Leaving out the loaners paying dividends


It was a performance of unfettered gallus-ness from Celtic at Pittodrie yesterday as the champions finished off a perfect week by extending their lead at the top of the table, albeit by goal difference.

Derek McInnes must have pondered his wisdom in rejecting offers for Scott McKenna when Odsonne Edouard turned him left and right before sweeping a shot out of the reach of Joe Lewis to open the scoring.  We have come to expect the exceptional from Edouard and this effort did not disappoint.

Within five minutes, the advantage was doubled.  18-year-old right back Jeremie Frimpong, on his third senior outing, played a give-and-go with Edouard before knocking the ball over the line for his first goal, amid a crowd of opponents inside the six-yard box.

Hatem Elhamed was unsurprisingly missing from the starting line-up, after leaving the field on Thursday with a knock, but I expected Moritz Bauer to get the nod for a game that, on paper, looked more challenging than Frompong’s previous outings against Partick Thistle and Ross County.

Just as he did last season, when on-loan Filip Benkovic was left on the bench, Neil Lennon is giving priority to permanently signed Celtic players.  The decision to start Jeremie paid off in spades.  There will be tougher defensive shifts ahead, and at 5’ 7”, there could be games he is omitted from due to his height, but he is as exciting an 18-year-old full back prospect as we have known – and we have known some special players in this area.  This one will make you forget Mikael Lustig.

James Forrest’s goal was both a joy for Celtic supporters and a concern for Aberdeen, who were statuesque as Celtic passed and moved around them.  Mohamed Elyounoussi added the fourth just before the break, another exquisite effort.

I was just as pleased to see Celtic take the foot off the pedal in the second half.  These players have a lot of football to play in the next two months.  They are not machines; despite all those trebles!


About Author

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5

  1. Hairlikespaghetti.



    The drive behind Res12 was SFA reform if an investigation showed that club licensing rules had been circumvented or avoided by a member club with or without knowledge of the SFA.



    If so then how it happened would have allowed leverage to reform SFA and make it more professional.



    This was thought to be in Celtic’s interest but a Dougie Dougie moment was needed to help achieve that aim.



    There has been nothing done to confirm if a breach occurred in spite of the mounting evidence there was so a desirable aim would be



    a) everything was done by the book and we can all rest assured of honest participation by clubs and honest governance






    b),a breach or breaches occurred and steps have been take to prevent a recurrence.



    For some obscure reason no one wants to establish whether a) or b) applies. That in fact is all the original Res12 asked for, how to deal with the consequences was always a matter of good governance.



    Why that is not an absolute priority is mystifying. You cannot have a fair game if rules can be broken with impunity.



    What I’d like to see is recognition mistakes were made in the circumstances that they were and a commitment to making the SFA more professional, which is the phrase used that caused the ball to roll.

  2. TBB



    Interesting if any individual can take the matter to the police, but uncertainty on the mechanics and giving Celtic first refusal saved exploring the full mechanics.



    It might come to that. It would have the benefit of doing what has been avoided:



    Going to UEFA with police authority to establish if their rules were circumvented.



    As matters stand we still do not have a UEFA view.

  3. Haiikespaghetti.



    One unsought outcome is if it was shown a breach occurred our blue friends would have no victim myth to cling to. Quite the reverse.

  4. Rock Tree Bhoy on

    Another of Dermot’s quotes from 2012….



    “Rangers is a great football club, it has a great history and it’s unfortunate that they have been relegated,”

  5. Where is @morrissey23rd he was one of the chaps that said that PL told him if he had the silver bullet he’d fire it.



    Does Morrissey23rd know where the bodies are buried? I’m sure he does.


    Afternoon All.



    On Res 12.



    First of all, can I be very plain in my words.



    Some recent articles on Res 12 in certain blogs are, to be frank, a complete crock of shit!



    Is that plain enough language?



    They are written without either research or contact or discussion or any inside knowledge.



    They are green and white bullshit.



    About a fortnight ago I sent out the following tweet;





    Jeezo, there are some Celtic related clickbait sites that are truly rank rotten. The articles don’t even make any sense. I won’t name the one I just read for a moment but it is utter tosh. Advertising driven drivel with headlines & stories which don’t match & say nothing. AVOID!



