic never asked about the secret 5 way agreement?
How can Celtic stand idly by and see Spartans be thrown out of a competition for 1 missing signature, yet
Accept that there is no equivalent punishment for having dual contracts which were hidden?
Celtic are complicit – and it is for financial reasons.
The Celtic board, clearly DO want Sevco/Rangers at the top table – for the cash.
Celtic are complicit and by default, any ‘fan’ that buys a season book, match day ticket, programme, pie, bovril, put a bet on at the bookies in the stadium, etc, is condoning the actions of the Celtic (keep quiet and say nothing, do nothing) board, ergo the fans are also complicit.
Well, I’m sorry, but I’m having no part to play in allowing circus of the last 2 years to play out in order the appease the money men and the blue (the big house must stay open) brigade.
To say nothing means you agree and accept the cheating.
jimlarkin says: (552)
October 15, 2013 at 10:30 am
‘..To say nothing means you agree and accept the cheating.’
—–
To be kami-kaze about how you tackle injustice is neither required nor sensible.
May as well ask you to go and picket outside Ibrox or Hampden on your own crusade!
We are dealing with pretty devious individuals and cliques with strong ‘political’ and hooligan backing.
We must proceed step by step, and not go charging in like that wicked old fool, Lord Cardigan( no, not Walter of that ilk: the Light brigade chappie)
jimlarkin says: (552)
October 15, 2013 at 10:30 am
… Celtic are complicit – and it is for financial reasons…
………………………………..
I totally agree with you but it is not fair to just blame Celtic.
You could substitute any premier club name for Celtic in your sentence and it would still be correct.
The whole league agreed unanimously to sell-out to the toxic promise of continued blue pound notes.
I guess it is not something that any of them are happy about now because of people like Auldheid.
I would make one further point to the representatives of clubs lurking on here to gauge the fans opinion barometer or even the plants playing a role as one of our community.
The Celtic fans are just the first to badger their board formally via their shareholding about integrity and fair play.
To people like me I am grateful that these fans/shareholders are showing us real leadership.
More leadership than any of the highly paid servants or the club chairmen.
And yes in our wee corrupt MSM driven goldfish bowl the Celtic board need this kind of discussion like a hole in the head and as such will probably do all they can to marginalise and defeat it.
But I predict that without a full and honest airing it will never go away and will come back again and again to Celtic and to 11 other complicit clubs.
Like the parallel pursuits of honesty in Lance Armstrong’s denied doping, and the pursuit of truth and justice about Hillsborough this will only reach closure when integrity prevails.
Regarding ‘Why only Celtic?’ It is true that ALL the clubs supporters should be asking questions of their board but the other clubs are not, as far as I can recall, PLCs. Therefore there are generally not so many ‘fan’ shareholders with the legal ability to get a motion added to an AGM.
Celtic’s actions over the 2011 licensing issue do not make sense.
Celtic have now revealed that the license issue was raised with the SFA and UEFA at the time. Some choose to interpret this as meaning that the Board took the issue as far as they could. The Record interpreted this as meaning the SFA had demonstrated to Celtic’s satisfaction that their handling of the issue was correct. I doubt either are true.
Look at Celtic as a business. As an investor. There is a clear prima facie case that Celtic were denied the opportunity to compete in the most lucrative competition they can enter on false grounds. As a company with shareholders, Celtic have a responsibility to pursue recompense for that as far as it is possible to go and also to act to prevent the circumstances where such an act cannot be done to them again.
Step one. They went to the SFA and must have been given an unsatisfactory response, otherwise that would have been the end of the matter.
Step two. They went to UEFA. UEFA evidently backed the SFA, or at least failed to enforce a change.
So where is step three?? Did UEFA forbid any further action? Why was this not raised all the way up to CAS, or even (after Rangers set the precedent) a civil court in Scotland? It’s a colossal amount of money for the football industry in Scotland. No stone should have been unturned.
It seems to me that Celtic chose to walk away from this fight. The financial implications of being denied the chance to earn such a large amount of money should have been mentioned in the year end accounts at the very least.
It is also arguably irresponsible of the board to not make this public. If I bought Celtic shares, it would be on the understanding that it conducts its business within a certain framework. That framework is expected to operate in such a way that operational excellence is rewarded in a more or less consistent way (allowing for the odd refereeing error etc – an argument for another day). This is a principle that all investment in football essentially relies upon so as not to fall foul of market rules on operating cartels etc. Celtic’s investors can no longer rely on this concept.
In plain English: Celtic did everything they needed to do to be entitled to entry into a potentially very lucrative competition and were denied entry because a governing body chose to arbitrarily ignore its own rules. – The SFA’s decision to let Rangers cheat is a notifiable event.
If I’d invested money in Celtic in the last 2 years and that investment had fallen. I’d have a pretty good case for demanding my original investment back because that information had been withheld.
So the Celtic board didn’t just accept this decision. They were complicit in covering it up. At best they were lied to at the time about whether the bill had been paid and have failed to cry foul when it became clear it hadn’t.
