Time to Make Things Happen

By

BARCABHOYJUNE 16, 2017 at 11:40  5 Votes  Chill Ultra How do you reconcile your …

Comment on Time to Make Things Happen by chill ultra.

BARCABHOYJUNE 16, 2017 at 11:40
 5 Votes
 Chill Ultra
How do you reconcile your statement that Res 12 was a board controlled project with the fact it’s only in the public domain because of the efforts of the requisitioners ? 
————
I’m sorry. I don’t follow your question. Could you please elaborate?

chill ultra Also Commented

Time to Make Things Happen
 
1.                          AULDHEIDJUNE 15, 2017 at 21:04 8 Votes
chill ultraJune 15, 2017 at 17:51 (Edit)      i 11 Votes 
AULDHEIDJUNE 15, 2017 at 16:22  ‘life would have been a lot easier had Celtic simply voted Res12 down, had a bun fight at the AGM and in 4 weeks it would have been forgotten’ Auldheid.  At the time of the 2013 AGM my understanding and that of many of the 100 signatories was that getting the resolution onto the AGM agenda would be a litmus test as to the intentions of the Plc regarding its future dealings with Rangers. Had the Plc voted for, and carried out the wishes of the shareholders to actively seek answers, the SFA would have been put in a very awkward spot. Had the Plc voted down the resolution then we would have known then (what we know now) that the intention of the club was to restore the Old Firm brand as soon as it could. The adjournment was the Plc’s get-out, the ideal solution; it meant that it could string along genuine supporters, not just of Celtic, to believe that it was actively seeking, with the help of  ‘Res 12’, to expose the corruption that blights our game. You, and your fellow requisitioners by your acquiescence allowed the club the wriggle room it was only to glad to accept. ================
Celtic’s position was made clear in their official response published in the Annual Report for that year distributed before the AGM and it was that Res12 was unnecessary. Have a read. ” Board Response
The Board is committed to protecting and promoting the interests of the Company, having regard to, among other things, the principles of fairness and sporting integrity.
Having regard to those interests and principles, the Board monitored the developing situation at Rangers Football Club carefully. The Company maintained a consistent position that the circumstances should be considered by the football authorities and the matter dealt with fairly and proportionately. This position was made clear to the football authorities, including the Scottish FA. The Company received assurances from the Scottish FA regarding the Club Licensing process for Season 2011/12 at the time. The Board considers that it took appropriate steps to protect the interests of the Company.
The Board will continue to take steps to protect and promote the interests of the Company. The Company participated in the restructuring of Scottish football and will continue to monitor the development and effectiveness of governance systems.
The Board remains committed to a strategy that promotes and protects the interests of the Company and does not rely on any other club. That stand alone strategy has been successful, as demonstrated by the robust results for the year to June 2013 and encouraging start to the current year.  In the circumstances the Board considers the resolution to be unnecessary and recommends that you vote against it.”
So there in writing is the answer to what you wanted to know.  Or rather what suspicions you had regarding Celtic’s motives. Celtic were not going to take the matter to UEFA  as requested and indeed asked those attending a meeting before the AGM to withdraw it on the basis that assurances had been sought from the SFA.
In all conscience that could not be agreed to because of contradictory information leaked in the summer regarding the processing of the UEFA licence in 2011 (now confirmed in court) and there was an impasse to which an adjournment was suggested as a solution.
That was seen as an opportunity to keep the issue alive and investigate the soundness of the suspicions regarding the UEFA licence, which was the SOLE aim of Res12 and not to confirm suspicions that individuals may have had about The Board, and without which there was no locus for Celtic to accept the Resolution in the first place, so your supposition of what took place is well wide of the mark.
There were a number of aims of Res12 one of which might have been what you wanted to establish in terms of The Boards position regarding preserving Rangers, which I have given you, but it was not the only one, and whilst you might be angry that you did not get what you thought you were signing up to, there are many who are content that those representing the signatories acted in good faith and with the best of intentions to see an investigation into the SFA and their handling of the licensing process in 2011 (NOT an investigation into the Celtic Board) through to the end and that end is nigher given the vindication of the suspicions in court last week that caused the adjournment.
View Comment
——————————————————–
 “(Celtic)asked those attending a meeting before the AGM”                       
“those representing the signatories acted in good faith”
Auldheid. To the best of my knowledge only two of the four requisitioners attended this meeting. One of these individuals had connections with the Plc; he had been name-checked, praised for his charity work for Celtic charities in the club’s annual reports (my bedtime reading).
That someone with this connection, (his professional background is another story for another day) self- appointed to represent 100 signatories should have influenced the decision to adjourn the resolution smacks of a conflict of interest. Regarding representation, I have asked repeatedly if the four requisitioners were shareholders at the time of th 2013 AGM but no one, including you Auldheid, seems able to give me simple binary yes/no answer for all four.
Auldheid, if you really want to convince me that the Plc are not in complete control of the ‘Resolution 12’ project, you could accede to my request to let me meet personally with a donor who you say funded the early legal work – and had apparently wanted to have a face-to-face meeting with me to ‘put me right’.  You withdrew this earlier offer only after I had agreed to meet the mystery benefactor.
Lack of transparency; lack of representation; lack of accountability; lack of keeping financial records; lack of fit and proper person scrutiny. I won’t comment further on the uncanny comparisons.