    A day later I said the following on the same platform:



    Brogan Rogan Trevino




    According to a Judicial Panel, the rules, laws and regulations of @UEFA are not enforceable in Scotland by


    @ScottishFA who are the designated Licensing body appointed by @UEFA. It is also questionable whether the @ScottishFA can legally enforce its own rules in certain respects.


    8:22 AM · Oct 18, 2019·Twitter Web App



    So having gotten that out of my system can I just say that any blog which proclaims or opines about legal action suing the board of Celtic PLC must have been going to different meetings than those I have been attending and with different people to those who have driven Res 12 from the get go.



    All such articles are CRAP!



    Now there is nothing wrong with any blogger or contributor opining on what they think should be done, could be done, might be done or whatever as that is perfectly valid but some of the misinformation being put out by so called Celtic fans in search of a few advertising clicks leaves me cold.






    All this chat about Golden bullets, Silver Bullets, and all that stuff is so out of date and behind the times that it is clear that the writers do not understand what has happened.



    Fact: At the 2013 AGM the board of Celtic PLC were asked by resolutioners to take this matter to UEFA because the resolutioners felt that the SFA was compromised and we did not trust them to do the write thing which was to investigate what were then suspected rule breaches.



    FACT: Celtic FC didn’t agree with that course of action and initially were for voting against the resolution because they felt it wasn’t necessary because they were already making enquiries of the SFA on the same issue — and so they were. Basically they argued that there was no need for a resolution requesting the board to do something that they were already doing.



    FACT: Both Celtic and the Resolutioners were asking roughly the same questions but Celtic wanted to stick with the SFA while the Resolutioners had no faith in that organisation and wanted to go to UEFA.



    FACT: Having discussed the situation, both parties agreed to continue the resolution so that further questions could be asked of the SFA by Celtic, and at the same time the Resolutioners started to formally make enquiries of UEFA through legal channels.



    FACT: At the outset, the SFA didn’t want to know about any of this and vigorously defended their licensing processes and maintained that everything was tickety boo – or should that be tickety blue? However, over the course of the following months and years this then changed – subtly in some respects, materially and dramatically in others.



    FACT: After a lot of correspondence and many meetings with various parties, including Celtic, and after hearing certain evidence become public at the Craig Whyte Trial – the SFA, despite Celtic and the SPFL calling for a wider inquiry, decided to conduct their own narrower investigation and eventually they brought disciplinary charges based on the evidence now freely available to them.






    So what changed, who was instrumental in bringing about that change, and how did they do it?



    I will leave that question hanging in the air and anyone reading this can decide for themselves.



    Remember we wanted to take the matter to UEFA and the board wanted to keep the matter with the SFA.



    Where we stand today is that those charges are in limbo because of a ruling which says that the SFA cannot legally prosecute and consider those charges, and that the entire matter be referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.



    Remember in 2013 we wanted the matter referred to UEFA while Celtic were in favour of leaving things with the SFA, who we maintained were not a competent body as they were compromised.



    There is an argument to say we were both right. The SFA were eventually left with no option but to bring charges, but a judicial panel agreed that they were, and always had been, compromised and so could not see those charges through to a conclusion.



    Had anyone said back in 2013 that charges would be brought and would be considered and dealt with by the Court of Arbitration for Sport there would have been universal cheering from the Res 12 benches!



    The issue now is that the SFA have sat on their backside and procrastinated for the best part of 18 months and so the resolutioners think they can no longer be trusted and so want Celtic to refer the matter to UEFA or indeed the City of London Police – and I will come back to them in a minute.



    The board continue to have faith in the SFA and maintain that a direct approach to UEFA is not in the best interests of the club.



    We are as yet to hear their detailed reasons why they hold that view.



    However, no one is saying, at the minute at least, that the charges should not proceed, should be abandoned and that nothing should be done – at least not that I am aware of.



    We do believe that the board could have taken the UEFA route before now, and we are very much aware of the reports from Celtic that no one else in Scottish Football is the least bit interested in this whole scenario.



    Not one other club is apparently concerned that the SFA cannot prosecute their own charges or seek enforcement of their own rules within their own jurisdiction.



    That is just astonishing.



    There are apparently reasons for that stance but that is for another day as this is not the issue at the moment.