It gets worse. If they knew about Rangers financial state at the time, why did they not take steps to ensure Rangers were denied entry to the SPL the following year? The Celtic board could have made sure that the SFA decision to let Rangers enter the league that year was done in a spotlight that forced them to either break their own rules in full view of everyone, or deny Rangers a place in the league. Such an action would have highlighted the European qualifying license issue and thrown Rangers into further turmoil, maybe even seeing them enter admin there and then. This would make Celtic’s domination of the next few years of Scottish football even more likely. Their inaction gave Rangers a possible way out which they ultimately failed to take. A very poor way to conduct business.
I can see three possible explanations. One is that the authorities threatened retribution so dire that the board though it better to undermine their own company and lie to their investors and supporters rather than do the right thing. Another possibility is that the Celtic board see their long term future as being connected with Rangers and that Celtic as a company are stronger as one of “the cheeks”. This at least explains their actions as being in Celtic’s interests, although it doesn’t excuse their failing to divulge financially important information. Finally, the SFA / UEFA might have paid out to keep Celtic quiet – theoretically possible, but unlikely given Celtic are a plc.
Whatever the real reason, it’s not got much to do with sporting integrity.
ptd1978 says: (90)
October 15, 2013 at 11:08 am
‘..It seems to me that Celtic chose to walk away from this fight. ‘
—
With respect, this is getting to be ridiculous.
The baddies we are after are the baddies in the SFA who shamed themselves ,Scottish Football and all of us, by breaking their own rules to try to protect and save a shamed and failed club.
Let’s concentrate our fire on the them, and give over trying to make Celtic somehow the guilty party because they do not volunteer to commit commercial suicide and let the baddies win!
Put the blame for the shambles where it properly belongs – on, first and foremost SDM, then the revolving door between Ibrox and the SFA, which permitted SDM to behave despicably, then CO and the rotten complicit men in the SFA whose combined efforts to save a failed,dishonest club saw them abusing and perverting their functions without a second thought , and the SMSM which maintained and still maintains and encourages them in their disgracefully untruthful and corrupt stance.
ptd1978 says: (90)
October 15, 2013 at 11:08 am
Rate This
Celtic’s actions over the 2011 licensing issue do not make sense.
——————————————————————————————
There is another possibility that maybe Celtic are playing the long game here. If they were able demonstrate long-term persistent flouting of the rules by the SFA to the detriment of Celtic FC, they would have a very strong case to present to UEFA regarding the resignation of Celtic’s membership of the SFA
john clarke says: (1244)
October 15, 2013 at 9:59 am
Let’s have a little bit of balance here, please.
Address that request to all the clubs as vehemently, and I’m with you.
Single out Celtic, and you’re on your own.
———————————————————————————————-
Being a Celtic man I don’t think I can really ask anyone other than the team I’ve invested my life in.
And anyway, is that not the point of the bottom up ideal? I keep going back to it, but the organic way that the Say no to Newco campaign grew is surely the connection we’re all trying to catch. I ran out of breath waiting. Maybe it’ll turn up and someb’dy can gie me the kiss of life!
john clarke says: (1245)
October 15, 2013 at 11:29 am
John, with respect, I agree with you, the baddies as you put it, are in the hallowed Halls of Hampden, in the offices of the SFA and the SPFL.
Unfortunately, the baddies cannot simply be reduced to the trio of Aunt Sally’s represented by Messers Doncaster, Regan & Ogilvy. They are useful human shields, the ultimate squirrels if you will, behind whose voluminous skirts hide the people who are ultimately responsible – the people who sat on the boards and who clearly approved of every action the Aunt Sally’s took, otherwise why, promote, reward with huge pay rises and re elect them?
I have no quarrel with how the Celtic board run Celtic. I have a number of issues with how various people carried out their duties with the SFA & SFL/SPL/SPFL. That some of those people also serve on the Celtic board is not really relevant, they can perform well in one role, and be an absolute bloody disgrace in the other.
What’s ridiculous about this situation, is pretending that only Doncaster, Regan and Ogilvy behaved badly, unless folk are arguing that the various boards were among the great duped?
JM1206 says: (3)
October 15, 2013 at 11:35 am
Interesting argument, however, silence is a form of complicity, the obvious question that would be asked is “You say you were treated badly, where are the complaints? Show us the cases before the Court of Arbitration?”
JM1206 says
There is another possibility that maybe Celtic are playing the long game here. If they were able demonstrate long-term persistent flouting of the rules by the SFA to the detriment of Celtic FC, they would have a very strong case to present to UEFA regarding the resignation of Celtic’s membership of the SFA.
———————————————————————————————
If you go back to the mystery behind the HMRC leaks and their route that led to the RTC blog’s high visibility, the subsequent strategic direction of the same blog, post-January 2012, including the Hugh Adam line that was quickly followed up by McGarry and Thomson when Rangers went into administration and were effectivelly leaderless. Then you can include it in the same direction of speculation you point towards.
Markybhoy says: (24)
October 15, 2013 at 11:38 am
‘..Being a Celtic man I don’t think I can really ask anyone other than the team I’ve invested my life in’
—-
For someone who has, as you say, invested your life in a club, you are very ready to see it sacrifice itself as some kind of scapegoat while letting the real goats get away with murdering Scottish football.
Any and all supporters of the clubs legitimately holding membership of the SFA should be ready not to attack their own clubs, but to unite with others in forcing their clubs to tackle the corruption in the SFA.
That is where the present problem lies.
