Celtic’s Annual General Meeting, held at Celtic Park today, was a livelier event than usual. The board received a hostile response to their refusal to back a resolution to provide all staff with at least the Living Wage. Several impassioned points were made from the floor, which convinced chairman, Ian Bankier, to dispense with his prepared response and provide answers to specific questions.
The vote went against the resolution based on the proxy votes cast by the chairman but the board have never lost the floor so convincingly on any prior issue.
Resolution 12, encouraging the club to purse the game’s authorities on matters relating to the governance of liquidated Rangers was adjourned indefinitely by the requisitioners. On proposing the adjournment, a spokesman for the requisitioners (our own Morrissey23) explained that they had met the club and received information not previously known, and that further meetings were planned.
Fergus McCann made an unexpected contribution to the AGM by email through the chairman, extoling the virtues of financial director, Eric Riley, who he commended for 19 years’ service in pursuing Celtic’s interests. Fergus asked for, and got, an applause for Eric Riley, which resulted in the first unanimous show of hands to re-elect a director I have seen at a Celtic AGM.
AGM questions can be a tortuous affair but they were on the money this year. We had poetry, questions about financial governance including a question as to whether the club owns all of it’s perceived property assets. Ian Bankier confirmed it did, before planting his tongue in his cheek to insist “I’m not going to show you the deeds”.
When one shareholder expressed frustration that a new Scottish club is pretending to be a now liquidated club, chief executive, Peter Lawwell, retorted, “Rory Bremner can pretend to be Tony Blair”.
Many thanks for the many CQN Annual orders, which are now shipping. You can order here:
1,098 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- »
And while I’m here, I like to congratulate Canalamar and those working with him for what they have achieved.
I don’t know Canalamar and often (well, usually) find myself disagreeing with what he has to say – not that he’ll care that much, I wouldn’t imagine! :-)
I can remember a while back Paul challenging him to take up whatever he was unhappy about at the time directly with the club rather than just complaining from the sidelines.
Well, he has certainly done so in this case and with some success.
If he now feels that he has to say ‘just trust me in this’ then I for one am quite happy to do so.
Doc @ 11:49 – Mrs CRC must have about ten purple hearts by now! The phrase “long suffering wife” was invented for her…! :-)
T4
Hi Winning Captains
I have just sent over an email re. 2 tickets for the CQN10 Dinner
Sent the email to wordpress@celticquicknews.co.uk
Just want to check you received it ok.
Thanks in advance.
Think Pedro hit a nerve with the Huns, think they no the truth more than they let on, would so many Huns have given the zombies there money if they knew the truth ie. different club HH
Head to head today points to the 2Ds. Dundee and Dunfermline.
Maybe throw in Sheffield United.
Sevco no game today. Rory Bremner’s got the flu.
I would like to thank all the CQN’rs who came along to the post AGM gig yesterday. I can honestly say “You couldn’t meet a nicer bunch of people,”
I had a good chat with a few of them afterwards.
All good guys.
Thanks again .
The final episode of Poirot saw the Belgian retire after he was asked to find out who was in charge of the Zombies
Kitalba – thanks for the kind words earlier – I appreciate it. I’m afraid every site needs a bogeyman and I’m perfectly prepared to play to panto villain! But I wont take others trying to twist me words to suit their own agenda.
Toying with the idea of attending the CQTen dinner!
For the record I am incredibly proud of Canamalar, Auldheid and BRTH (and indeed the others) for putting together the resolution and debating it!
As for PL I am delighted this has become a storm!!
Doc says Vive La Resolution
12:31 on 16 November, 2013
Auldheid, yesterday you told me I wasn’t being asked to take things on trust regarding why the resolution was adjourned. You said an email would be going out to those who backed the resolution by giving their proxy and this would explain the details that couldn’t be put on a public forum. Also the process going forward, when meetings will happen, what the agenda for those will be, will we be informed of the outcomes?
I have asked a couple of times now, can you confirm this email will be sent out?
Can you give an indication of when?
If it is not to be sent could I ask why?
Got to go out, will pick up any reply when I return.
Thanks.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Been busy on follow up action so I have missed your requests.
I’ll need to check what I promised and if I actually said what you have reported I said because some of it I cannot do, simply because I do not have the information, for example when meetings will happen.
I certainly think an e mail should be sent and have started the ball rolling to do so but it will be done to the beat of the drum of our time. Hopefully by close of play Sunday.
There has already been a lot of information supplied since yesterday by BRTH and in Phil’s latest blog
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/history-in-the-making/
and in my earlier post that tells you in simple terms why there was no point in either a debate on a complex matter of UEFA rules or going to UEFA.