    So, the resolution clearly calls upon Celtic to take certain action, and Celtic disagree on that course of action because they maintain that there is another route to follow via the SFA (Remember at the start of this the SFA wanted to take no action and stated there was nothing to see but have moved from that stance dramatically).



    We disagree.



    In the interim, the resolutioners have discussed at length possible strategies to follow in the event that the SFA do nothing and continue to sit on their hands, or declare that they are not taking the charges further despite bringing them in the first place.



    These would be steps which are wholly separate to any potential action taken by the Celtic Board.



    What the Celtic Board would do in the event of the SFA doing nothing is a matter of speculation and we could only react when that happens.









    By the way the reference to the City of London Police is there because that police force have a previous involvement in recovering records and information which might be germane and because it is that police force who generally looks into crimes involving listed companies.



    Personally, my recent experience of various police forces is that they are under pressure in relation to resources and that they are reluctant to seriously look at financial crimes of this type and prefer to use their resources elsewhere. The city of London Police is no different.



    That position is not one I agree with nor does it lessen the need for financial crime to be investigated but that is the facts of life in the UK in 2019.



    There is pressure to provide more resources for this type of investigation but again that is for another day and another forum.



    So, there you have it. We disagree with the Celtic board on their faith in the SFA.



    We are not out to topple the board, undermine what it does right, nor comment on other areas where we, as individuals, think they might do better, or what it should do in the future about this or that.



    Words like betrayed, stabbed in the back, treason, etc etc are click bait tactics to get readers to click on certain sites just to get the advertising revenue up for the site owners. They have nothing to do with Res 12, its goals, the way the resolutioners conduct themselves, or is a window into what legal steps might be available in the future.



    There is no revolution or uprising or whatever.



    There are clear expressions of opinion and sometimes those opinions differ and have to be expressed frankly and plainly.



    In all dealings with Celtic, the SFA, UEFA or whoever there are quiet, professional, forceful, and consistent opinions, advice and discussions which seek to do nothing more than have the original facts and circumstances properly raised, aired and considered by the appropriate and competent bodies.



    Nothing more, nothing less.



    Anyone who says different talks through a whole in their Elkie Brooks.



    As for being played by the Celtic Board in some way I would ask in what way?



    Remember, since the original resolution, the SFA changed their tune, charges were brought and all the SFA executives who may have originally resisted our representations have left their post!


    A judicial ruling has said that the SFA were and are compromised and that the entire matter should go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport – namely away from the SFA.



    To me, that sounds kinda like what we set out to achieve – all that has to happen now is that the judicial panel ruling is followed through and is implemented.



    The SFA can do that of their own accord or they can be forced to by UEFA.



    Celtic should ask the SFA to jump or they should ask UEFA to push them.



    Right now we are going for the shove option.



    But hey — all good things comes to those who wait and who occasionally give others a nudge in the right direction.

  7. Resolution 12 would add more proof to us that Rangers have been cheating. I’m convinced that even before EBT’s Rangers were cheating. From speaking to some of our ex players, they were convinced Rangers were involved in a scam which they paid little tax.



    My late father didn’t need convinced that Rangers were in league with SFA, Referees and the media. They had all set against Celtic. Other clubs were also Anti Celtic, as they all had a soft spot for the Rangers.



    it’s great to see us overcoming these obstacles to become the biggest and best club in Scotland. We may have always been.



    i’ll support Res12, but, I don’t need a resolution to know the score.

  8. Rock Tree Bhoy on

    Benkovic for Ajer I wonder, BR of course has the technical low down on both players, wonder if he is considering a swap approach. Of course it would have to suit both players but would we be better or worse off. I really like both players and as long as we still have one of them after Jan I’ll be delighted.

  9. BRTH @ 3.08 – Thanks for taking time to lay out the FACTS. Reassuring to know that were not quite in the Norwegian Blue territory yet. And always reassuring when I read accounts from those that were there rather than other folks’ version of events. Persistence right enough. HH




    Great summary of the FACTS, look forward to seeing what happens next. Just voted on the e-proxy site to support the resolution, for what its worth.



    All things being equal I’ll be at the AGM

  11. BRTH,


    Would it be possible to print that out and hand it to members attending the AGM and indeed attending the St. Mirren match?