We must be re-assured that whatever happens to the hopelessly mismanaged new club, now beset with internal problems and financial crisis, and possibly facing financial collapse, the SFA will not feel free to disregard the rules to allow unfit and improper persons to serve on its board, or extend any other ilicit favour to it.
Remember, it is not the new club per se that we are concerned about. It is the possibility that the already compromised and duplicitous Football Authorities may again be prepared to accommodate the people associated with that new club that is the problem.
john clarke says: (1246)
October 15, 2013 at 12:00 pm
“Remember, it is not the new club per se that we are concerned about. It is the possibility that the already experienced readiness of our Football Authorities to accommodate the people associated with that new club that is the problem.”
John, it will, for the most part, be exactly the same people who will have to make these decisions, All that’s changed over the last year, is the seating arrangements…..
Why oppose it?
Why did every club not oppose Campbell Ogilvie”s re-election?
Why did every club not want to get rid of Doncaster and Regan?
Why did every club say nothing about a ‘secret’ 5 way agreement?
Why have every club never asked about the secret 5 way agreement?
How can every club stand idly by and see Spartans be thrown out of a competition for 1 missing signature, yet
Accept that there is no equivalent punishment for having dual contracts which were hidden?
Every club are complicit – and it is for financial reasons.
Every club, clearly DO want Sevco/Rangers at the top table – for the cash.
Every club are complicit and by default, any ‘fan’ that buys a season book, match day ticket, programme, pie, bovril, put a bet on at the bookies in the stadium, etc, is condoning the actions of the every club (keep quiet and say nothing, do nothing) board, ergo the fans are also complicit.
Well, I’m sorry, but I’m having no part to play in allowing circus of the last 2 years to play out in order the appease the money men and the blue (the big house must stay open) brigade.
To say nothing means you agree and accept the cheating
For all of the noise on here from those kicking the Celtic board, I have yet to see a sensible suggestion on how this could have been played differently.
The challenge facing Celtic was threefold.
1 attack the SFA in public as some on here are advocating
2 accuse Rangers publicly of cheating
3 start an action for damages due to SFA rulings
Taking each one in turn.
1 This would almost certainly have seen some other member clubs turn aggressively on Celtic. The ethos of keeping issues inside football, and not publicly airing them, is strong in football. Rangers lost some friendly clubs and many neutral ones when they took the SFA to court . What was achieved in denying the plan by Regan Ogilvie and Doncaster, to have Rangers inserted into the SPL and when that failed SFL 1, would have been jeapordised by inter club squabbles.
2 This was impossible . Celtic have to act in a much more measured way than posturing fans on a blog. Anyone seriously suggesting Celtic accused Rangers publicly of cheating either is unaware of the reality of life in the west of scotland, or is doing so , selfishly, from a safe distance.
3 Once again this would have created serious divide amongst other member clubs. Celtic would have gone from a position of moral high ground, to someone who would be accused of trying to bankrupt the SFA. Those aggressively demanding legal action for loss of income should take a look at the SFA balance sheet. This is an organisation who do not have anything like the funds required to satisfy a successful Celtic legal action. Please don’t even mention insurance. For Celtic to win they would have to show deliberate intent by the SFA to cheat Celtic. No insurance will cover deliberate fraudulent actions by paid executives, against a member.
Those criticising the board are letting their emotions cloud their judgement. I understand , and share, the anger that people feel about Rangers not being stripped of titles , and of David Murray not, yet anyway, being banned sine die and facing charges. None of this though is the responsibility of the Celtic Board. Celtic acted as best they could given the realities of the situation.
Barcabhoy says: (235)
October 15, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Celtic the club were in a tight spot. But, it wasn’t the Celtic board who were taking decisions about the governance of Scottish Football over the last year. It was a discrete group of individuals, who held positions of great responsibility in SFA and within the League bodies.
At the very least, those individuals owe it to everyone to publicly apologise for their behaviour, and to make it crystal clear exactly what’s changed to prevent a repetition. If they are unable to do this, then they are part of the problem, and should go..
From a safe distance they could have released something requiring a three minute warning.
Barcabhoy – Celtic did not need to act alone but they are the biggest club and could have shown the kind of leadership that Auldheid et al are doing now.
They could have made alliances with Petrie and Thompson and others and just ensured that the game was played the by the rules.
By the rules would have been fine and nobody could have argued against it.
But they did not act alone for whatever justifiable in hindsight reasons ….and now we have Campbell (re-elected unopposed), and Stewart and Neil (in post with wage increases) running our game for us.
And former Ibrox shareholder David sitting quietly in the wings (with his big windfall commission) waiting for a call from whoever takes over the blue club after the assets are separated.
You know what – in a Machiavellian world maybe the best thing Celtic did was nothing!
The Spivs have sure seen to that.
Nothing which has happened over the last couple of days has changed the basic question, how do you make the current Rangers into a viable sustainable business.
Dave King may or may not become chairman of the PLC, or the club. Doesn’t really change anything.
There may be a share issue bringing in money. If they are still spending more than they are earning then all that does is stall the inevitable. Just more money thrown down a bottomless pit.
A Judge has granted an interim interdict and the AGM has been put back. Financially changes not one thing.
The requisitioners will now be available for election to the board. If that happens they have to come up with ways of cutting costs. Having a larger board seems unlikely to be the way to go. Even if it is a totally new board what actions are open to them.