If you are impatient for a response that brings it all together for you I suggest in the meantime you check back the blog and it will become clearer why events took the course that they did.
Ernie – the pairing argument is totally valid and correct. I just think it’s a terrible PR failure.
NegAnon2
12:48 on 16 November, 2013
Kitalba – thanks for the kind words earlier – I appreciate it. I’m afraid every site needs a bogeyman and I’m perfectly prepared to play to panto villain! But I wont take others trying to twist me words to suit their own agenda.
Toying with the idea of attending the CQTen dinner!
+++++++++++++++
I hope you do for I’m going and the stuff I could tell you :).
billynowell
Not seen you post on here before……are you a hun?
smileyfacethingymabob.
I was caught between the Scotland game and the England game last night so can’t say with total authority how Fraser played but I think Celtic_First was pretty spot on, he didn’t have much to do apart from a decent save that he should have made and the two goals which were well taken.
The second was a shame, it was in injury time and it was a one on one, I’ve seen the Grand Murrala standing up well to Barca and all in those situations…. if he stood his ground he could’ve been a hero, but Alexis Sanchez took it very well – looks quite a player.
Stephbhoy @ 12:18,
i am sure under Scottish law the club vs. company debate is void in so far as once the club becomes incorporated it becomes one entity with the company.
just because something has the same name and same property etc… does not make it the same entity
What your saying is true, but only to a limited extent, the Club once incorporated becomes an asset of the Limited Company.
What is to stop that asset being sold as a going concern before the Company is liquidated?
Well thats the job of the regulating body, that’s who.
The Administrators of RFC(ia) as it was then – very unusually ignored the Sporting Regulating Authorities of the Company – the SFA/SPL* – and sold the Club’s assets lock stock & barrel (or so they hope:-) to SevCo, highly irregular I admit, but is it illegal?
Let’s face it they took the SFA to Court, not allowed in Footballing terms but perfectly legal.
When the Club assets were sold at that point the SFA had to act and act robustly to ensure the integrity of the game was maintained – they failed to do this, quite the opposite in fact, they let the entity continue deliberately failing to define under what criteria SevCo were operating as a Football Club.
Anyways, we are in agreement on Rangers status, I just don’t think we should assume it’s so Black and White in Law and we certainly should not assume the SFA had no role to play.
Hail Hail
*Mibees had a nod and a wink.
weeminger
12:51 on 16 November, 2013
‘Ernie – the pairing argument is totally valid and correct. I just think it’s a terrible PR failure.’
####
The nats have tried to make an issue of the non attendance by Labour MPs, but conveniently forgot to mention the practice of pairing. So just the usual mendacious mischief making we’ve come to expect. Some of the less well informed have fallen for it.
Auldheid – now that sounds like the perfect incentive :)
Chairbhoy
12:55 on 16 November, 2013
‘the Club once incorporated becomes an asset of the Limited Company.’
###
That’s metaphysically impossible.
Once an unincorporated body has incorporated the unincorporated body ceases to have an existence of its own.
It’s a bit like when a caterpillar metamorphoses into a moth. The caterpillar ceases to be.
Neganon2,
I’m sure many on here would join me in encouraging you to bowl up to the CQN dinner. You bring a healthy critique to debates on here. It would be good to have a natter in person.
ernie lynch,
And the moth gets to keep the caterpillar’s history!
It is actually a good analogy – it’s a change of form, one thing becoming another. And the two don’t coexist.
Chairbhoy
12:03 on 16 November, 2013
Stephbhoy @ 10:48,
++++++++++++++++
Spot on! I knew Southampton were on plums using that holding company ruse and thanks for the reminder.
UEFA themselves use Art 12 of UEFA FFP to prevent what Southampton attempted being done by other clubs.
The SFA simply ignored the moral hazard principle enshrined in Article 12. They have ignored a lot of principles lately and it is starting to unravel. I hope the SFA do take the matter up with PL.
Article 12 UEFA FFP.
A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions which either:
a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league (hereinafter: registered member);
or b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football company).
2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years.
Any alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision
Auldheid,
You may,in the midst of the mayhem yesterday,have missed my post to yourself (still haven’t sorted our email problems)
In short,congratulations and thank you for all your efforts to date.
Apart from shining a light in some very dark corners with a view to reconstructing the governance of our game,Resolution 12 was,for me,very important on a personal level.