  12. BRTH


    A simple question for a simple shareholding supporter.


    Why are the board recommending voting the Resolution down ?

  13. HENRIK1967 @ 10:58 AM



    “See when you were belittled on here for years and being called negative, a hun when all you pointed out was it’ll go nowhere and Celtic will do nothing then I’m posting what I like ok.”






    I am not sure you read my response to you but I am damn sure you misunderstood it.



    Now, unless you are using the pronoun “you” to refer to yourself ( a strange habit) then you have just suggested that I have been belittled and called negative or a hun on here for years. If I have, it has been done in invisible ink, because I have not seen it.



    If you were referring to yourself, then I am equally unaware of any particular strength of opinion expressed towards or against you. Either way, it matters little because I was not referring to your words or views. My comments were directed to what Jeanette Findlay was supposed to be saying to Auldheid.



    Nobody, least of all myself, was trying to deny your (as in your own) views from being expressed. So long as you don’t swear or use racist language, this blog gets a very light touch in censorship terms. But nice try at claiming that popular ground of victimhood, anyway! These days everyone wants to be seen as The Opressed- who’d have thunk that would be the cool place to occupy?



    If the murky waters around Res. 12 are ever going to get wider exposure, then it will need unity from those who want to continue to support its merits. Those who want to just say “I told you so” can fill their boots, but cannot pretend that they are helping.

  14. Macjay



    Not sure why you directed your question about the aspirations behind Res 12 to me.



    I am not one of the requisitioners and they are pretty good at speaking for themselves.



    You could ask them.



    Or, alternatively, read all the regular updates they have given because they have regularly answered that question already


    Father Jack



    We only know what they are saying on the official response to the resolution and that is that it is not in the best interests of Celtic Football Club to take the matter to UEFA and that the matter “lies” with the SFA.



    Hopefully they will expand on that reasoning shortly but basically I think the line will be that the SFA are dealing with the charges and at least until that process has definitely come to an end there is nothing for Celtic to take to UEFA.



    In response we would say that The SFA have done nothing for 16 months or so and so there is no evidence that they are actively doing anything, and we can see no harm in raising the matter with UEFA.



    UEFA invited Celtic to raise it with them a couple of years ago, and now that the SFA have tied themselves up in legal knots the requirement to go to UEFA is greater than ever before.



    Now, of course, taking the matter to UEFA might not please other Scottish Clubs who may well voice their discontent with Celtic in committee at the SFA.



    However, all of that can be avoided if the SFA simply do what the judicial panel told them to do – namely go to CAS.



    i believe that during the last 16 months the SFA have told Celtic that there is no reason not to go to CAS and originally led them to believe that is what would happen.



    They then changed their tune and said that they hadn’t decided what to do.



    We don’t think Celtic should wait any longer and as a well respected member of UEFA Celtic should take the lead and advise that body that it has been judicially determined that UEFA rules cannot be enforced in Scotland by the UEFA appointed licensing body.

  16. BRTH


    Thanks for your reply, I get that, I’m possibly not that simple, what I don’t get, you are intimating that the club might still, if shoved go to UEFA, if that is the case, why vote the Res down, that’s what I don’t get.

  17. SFTB



    This is getting better than Brexit on here…..anyway re your question to BRTH, I don’t know what his thinking would be, but I assume he meant ‘hole’ and ‘Elkie Brooks’ was always West of Scotland slang (not cockney) for ‘plooks’.



    So those concerned are talking through a hole in their plooks……… and presumably coming out with a load of pus!



    Naw? …..OK!



    Right back to the Brextension flexstension nextstention!



    Hail Hail




  18. The Battered Bunnet on

    Many thanks to BRTH and Auldheid for taking the time to lay out and clarify the progress and current status of Res 12. Moreover, thanks to the four Requisitioners for their tenacity and patience over the (many) years.



    It seems to me that there are two important points in all of it:



    1) The guys have got a huge result. It may not be the one they initially wanted or perhaps now wish for, but Res12 and the efforts of these guys have been central in challenging the vested interest in the Game and in dragging it to account. There have been additional victories along the way. Chapeau! as folk used to say on the old RTC site.