In short, there has been a lot of maneuvering and a lot of rhetoric. However nothing has changed and it is still difficult to see that enough can to change Rangers into an at least break even business.
I await the party political broadcasts from both sides, where they explain how they are going to do this. Their manifesto if you will. I expect more empty promises and mud-slinging.
I’m with John Clarke on this. – Even IF (<big if) there is an element of collusion or complicity from the board, Celtic and their fans are not the baddies here. IMHO it’s naive to believe that having such a statement publically associated with Celtic will bring us any closer to getting transparency on this issue. I’m as much in favour of truth & justice as the next man, but don't confuse the search for the truth with a desire for revenge for all the wrongs (and there are many!) we've had to endure over the decades.
I also can’t help but ask what’s in the best interests of Celtic, and keep coming back to the same question. – Is it in our interest to provide ammunition which feeds the prevailing “everybody hates us” paranoia of the blue hordes & their minions in the press? I personally dont think so, but that’s exactly how it will be viewed by the outside world. Perhaps that – rather than some dark, secret conspiracy – is what has driven the board's decisions? (OK – the “1 cheek of the same a”-rgument if you prefer)
Of course we need to keep fighting for fair treatment and justice, but we’ll only get that if the whole of Scottish football is united on the issue, and the plea for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, comes from a broad spectrum wearing a coat of many colours, but not with your Celtic colours visible under it's collar. It’s worked before, and it could work again, but only with the active support of other fans in Scotland. For example, wouldnt it be more effective, and leave ourselves less open to attack, if, instead of piecemeal questions/gestures, we lobbied the Scottish parliament for a Public Inquiry into this shambles and the state of Scottish football in general? I know it's a very far-fetched illusion, but I feel we should mirror the "Nelson Mandela" /TRC stance on the issue of truth & justice – Even if it means giving amnesty to some (providing they're willing to own up to wrong-doing!) we have to distance ourselves from even the perception of taking revenge, and accept that even a watered down form of justice – no matter how imperfect – is better than none at all.
I’m a pragmatist (/cynic?) on this. By all means support the resolution if you think it will help get the answers we want, but I can’t help but think it’ll turn out to be no more than a token, empty gesture, which – other than making us feel better – will have zero concrete impact except stirring up those already convinced we’re driven by bias & bitterness. However, wouldn't it serve our interests better if we could be seen to be above all this?
It's the SFA/SPFL – and their apologists in the MSM – who should be vilified for this. It would be a strange form of justice indeed if either Celtic or their fans – current or future – should suffer in any way, rather than those who're truly to blame.
BTW. It goes without saying that the root cause guilty – Murray and the rest of the crew – should be forced to own up to their part in this.
TheLunaticFringe says
====================
They should be looking at time in prison and the seizure of their assets.
This remains a possibility for several people.
The RM view of that Celtic AGM thing:
—
I hope it gets passed. I then hope UEFA decide the SFA were wrong.
I then hope that the punishment handed out fits the crime.
A 2 year ban for Scottish teams in Europe would be fitting i reckon.
—
Interesting that the Celtic board are voting against this resolution.
Either they know and accept what was one was, in the circumstances, reasonable and fair or
They, too. Have something to hide.
(sic)
—
Eddie Rice @ 12:18pm
Spot on Sir..!
Your points raise even bigger questions.
Are these people above the law? By law I mean both the Football Governing body laws and the laws of the land?
Are these people beyond reasonable criticism ?
Should anyone who asks serious investigive questions about them or their dubious activities feel threatened ?
If the answer to any of these three questions is YES, then the game is truly a Bogey. We have in simple terms here a request by a group of shareholders from a rival business to investigate further the claims of collusion between their rival Company and the Governing Body.
In a normal Business environment this would be a perfectly reasonable and indeed Important matter for the Governing body to deal with.
But this is Sevco. And lets not forget They are (were) The Peepil.
Tif Finn says:
====================
They should be looking at time in prison and the seizure of their assets.
This remains a possibility for several people.
————————————
Agreed, but one step at a time.
Interesting tone on the blog this morning , to summarise Barcabhoy if I may, the Celtic Board are not stupid, there in a nutshell captures all you need to know about the Celtic Board. Conversely, ….. well you get the picture.
It seems to me that the SMSM are still playing a blinder in ably assisting the second ruination of Rangers, it is their perception of their own commercial interest that is in fact playing up to ‘every £5 you spend brigade’ , and let’s be fair the old SMSM can spin with the best of them. I rather cheekily look forward to the next instalment of Keith , Jim, Hugh , Speirsy spouting their usual tosh , as I find it comforting that whilst attempting to sell newspapers they are forcing Rangers down the pan again.
Walter summed it up rather nicely , ‘Rangers and economics don’t make sense …. ‘ …..alas poor Walter the laws of economics affect everyone, even the peepil.
The Scottish media and establishment are what they are and they will do what they do, football is literally a law unto itself, so expect more of Rangers self-mutilation and the press jumping up down indicating that it is a mere flesh wound ……. how did that sketch finish again?
Finloch says: (193)
October 15, 2013 at 12:42 pm
Barcabhoy – Celtic did not need to act alone but they are the biggest club and could have shown the kind of leadership that Auldheid et al are doing now.
They could have made alliances with Petrie and Thompson and others and just ensured that the game was played the by the rules.