I have been thoroughly disgusted by the way our game has been run and,as much as anything,Res 12 was a test of whether CFC PLC were active in trying to challenge and change it or in collusion with others to preserve the old order.
Had it appeared it was the latter,I was seriously considering walking away from something I have loved for more than half a century.
It now appears I won’t have to make such a decision.
As you know,I have been following the issue at hand for quite some time now and,despite never having met you,know enough about you to laugh at anyone here or elsewhere who doubts your resolve.
Best Regards and Thanks again
Hail Hail
medtim
The zombies are calling Peter Lawwell some really bad names,that I wouldn’t/couldn’t repeat on a here.
Seething they are.
valentinesday
Damn it. Caught.
Ach well. Back to lurking.
Blaine Valley = Great steak pie, just saying:)
slainte
tony
I was originally sceptical about Canamalar’s initiative.
Not that I thought that it was unnecessary , the exact opposite, in fact.
It was that I felt it should not have involved Celtic directly.
I felt that as a member club of the SFA, that there would have been the possibility of sanctions against the club.
However, in view of the decision taken at the AGM yesterday, this course of action has the potential to deliver much more.
It signals a united approach between the club and shareholders to pursue the issue, without running the risk of falling foul of UEFA’s controlling rules.
Canamalar deserves nothing but the highest praise for his initiative and for his decision to seek and utilise the talents of those who sought to assist him.
He drew a strong and informed team around him.
Total respect, O Carnaptious One! : > )
In response to various comments on Pairing I thought it would be ok to repost yesterday’s submission as the answers IMO are there.
Ernie Lynch
Please accept my apologies for the delayed response as I have been out and about, and I also had some research to do on your question about,’ Pairing’.
As is usually the case Ernie, you completely strayed from the various points I made this morning, one such example is the absolute fact that New Labour is solely responsible for the most reprehensible, invidious and insidious Tax ever invented. The Bedroom Tax.
The Poll Tax was an exercise in moderation in comparison to The Bedroom Tax.
I will attempt to answer your question Ernie. You have heard of Pairing, have you Billy?
Subsequent to last week’s House of Commons vote on ‘Abolition of the Bedroom Tax’, it would be difficult for the Labour Party to sink much lower.
Some might find this statement erroneous at first glance. Why am I singling–out Labour for criticism, when, of course, it would seem more logical to praise the party, given the motion seeking abolition of the hated Bedroom Tax was tabled by New Labour, and that it was defeated by the votes of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. I will explain
Clearly, the reason the Bedroom Tax is still in place – still punishing the disabled, the poor and those with no alternative accommodation to which they could move – is because Tory and Lib Dem MPs couldn’t care less that the legislation is entirely unfair. Rightly, the Liberal Democrats are odds on to be wiped-out at the next election for their treachery in propping-up the most right-wing government in living memory. The administration led by posh-boy millionaire David Cameron is even further to the right – even more uncaring – than the largely-despised Tory Governments of Margaret Thatcher.
So why criticise the party that sought to end the Bedroom Tax: New Labour never had any intention of ending the Bedroom Tax. The party’s motion was nothing more than playing politics with the lives of thousands of vulnerable people in towns and cities the length and breadth of the so-called United Kingdom. Labour built-up the hopes of people affected by the Bedroom Tax, but then entered into a ‘Pairing’ arrangement with Tories and Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons, which meant it was impossible for the motion to receive sufficient support to allow the tax to be scrapped.
‘Pairing’ is an unofficial practice that operates in most legislatures. It is used by parliamentary groups to facilitate the absence of members without it affecting the outcome of votes. For example, the Tories in the House of Commons could have two MPs who are ill or who may have pressing personal business to which they must attend. In such circumstances, and where issues being debated in parliament are non-contentious, the Tory Whips Office (the body tasked with enforcing discipline within parliamentary groups) would approach the New Labour Whips Office and ask if they had a couple of members who would be prepared to absent themselves from the debate and the subsequent vote. If agreed, this would mean four MPs (two from each side) were absent with permission from the Whips and the outcome of the vote would not be affected (the government’s majority would remain intact). The UK Parliament makes clear that “Pairing is not allowed in divisions [votes] of great political importance”.
In total, 47 Labour MPs were absent from the House of Commons last Tuesday night, missing the debate and vote on ‘Abolition of the Bedroom Tax’. Some, if not all, would have been ‘paired’ with Tory or Lib Dem MPs. The motion was defeated by just 26 votes.