    2) The conclusion to the matter now turns on the SFA’s overdue decision on whether to refer the disciplinary case to CAS, or not. If it’s not referred, the matter probably ends. If it is referred, there will be further process in due course. Since referral is the preferred outcome, it seems natural that any remaining action the guys can take is in encouraging the club to use their influence on the SFA accordingly.



    The SFA of course are an organisation of equal members, and there seems to be little appetite amongst member clubs to ensure the matter is pursued. As with the SFA’s decision not to formally review the EBT years despite the extraordinary circumstances, any decision of the executive team is considered to be valid and beyond challenge provided the members agree (or elect not to disagree) with their decision. Celtic are one voice set against 97 others in this regard, irrespective of how vociferous they might be.



    For the Requisitioners, getting the SFA to concede that there was a case to answer was hard won, and deserves wide applause. That proceedings were commenced shows, prima facie, that the case was sufficiently strong to merit proceedings. Again, applause.



    That the SFA ultimately were found to be unable to judge the matter is actually another great result, albeit a little more nuanced. More applause.



    Irrespective of the SFA’s decision on referring the matter onwards to CAS, Res12 has been a success, it’s just that success has many different faces. It would be a great shame if the work, time, effort, persistence and tenacity of the guys and their subsequent achievements were overlooked because many folk don’t appreciate what they’ve achieved.



    It would be a greater mischief if their efforts were hijacked by those who want to use the matter as a stick with which to beat the club up.



    There may have been no pitchfork revolution, but the guys have forced change nevertheless.



    Bunnet doffed accordingly.




  19. BRTH



    One of the problems is that it was the RIFC who argued that the complaint made by the JPDT would need to be dealt with by the CAS. And not only that but that it would have to be examined under the terms of the 5 Way Agreement. Now, unless I have missed it the JPDT have not moved their position over the past eighteen months, ie “…until parties consider next steps for any remit to the CAS”. Given that, it is highly unlikely that one; Celtic would sidestep that process and go directly to UEFA, and two, even more unlikely that the SFA could or would agree to do so.

  20. Intriguing reading about Res 12. Seven years on and it seems we require explanations what it is actually about.


    I do not believe that various Celtic bloggers are being deliberately sensational, it seems to me there is a distinct lack of co-ordinated knowledge.


    However the last thing we need is alienation of the circa 37,000 Celtic supporters who have bought tickets for Hampden on Nov 2nd.



    Demonisation of our own support is a dangerous path to go down.




  21. Fact..Celtic board had no intention of ever helping res 12….. ever getting titles stepped…of getting any punishment….if stopping. Same club.myth …….they have contempt for most fans.. and must have known about 5. Or is it 6 way agreement .

  22. They think they are being clever.. ..but why should anyone support Celtic.board. When they need help if they have not been doing best for club but actively stoppin any form of justice

  23. maradomic



    Celtic FC were not Party to nor a signatory of whatever final 5WA was agreed by those present;


    SFA, SPL, SPFL, Rangers FC, and RIFC were.

  24. CM- a big boy done it and ran away? If anyone thinks Celtic had nothing to do with the 5WA,look what they are trying to do with R12,so it was cobbled together when Eric Riley was conveniently on holiday? HH

  25. Every time I read about Resolution 12 and the fact that no other club in Scotland is interested in the governance of our game and obvious wrongdoing, it makes my blood boil. I don’t like boycotts per se but wonder if some form of tarrgetted action by fans not attending certain away venues would bring some clubs to their senses. I dont go to many away games so not in a position to preach but the fact is it looks like the rest of Scottish football has given tacit approval to cheating and this can’t be right or allowed for the long term benefit of our game.

  26. !!bada bing”



    Are we talking a priori


    or a posteriori Bada?


    That is the question.

  27. Nobody anticipated such an easy game on Sunday and you wondered was it the brilliance of the Hoops or the mediocrity of Aberdeen, probably a bit of both I suspect. Nevertheless I’m glad Lazio and the Dons have been dealth with successfully.



    Let’s hope Fraser is fit for Wednesday and is not suffering from frosbite after being a spectator in the chill of Aberdeen for ninety odd minutes. Watching that fantastic leap he made accross the goal against Lazio on Wednesday night reminded me of one of the Superman classic movies. A great three points.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
Do Not Sell My Personal Information