By the rules would have been fine and nobody could have argued against it.
But they did not act alone for whatever justifiable in hindsight reasons ….and now we have Campbell (re-elected unopposed), and Stewart and Neil (in post with wage increases) running our game for us.
And former Ibrox shareholder David sitting quietly in the wings (with his big windfall commission) waiting for a call from whoever takes over the blue club after the assets are separated.
You know what – in a Machiavellian world maybe the best thing Celtic did was nothing!
The Spivs have sure seen to that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I suppose with the benefit of hindsight your final sentence sums it up well. But bear in mind Celtic would have been well aware of the financial storm that was to hit Rangers and the motives and calibre of men who would be taking over. We all knew there was a £12M pa income gap to be plugged that would require serious downsizing, so did Celtic.
Sometimes it is best to choose to fight the battles you can win.
As regards the Celtic Board getting a pasting on here – I can see both sides of the argument but the more I look the more I see a squirrel.
Drew Peacock says:
========================
The notion of the Celtic board, full of accountants and the like, not knowing exactly what was happening at Rangers and the likely results is at best naive.
I remain of the opinion that the Celtic board were able to predict fairly well what was going to happen to Rangers, certainly up to the point that David Murray sold his shareholding to someone (and likely to be an unsavoury someone by that time). They probably could not predict what would have happened next, or at least the way it happened, however the demise of Rangers was predictable several years ago. Not just the administration but the liquidation as well. I say that as someone who predicted it.
It is entirely possible that the Celtic board simply sat back and watched it happen, awaiting the inevitable outcome. Knowing that the way things were going they would have a club well placed to benefit from it. I’m sure it gave them comfort when they were actively down-sizing their own operation, knowing that their main rivals were heading into oblivion anyway.
Was this the best action from a Celtic point of view (in the medium to long term). I think it almost certainly was. If your financial rivals are over-spending and imploding and it allows you to cut your own cost base, whilst at the same time knowing you will still be ahead of them it seems mad not to. It has resulted in where we are just now financially. Celtic have done what Rangers’ should have been doing, cutting costs to meet income, they haven’t and it is a distinct possibility the new club will go the way of the old.
If Celtic fans, and others, don’t like that and choose to blame the Celtic board for what has happened to football in this country, fair enough. I however place the blame at the feet of Sir David Murray, I believe and have done for years that he has destroyed our national game. He did it with the support of the Rangers’ fans.
TheLunaticFringe says: (10)
October 15, 2013 at 1:09 pm
‘..I’m with John Clarke on this…’
—–
I appreciate your agreement, TLF.
I think that on this blog we must not allow ourselves to be divided and factionalised ( is there such a word?)..
The basic truths are out there( God, I’m like a cracked record)
a club seriously broke enough rules to be expelled,but was not expelled,
it went burst owing all of us a helluva lot of tax,
our Football Administrators outrageously and deceitfully conspired to try to con members of the SFA into allowing a brand new team into the senior football ranks, which attempt failing, they conspired to get the new team into the then SFL bottom tier.
With a track record of duplicity and deceit behind them, there is no likelihood that in their dealings with a new club in serious difficulties they will suddenly become honest men and relate to that new club strictly under the rules.
And the even more, ever more, deceitful press will not call them to task.
All the other clubs were wrong-footed by SDM and the whole of what subsequently transpired.
Badly let down , and probably cowed by at least moral fear and in some cases by fear of actual physical reprisal.
We, as supporters of sport and integrity in sport, have to desist from having a go at any single club or at each other.
We must get a clear out at the SFA to enable a genuine restoration of trust in, and the return of decent values to, our Football Administration.
Elsewise, what’s the point?
(On the question of presenting a Petition to the Scottish parliament, I have emailed the Petitions office to ask whether the fact (?) that the SFA receives public money would bring their business within the scope of Parliament’s powers to investigate.)
Lot of talk regarding Celtic Board on here this morning.
This is what SMSM and Sevco want.
Lets not take our eye off the ball and be sidetracked.
Having been off this blog for a while, I come back to find the reasons for leaving it alone fully justified.
The current thread is full of febrile comment, short on fact, high on speculation much of it vacuous. It now resembles one of those scifi blogs discussing the existence of the Bonnybridge Triangle.
The MSM are on the whole ridiculed except when they attack the Celtic board whereupon they become paragons of virtue and truth. It seems most if not all of the blame for the death of Rangers can be safely laid at the door of Peter Lawwell.
Jack’s trolls appear to be working very successfully within the confines of this blog, unencumbered and unassailable.
In contrast legitimate questioning of the motives of some contributors, some of whose comments border on defamation is not permitted even by those who have contributed on here from the beginning.
This blog has now gone so far off at a tangent that its strap line might better read “asking questions even the MSM are not daft enough to ask”.
Too many on here have allowed the death of Rangers, at its own hand, to become a lightning rod for discontent and to point the finger of Discontent at those who had no part in that death. That’s a pity because this blog started off well with good intent and strong contributions from many able to see the bigger picture.
It is now to myopic for it’s own good as impartial reading of today’s comment would bear out.
Some of you it seems will only be content when Scottish football too has died. That is what the enemies of this blog want more than anything.