Time to Make Things Happen
AULDHEIDJUNE 15, 2017 at 16:22
 ‘life would have been a lot easier had Celtic simply voted Res12 down, had a bun fight at the AGM and in 4 weeks it would have been forgotten’
 Auldheid.  At the time of the 2013 AGM my understanding and that of many of the 100 signatories was that getting the resolution onto the AGM agenda would be a litmus test as to the intentions of the Plc regarding its future dealings with Rangers.
Had the Plc voted for, and carried out the wishes of the shareholders to actively seek answers, the SFA would have been put in a very awkward spot. Had the Plc voted down the resolution then we would have known then (what we know now) that the intention of the club was to restore the Old Firm brand as soon as it could.
The adjournment was the Plc’s get-out, the ideal solution; it meant that it could string along genuine supporters, not just of Celtic, to believe that it was actively seeking, with the help of  ‘Res 12’, to expose the corruption that blights our game. You, and your fellow requisitioners by your acquiescence allowed the club the wriggle room it was only to glad to accept.


Time to Make Things Happen
AULDHEIDJUNE 15, 2017 at 02:16
3 Vote
AllyjamboJune 14, 2017 at 09:47      i 19 Votes 
Hmm, I posted the other day about my decision to join the SFSA with the following note of caution:‘…though I am never confident of the effectiveness of such bodies, but hopefully they might prove effective.’ Well I received an email of their newsletter this morning and clicked on the undernoted link, entitled:‘What does the Craig Whyte story tell us about the SFA?’I was still not confident of the effectiveness of this body as I clicked the link, but hopeful, none the less; I’m afraid, judging by this effort, my lack of confidence was, in my opinion, well founded. Encouragingly, the first paragraph of the newsletter had contained this, ‘Our plan is to get 100,000 fans signed up to the SFSA and then we believe that with a united voice, change at the top of our game can be achieved.’, which might suggest a hard hitting organisation out to enforce change at the head of Scottish football, ready to go where no football ‘journalist’ has dared go before. But, no, even the SMSM are not afraid to write the following! I’ll say no more about the content, other than that the revelations in court that put the slam dunk into the Resolution12 claims doesn’t get a mention! http://scottishfsa.org/what-does-the-craig-whyte-story-tell-us-about-the-sfa-by-steve-mcgregor/ Note to the SFSA, if you genuinely want to force change at the SFA and the SPFL, go for the jugular, not just a kick up the arse – of the kind the SMSM have already missed with (not that they were actually trying to hit anything)! ==================
The article in question was a comment on a report on the BBC and therefore on an aspect that SMSM had covered. It is the msm who are guilty of not covering the Res12 slam dunk. It was a news item reflecting but one aspect of SFA incompetence and SFSA used it to highlight but one aspect of Regan’s poor judgement. Even had the McGregor article covered Res12 on SFSA it would have been no more mains stream than any other blog which is why the SFSA need as much support as possible to let them speak with the kind of authority the mains stream cannot ignore.
______________________–
As I read your latest post, and your reference to ‘the Res 12 slam dunk’ I could have easily lost sight of the fact that the original purpose of Resolution 12 at the AGM of 2013 was to ask Celtic Plc to challenge the SFA on the 2011 licence awarded to Rangers to compete in Europe.
