I have been in touch with a few of the Resolution 12 guys this week, and ‘Brogan, Rogan, Trevino and Hogan’, offered to write a synopsis, as some of the matters which have appeared on social media in recent days required clarification.
Thanks to the BRTH, and the rest of the guys, who I understand all approved the article. It reads:
“There is a great deal of chat on social media this week about Res 12 which was tabled and adjourned at the 2012 AGM of Celtic PLC, and so I want to clarify a couple of things which Paul has allowed me to do here
As a reminder, the exact terms of the resolution are to be found here:
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.
While the Celtic PLC Board originally viewed the resolution as unnecessary, once further consideration of the issues raised by the shareholders had been examined, the Celtic board changed their mind and agreed to adjourn the resolution with a view to working with the shareholders representatives by investigating the procedures complained of and making enquiries of the SFA.
In the intervening period of time, there have been numerous meetings and consistent correspondence between those shareholders and officials of Celtic PLC, all with a view to furthering the aims of Res 12, and there is no doubt that the Celtic board have played a full part in taking the resolution to where it now stands.
Whilst the investigation process was slow, both shareholders and the board were satisfied that there was merit in seeking answers from the SFA, as previous responses to earlier enquiries from Celtic PLC were not convincing or sufficiently detailed.
Working together, the board and the shareholders have seen to it that formal letters of enquiry have been sent to the SFA, together with various pieces of documentation and supporting evidence.
Through the shareholders’ lawyers, the SFA were asked to answer specific detailed questions in relation to their procedures, however the SFA responded by saying they would not answer any questions other than through the “member club” i.e. the board of Celtic PLC.
This raises an issue for all football supporters – especially those who are shareholders in a football club – and it begs the question whether or not supporters and shareholders should be able to hold a governing body to account in the event of maladministration.
I believe they should but that is a bigger issue for another day and it will be revisited in due course.
However, what is most important for everyone to know is that there can be no doubt that serious questions have been asked, were asked of the right people and were backed up by documentation prepared in conjunction with the board of Celtic PLC.
I have seen speculation yesterday that perhaps Celtic did not fully know of what was going on or that somehow there had not been full and forensic research completed into the matters concerned etc, or that Celtic PLC have done nothing to back the resolution. All of that is simply not true and at all times the Celtic PLC board have been party to, and have played their part in, the entire process.
The whole purpose of writing to the SFA in the first place was to afford the powers that be within Hampden the chance to avoid a potential enquiry by UEFA into the way that they handled UEFA licence applications in 2011.
The SFA did not take that chance and ducked answering the detailed legal questions put to them by the Shareholders’ solicitors and instead chose to respond saying they would only explain matters to Celtic PLC and their board.
It would now appear that the SFA are prevaricating (again) in giving any meaningful response to Celtic PLC and so, after a period of silence, the obvious next stage in the process is to make formal enquiries and investigations through UEFA.
At the outset, both the board and the shareholders agreed that this would be the inevitable outcome if the SFA were not full, frank and forthright in providing any response.
Both the Celtic PLC board and the shareholders wish the matter to be referred to UEFA at this time, that is agreed, especially as there is a need to ensure that there is no prospect of any investigation being time barred by the UEFA rules which place a five year time limit for proceedings.
However, it is here that there is a divergence of opinion between the board and the shareholders. The shareholders believe that any reference to UEFA should come from the club, while the club would prefer the shareholders to refer the matter to UEFA in line with the previous enquiries made to the SFA.
However, I stress both parties have stated they want the matter placed before the appropriate UEFA committee.
As of yesterday, it was agreed that the Shareholders will formally write to UEFA via their solicitors, but they believe that ultimately this will be, and should be, a matter for the club as it is undoubtedly the case that any complaint to UEFA will have to make reference to the correspondence and answers already provided to Celtic PLC via the SFA.
There is also no doubt that whoever refers the matter to UEFA, that same body will end up having to make enquiries of Celtic PLC as it was to Celtic that the SFA said they would reply, and it was to Celtic PLC that the SFA gave previous replies by way of correspondence.
Accordingly the board will have to advise UEFA quite clearly what those replies entailed, comment on the matters raised in the shareholders letter, and whether or not they, as a board, are satisfied with the replies provided to the board by the SFA.
Accordingly, once the matter goes to UEFA there is no prospect of the Celtic Board not being further involved.
What is also quite clear is that once the shareholders have referred the matter to UEFA, there is very little else they can do as an independent body. They have taken this as far as they can, have worked with the PLC board, engaged independent solicitors and formally presented questions to the SFA together with supporting documentation and all with the help and support of the board of Celtic PLC.
If there is a clamour for greater representation and accountability for the ordinary football fan then they can lend their support to that – irrespective of what team the fan may support.
However, in relation to the particulars of Res 12, the shareholders have approached the board, worked with the board ( and acknowledge that the board have worked with them ) but ultimately it is for the PLC to take these matters to their final conclusion as the board of directors represent the whole PLC and speak with a far stronger corporate voice.
That was the whole purpose of the resolution in the first place.”
If I (Paul67) can add a few comments….
People in public or quasi-public bodies don’t get sacked as often for making mistakes as for the subsequent cover up. I have seen evidence which suggests the SFA was duped (to borrow a term) by a member club in 2011 regarding their Uefa eligibility application.
No information was available to the Association at the time which could have substantiated this, but evidence has come to light since through legal and liquidation processes, and more will be presented at court in due course. The SFA’s failure to critically assess what happened in 2011 feels like a cover up. When you start a cover up, you better be in total control, or you end up getting sacked.
The Resolution 12 guys have done a magnificent job (as did one significant other person in bringing information to the attention of the police and other authorities). In the early days they worked blind, but they have become the most effective pressure group in Scottish football.
At the start of this process no one expected anything better from the SFA, it was always a process which was going to end up with Uefa, or an actual court of law. Despite the wishes of those at Hampden, the ball is still in play.
Leave your suggestions on better communications below, I’ve heard little else over the last 24 hours and agree entirely.
CQN is moving onto a new server structure at around 22:00 tonight. The site will be unavailable until we are across, which will take at least an hour.
The purpose of this is to improve performance, which is currently unsatisfactory. The new system will allow WordPress to operate more efficiently, and will allow me to up the resources available in future more easily.
Even after the new servers are active there will be a delay before everyone can find the site through the celticquicknews.co.uk domain name. I’ll post updates on Twitter ( @cqn ) and Facebook, with the IP address (a series of numbers and full stops which can be used instead of the domain name). This will take you straight to the site once we’re through the other side.