Reading Robert Harris’ excellent and timely novel (Levison, whistleblowers) A Officer and a Spy about the Defruss Affair. Just finished The Zola letter J’Accuse and was filled with anger. In it Zola states
“a society that sinks to that level has fallen into decay” and ends with
“in making these accusations I am aware that I am making myself liable to a punishable offence of libel…let them dare to bring me before a court of law and investigate in the full light of day!”
Zola at least had a newspaper who’d print it. We don’t.
slimshady61 says: (269)
October 15, 2013 at 2:29 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Isn’t the answer then to come back onboard and help the blog find it’s way again?
You have a lot to add to this blog but you seem to get a bit over sensitive when the Celtic Board are questioned. They are not beyond criticism. For what it’s worth I think the criticisms levelled against them on this thread are over done and diverts this blog from it’s main purpose – which is to remove the SFA/SPFL hierarchy.
I cannot believe what is happening here – we have a court battle lost yesterday, another day in court tomorrow with Imrahan v Sevco, we have a convicted felon who according to an eminent SA judge is a glib and shameless liar, we have Stockbridge admitting that even now in Oct, the best TRFC postion will be to have is 1 million to see them through months of April/May until next season tickets are due………………and the blog is concentrating on blaming Celtic’s board for “allowing” this mess?
Jack has done very well diverting the course of the conversation
Thumbs up Jack – please post with your real id so I can give you the TU! Chapeau!
john clarke says:
“On the question of presenting a Petition to the Scottish parliament, I have emailed the Petitions office to ask whether the fact (?) that the SFA receives public money would bring their business within the scope of Parliament’s powers to investigate”
—————-
100% behind you on that, JC, and I’m sure many fans of other clubs would support such a petition. I wonder if it might even get some support from the other “cheek” of the O.F – or at least the odd pimple or two?
The blog is not concentrating on blaming Celtic’s board or castigating one person.
The facts are that there is a real time resolution by some of Celtic’s shareholders that is asking for something. One of the craftsmen behind it is part of the heart and soul of this site.
At the same time another respected writer who has written lead blog articles for us here has posted a piece on the same resolution.
Many of the non Celtic supporting fans on this site and some of the Celtic fans too are coming to the conclusion that all the premier clubs were complicit in the various runnings up to the 5 way agreement’s progression and to the various people still in post in Scotland.
And with the motion in place I think that that is a reasonable topic to address.
So sorry if the Celtic Board and hence the club appears to some to be in the firing line but that is circumstantial and not targeting.
And this is not squirrelling or trolling but a grown up discussion ahead of what I hope will be an equally grown up discussion at the Celtic FC meeting when the motion is raised.
Exciled Celt at 2:57
I cannot believe what is happening here – we have a court battle lost yesterday, another day in court tomorrow with Imrahan v Sevco, we have a convicted felon who according to an eminent SA judge is a glib and shameless liar, we have Stockbridge admitting that even now in Oct, the best TRFC postion will be to have is 1 million to see them through months of April/May until next season tickets are due………………and the blog is concentrating on blaming Celtic’s board for “allowing” this mess?
Jack has done very well diverting the course of the conversation
Thumbs up Jack – please post with your real id so I can give you the TU! Chapeau!
————————————————————————————————
I thought the blog was about Scottish football which includes Celtic, so not talking about Rangers 24/7 shouldn’t mean the blog is going off-topic.
It would seem to be in the main Celtic supporters who are debating the issue you talk of so I don’t see your problem. Other than you may have a strong POV, that for you precludes the need for said debate.
Jack
Phil’s latest,
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/window-shopping-at-sevco/#more-4061
Re.Phil’s article
The efforts by the requisitioners and those major shareholders supporting them is to firstly take control of the boardroom rather than mount a takeover. So I don’t really understand what he is getting at in relation to the situation as it stands.
Slim. Barca et al
Folk are rightly outraged at the way those who were, and, in many cases still are, in positions of authority & responsibility within the governing structures of Scottish Football have behaved. Yes Rangers caused the problem, but the behaviour of the governing bodies made the situation worse.
I don’t give a Friar Tuck which club is Board member X’s parent club. My beef is with how Board member X carried out his duties in relation to his position in the SFA/SPL/SFL/SPFL. Every last one of them let Scottish Football down, and there has been not one syllable of contrition from any of them.
The Celtic Trust motion is a separate issue, looking at how Celtic may have lost out due to the totally egregious actions of the members of the boards of the Governing Bodies. One can argue if Celtic would or would not have been wiser to follow a particular course, frankly, a good case can be made either way.
However, I fail to understand how anyone can contend, that, the board members of the Governing Bodies are not culpable, responsible, or even accountable for their organisation’s actions.
slimshady61 says: (269)
October 15, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Too many on here have allowed the death of Rangers, at its own hand, to become a lightning rod for discontent and to point the finger of Discontent at those who had no part in that death. That’s a pity because this blog started off well with good intent and strong contributions from many able to see the bigger picture.
++++++++++++++
This forum is not about the demise of Rangers, or the future of Sevco. It is about Scottish football generally. Asking some pertinent questions about how Sevco were allowed to enter the SFL is absolutely fundamental to the purpose of TSFM- in my opinion. Should no questions be asked of the clubs who make up the SFA, regarding how this travesty was allowed to happen? Are we all supposed to just pay up and shut up? Ask no questions, get told no lies? I urge you and everyone else to read the excellent post by Eddie Rice at 12.18. How about answering the questions he poses, which are addressed to EVERY club. This is not about Celtic, or Rangers, or Sevco -it is about every club in Scotland.