By agreeing to ‘Pairs’ – agreeing to reduce the number of Labour MPs that would vote – New Labour knew it would not have enough support to defeat the Tory-Lib Dem Government and scrap the Bedroom Tax. By agreeing to ‘Pairs’, New Labour accepted that, according to the UK Parliament’s own definition, ‘Abolition of the Bedroom Tax’ was not an issue of “great political importance”.
For thousands of people adversely affected by the Bedroom Tax there is little of more importance, but the New Labour Party of Bambi Blair and Mandy was playing political games: it was posturing, pretending to do something about the hated tax, but actually doing nothing.
Amongst the Labour members who had something more important to attend to last Tuesday and who missed the debate and vote on ‘Abolition of the Bedroom Tax’ were 10 MPs from Scotland, representing almost one-quarter of all Scottish Labour MPs. This group included former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Anas Sarwar (Deputy Leader of the Scottish Labour Party), and Shadow Ministers Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy. Also missing was Brian Donohoe, Labour MP for Central Ayrshire.
The Labour Party’s actions last week were a disgrace. To play politics with the lives of thousands of people suffering the affects of the Bedroom Tax was a disgrace. For Scottish Labour MPs to be absent from the House of Commons while the motion on ‘Abolition of the Bedroom Tax’ was being debated was a disgrace.
We know the Tories and Liberal Democrats are not to be trusted. We now know New Labour cannot be trusted either. Westminster cannot be trusted.
You couldn’t separate New Labour and Tories with a fag paper.
We Scots can rid us of the Bedroom Tax by re-taking our independence at next year’s referendum. No political party advocating anything like the Bedroom Tax would ever be elected to form the government in an Independent Scotland.
16 roads- Had a wee looksee on one of their sites, dear me they are ready to self combust, just shows you what a few well placed words can do.
Pedro is the man!
chairbhoy
flaw in your thesis
In ‘Eddie’ you have described 2 entities. In RFC 1872 there was only ever 1 entity. It liquidated therefore ceased to exist. It did not separate or sub-divide. It died. End of.
Love
HH
Think PL new exactly what he was doing yesterday with the Rory quip. He was ensuring that the SMSM and anyone else looking in focussed on this quip rather than the 2 contentious resolutions that were far more important. Largely successful I’d say going by reports so far. Just a wee bit of deflection.
HH
billynowell……..love yer stuff,ripping the pash oot
the hun…….it’s a true art form so it is!!!!!!!!!
goldstar10 12:32 on 16 November, 2013
“A Mr C Green, from France won that competition.”
Ah! No surprise there … the canny Yorkshireman was always a rare player.
NegAnon2:
I can’t go, I hope you can go, for lot’s of reasons… brother.
Maybe some of our Celtic supporting MPs could organise a decent “Pairing” for our forward line?
goldstar10
13:22 on 16 November, 2013
—————————-
The rage if going off the Richter scale mate.
Such high levels of anger can’t be healthy.
KK
Did CT’s welcome to the Gallowgate actually extend to him making a trip to the bar?! If so you truly are blessed.
In fairness he did buy my Irn Bru when I popped in yesterday :-)
Billy Bhoy
Brilliant suggestion!
ernie lynch @ 13:03,
“Once an unincorporated body has incorporated the unincorporated body ceases to have an existence of its own.
It’s a bit like when a caterpillar metamorphoses into a moth. The caterpillar ceases to be.
I totally agree, the fact is what defines the nature of the incorporated entity, the regulatory authorities must surely have a huge bearing.
Let me put it another way…
Rich Financial Corporation are an Independent Financial Adviser, they are regulated by the FSA.
They have been doing some dodgy deals under the table and the chickens come home to roost.
They go bust – the Administrators come in and sell of all RFC’s assets to another Company.
Now everything looks the same in RFC’s offices, all the desks, Computers personnel are still there.
However they are quite a different entity, they have no licence from the FSA and therefore can’t trade as an Independent Financial Advisers.
The Company that bought them could say they are the same business but a quick call to the FSA would let you no they are most certainly not.
The regulator has a huge part to play in defining the Corporate entity.
Now
Stephbhoy said ” sfa are a very small organisation that works within a much wider context of company law. the sfa don’t decide anything about this stuff so anything they say is irrelevant, unless they wish to change company law”
My point was this, the SFA have a huge role to play in deciding the nature of a Football Club in Scotland and though they can’t bring a dead Company to life, liquidation is liquidation they can licence a Football Club.
Hail Hail
hamiltontim:
Irn Bru…no Guinness?
Keep the Faith!
Hail Hail!
Off to see port vale v the shrews -hopefully 3 points -you can’t beat saturday 3pm kick offs.
Enjoy the afternoon and no fighting