This resolution was not debated, let alone passed. Instead, following persuasion by Celtic Plc., you and your fellow three requisitioners, (possibly four if you include Phil Mac Giolla Bhain who was in on it at the start), agreed to have the Resolution adjourned; there was no prior consultation with any of the group of 100 signatories, including myself, who had taken the trouble to send in documents, photocopies, etc., of shareholders’ details in order to have the resolution debated. The Res 12 project has since morphed into a joint ‘initiative’ between you requisitioners and Celtic Plc.
So, Auldheid, whether deliberately or not, your use of language such as ‘Res 12 slam dunk’ is misleading, giving the impression that Celtic Plc are pursuing the SFA to come clean. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Old Firm project is alive and well. Our game will only to start to get cleaned up if we face up and challenge such unpalatable truths.
 


Recent Comments by chill ultra

We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
John Clark 27th December 2018 at 14:10

 

This may, or may not help. Ray Gatt's twitter profile: 

Ray GattVerified account

@Gatty54

Chief soccer writer The Australian. Fisherman. Love my family, Liverpool FC, Celtic FC, Balmain Tigers, CC Mariners. Views my own. Retweet not an endorsement

Sydney

theaustralian.com.au

Joined March 2011


Dear Mr Bankier
Homunculus 21st November 2018 at 22:00

 

ernie 

21st November 2018 at 19:40

The owners of "the old firm (TM)" however may (surely must?) see a way to commercialise the term.  Very sad given the continuity scam we all profess to abhor.

===============================================

Or want to make sure that no-one else can.

Celtic did exactly the same with the old name of the company when it was floated and became a PLC.

They formed a new company purely to ensure no-one could use the old name, by changing the new company's name to reflect that.

Much to the confusion of the hard of thinking. 

—————————————————————

“Much to the confusion of the hard of thinking.”

Sorry. I still don’t get it.

It’s perfectly reasonable that Celtic could have simply wanted to retain the OF trademark in order to prevent its use by a commercial rival. What is harder to understand is why it had to apply for all 21 categories of goods and services that were included within the trademark rights of previous years.

One token category would have been enough to retain the THE OLD FIRM trademark name. More importantly, such a token gesture might have gone some way to convince cynics like me that Celtic stood alone, and was not joined at the hip with the whoever is playing out of Ibrox.


Dear Mr Bankier
 

easyJambo 21st November 2018 at 11:17

You wrote, “It would appear that all Celtic has done is to extend the previous arrangement with the Oldco.”

 

By completing the trademark renewal forms in July, Celtic has demonstrated it has no wish to disassociate itself from the Old Firm brand. This was a proactive decision, based on what it considers commercial realities. As a fan and a shareholder I don’t agree.


Dear Mr Bankier
paddy malarkey 21st November 2018 at 12:18

chill ultra 21st November 2018 at 09:53

A wee bit easier .

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK0002181523A

—–

Thanks for that, Paddy Malarkey. I realised afterwards how messy the link was, though surely not the reason for the number of TDs my posts drew. 


Dear Mr Bankier
A question from the floor at today’s Celtic AGM, maybe?

<ahref=”https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/History/1/UK0002181523A”>the OLD FIRM Trademark</a>


About the author