For example, Mr Ogilvie was re-elected unopposed at the SFA AGM. Not one club out of 42 opposed this frankly outrageous coronation of a clearly conflicted individual. But in your opinion, anyone who speaks out on that is some sort of troll, bought and paid for by Jack Irvine.
Well, I can assure you, I am not a troll paid for by anyone. I have been saying since the day of the SFA AGM that Ogilvie’s re-election is a disgrace, that ALL clubs are complicit in this, and that this event alone proves to me that Scottish football is absolutely rotten to the core.
Should that not be said, in your view? Clearly not. Let’s all the lay the blame for everything at the feet of the administrators,. Regan, Doncaster, Longmuir, and yes, even Ogilvie. Do not ever blame the clubs, who employ these people, who give them huge rewards for carrying out the will of the members (the clubs), who then re-elect Ogilvie unanimously. And all this has no relevance to this forum? Well what does?
The clubs are clearly in this up to their necks. To claim that they aren’t is just playing us for fools. Until that complicity is dragged out into the light of day and dealt with, Scottish football has no honest future. But let’s just all look the other way instead, pretend it’s all right, and keep on paying for this corrupt crock of excrement. That’s a really great answer. Thanks.
Not something I say very often, but I have to agree with GreenockJack on this. The Celtic (and any other club’s) attitude and posture on this issue is very relevant.
I do fear that whenever there is a hint of criticism of Celtic, that a whole lot of knee jerk reactions take place. Some of it in the same language of anger and denial often found in fan sites of another club.
Barcabhoy
I don’t think there is a trend towards “kicking” the Celtic board here. Simple arithmetic applied to the demographic makes it inevitable that unhappy Celtic fans will make a louder noise on the issue than say Raith Rovers fans. Whether you agree with them or not I don’t think this is a kicking contest – at least I hope it isn’t.
Slimshady
Again you have lowered the tone of the debate by merely insulting other posters and their opinions. There was an absence of that until you decided to make your return. If your only form of argument is to play the man then you should think about your continued participation. Accusations of trolling could easily be answered by counter-allegations of the same nature. Fortunately others haven’t fallen into that trap – yet..
Everybody
There is an opportunity here to see if we can have a sensible debate here. If the only thing that unites this blog is having a go at TRFC, then we are as much a waste of time and space as the MSM. This is the Scottish Football Monitor – not the TRFC Monitor.
Emotions do run high in football, and there are those who are as quick to attack the boards of their own clubs as there are those who will rush to their defence.
I really hope that we can find time for opinions that do not converge with our own.
Greenock Jack
Not against anyone debating what they want as long as it is factual and allows for debate
Auldheid has done fantastic work and has got a resolution on the AGM for discussion
DR reported it incorrectly as it has nothing to do with what punishments RFC-NIL suffered (they didn’t suffer any!) but to do with what SFA did when giving RFC the go ahead to play in CL at expense of CFC
The important thing is to get folks on the record – if CFC say we did not know, then the shareholders are entitled to ask why not and what are we doing about it. Remember TRFC are not the only ones with institutional investors who want money back so some of these are might want to know why the board did not ensure we had as much profits from UEFA as possible.
However saying CFC want TRFC in SPL is purely conjecture – and cannot be argued either way so its a waste of time.
Until its on the record we don’t know where the cancer is – only at SFA or tinged in other places.
PS Motherwell last I saw have fans representatives on the board – why are they not raising questions about last years events?
PPS – having someone at an AGM make a statement is legally much more binding than a made up one in the DR!
slimshady61 says: (269)
October 15, 2013 at 2:29 pm
——————-
Slim
I miss your contributions and in particular the caustic wit you used to bring to proceedings.
I agree much of today has been repetitive and introspective and would have much better taken place on a Celtic board. You get days like that.
I am more than a bit mystified by your trolling allegations – virtually all contributions have been from long-term posters whose bone fides there is no reason to doubt.
John Clarke
I’m not trying to point the finger at Celtic per se. Celtic are the one club with a transparent enough system and good enough relations with its fans to give us an idea of how they approached the Rangers scandal in 2011.
What we see raises further questions. It is entirely possible that there are good explanations for every question raised (and certainly most of these questions are relevant to most if not all other Scottish football clubs), but no-one here has provided them yet. Celtic at board level are a company with responsibilities to the wellbeing of the business and their shareholders being their primary responsibility. Certainly such responsibilities trump Barcabhoy’s explanations. Especially as, if they knew about the WTC outstanding bill, Celtic must have known by then that they were going to be the only big team left to the SFA fairly soon. They knew they had huge influence at the time.
I hope that everything will be explained at the AGM to everyone’s satisfaction.
TSFM – Not saying its only a Rangers blog – however that is the biggest show in town at the moment due to them being in court more than Ironside ever was (maybe a bit too old a reference for some!)
There is no issue debating Celtic or anyone else for their part in the events of the last year – but there is no need to have posts imploring folks to dump Scottish football either. Some folks have chosen not to buy anything more from their clubs – that is their choice. Some like John Clarke have chosen to be the only “journalist” at the court to report back to us – absolutely fantastic. Some like Auldheid have kept pursuing something he has great reason to have serious questions about. Again – this is what we should be doing.
We had early blogs about petitions and such to get people active in pursuing SFA and SFPL – we need to get that activism going – otherwise we are a bunch of guys posting our thoughts and are open to the charges made by BartinMain (that I disagreed with!) of backslapping etc.
Scotland needs answers! And fast!
Exiled Celt says: (704)
October 15, 2013 at 3:51 pm
Greenock Jack
PS Motherwell last I saw have fans representatives on the board – why are they not raising questions about last years events?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Good question but you won’t like the answer. My take on it is that outside the two or three of us Well fans who post here there is little or no appetite amongst the wider fan base who just want to “move forward” and get on with the “football” side of things at the club. They see what went on at Rangers as a disgrace but care more about their own club and don’t want dragged into it all.
Of course the picture is a lot more complex than that as regards the role of the SFA/SPFL etc but then we’ve never had a fair crack of the whip from them at any point in the last 25 years so the fans don’t expect much from them anyway.
Exiled at 3:51
I think the blog debate is ongoing and that you have to let it run aslong as it keeps within moderators guidelines. Sometimes within these debates you find lucid or relevant exchanges that can be illuminating for all. To bring them to an end without what may be considered due reason or to control debate, would be to stifle what this blog was set-up to do.
To insist on ‘facts’ within a blog debate is to look for Utopia. where possible fine, but many points within a discussion will be seen differently.
Accountability simply isn’t in fashion today and if you want that to change you have to start at the TOP.
Drew Peacock – thanks for that – and you are correct it was not the answer I wanted – but unfortunately am sure that same lack of appetite is magnified across every other club too! Including Celtic no doubt!
Exiled Celt says: (704)
October 15, 2013 at 3:51 pm
The important thing is to get folks on the record – if CFC say we did not know, then the shareholders are entitled to ask why not and what are we doing about it. Remember TRFC are not the only ones with institutional investors who want money back so some of these are might want to know why the board did not ensure we had as much profits from UEFA as possible.
However saying CFC want TRFC in SPL is purely conjecture – and cannot be argued either way so its a waste of time.
_________________________________________________________________
With respect EC, isn’t that exactly what you did last night when you differentiated between Regan and Celtic’s warnings of civil unrest/violence? Isn’t it only your conjecture that Regan’s motives were impure whilst Celtic’s were not?
I think we are all entitled to extrapolate a little and make up our minds based on what seems logical to each of us – as long as we don’t demand to have our interpretations logged as fact. It certainly isn’t a waste of time. Historically, as a Celtic fan, I harbour deep suspicions about the boardroom. Maybe that is unfair as a starting point, but I despite my conclusions, I don’t think this imbues Lawwell et al with character defects – it merely indicates that my idea of what my club is about differs from theirs. And maybe yours too. Whatever, I like to think that posting my thoughts to this blog is not a waste of anyone’s time.
My original point though still remains. IF Celtic or any other club has to ignore the truth of this matter for the sake of fear, just what the heck are right-thinking people doing in the middle of this? Do we continue to participate in what is a sham – or are we too satisfied that there is no sham, that everything is fine, nothing to see here? Or is the pull of [insert color of jersey here] just too great?
The latter position is one that many TRFC fans take is it not? I understand the emotional pull of a football club, and would not criticise those who are feeling gravity’s pull towards a jersey, but I am not one of those. The effect of this whole sordid episode is to take me further and further away from something that gave me a great deal of pleasure for decades, but has stopped doing so.
This blog is, for me, about transparency and accountability in Scottish football – tax, accounting, press coverage, backroom deals. Gers, old and new, have been at the epicentre of most of it but other clubs should not be immune from censure. The Celtic board’s discomfort with doing what they are required to by their own/stock exchange rules is one thing, and concerns about collateral damage from the Bearmach against those they feel wringed by are I think a bit of a red herring – be seen to be doing the right thing whether you are Celtic or Peterhead. It’s the old quote – if you always tell the trutch you never need to repeact anything, or in this case – it you always do it right, you will never need to creak the rules…
Big Pink
No – I stated that they were different scenarios – Regan stated if RFC fans don’t find a home there will be civil unrest. Its been alluded to none of us knew what form this could take and under what circumstances. Never said Celtic warned of civil unrest – but the violence has been real – you said that the violence against NL could be separated from the others – I don’t see why unless JT’s view that he brought it on himself is the reason.
For the record – I have always been critical of Celtic’s board when I want to be – none more so than the ludicrous decision to agree to play Rapid Vienna in Manchester for some silver rather than make a stand against nonsense decision making by UEFA. Bob Kelly would have refused to play – as it was the debacle cost us dearly and set us back a few years financially as well as football wise.
Furthermore – I too have no doubt that there will be items from last year that we have discussed but have no concrete proof about yet that will embarrass not only SFA but many other clubs too.
I am not so blinkered to think the SFA did this and ran away – I have posted my thoughts that the SFA/SPL were pressured by folks on high to do what they did. I would like to know any pressure that was put on CFC by political folks to keep them shtumm – or what else my club was involved in.
Once answers are forthcoming and facts available – then yes we can make decisions. Until then I will stay and try to find the answers to make that decision.