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.
SERVICE NOTICE
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.
Fingers crossed.
487 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- ...
- 13
- »
Still hope we win tomorrow but we have no chance in the cup. or winning league.. Our kow-towing has allowed the refs to get back to pre liquidation cheating
JOBO BALDIE
I dated a young lady who lived in Muslin Street, just down from the cross.
I used to walk home to Carmyle Avenue on a Saturday night, early Sunday morning from there.
Never had any problems, mind you I was fast, if I had to be!!
oh and we are pish… worst recruitment policy ever.. by crap centre forwards.. don’t play them ..loan them out/ pay them off repeat ad nauseum
I’m Confused.
Is it the club or the company that should submit the request to UEFA?
Or is it the PLC Board or individual shareholders?
Or is it the fans?
Surely there is someone out there that meets all of the above? Hmm?
Pog, BGFC, thanks for the info, I hope to get some free time, will have a look if I get some. – See more at: http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/doing-your-talking-on-the-park/comment-page-16/#comment-2793369
Oh, PS FTSFA.
Auldheid’s reply to some unusually decent question :)
AULDHEID on 11TH MARCH 2016 3:08 AM
MR PASTRY on 11TH MARCH 2016 12:53 AM
BRT&H/AULDHEID/CANAMALAR and others heavily involved in RES12.
The whole thing is akin to a jigsaw – please, without going through the whole chronology, tell the rest of us what part(s) of the jigsaw is/are missing.
QUESTIONS: �
1) We know the alleged date of the ‘crime’ and we think we know the UEFA statute of limitations – what don’t we know?
If there was in fact an overdue payable as defined in UEFA FFP Art 66 and Annex Viii at 30 June 2011. Our tax expert advice is that there was from 20 June and legal input was that none of the 4 conditions for exemption were met by 30 June.
That in a nutshell is what Res12 asked UEFA to investigate because previous enquiries only got an answer relevant to Art50 that covered an overdue payable at 31st March. There wasn’t one under Art 50 as bill did not arrive until 20th May.
�
2) What do we want the final outcome to be?
Depends on answer to above. If SFA can explain how Art66 requirements were met, particularly in light of how UEFA dealt with a similar situation with Malaga FC the following year, to shareholders satisfaction in a way that answers why SOs called to collect 6 weeks after 30 June, then that is all that is required to bed the issue. It’s that simple.
If in fact there was an overdue payable as defined then first an apology to Celtic, it’s support and shareholders and a commitment to review their processes to ensure a repeat was not possible and compensation for denying Celtic the opportunity to play in a first round qualifying match. Also an explanation why Stewart Regan had to discuss issue with Andrew DICKSON of RFC and send him a draft for RFC to clear and why SFA asked RFC to make a statement in Sept 2011 to cover the position at that point in language that suggested UEFA would not examine fully because they were too busy. A statement that subsequently was a misrepresentation of the position.
�
3) Will there be any tangible benefit to Celtic if we get the desired outcome?
The tangible benefit to Scottish football will be that those governing will no more act with impunity and make secret agreements that impact on the integrity of the game they are charged with protecting. I think having a more careful SFA will be a tangible benefit to Celtic as will reforming a governance system that apparently worked to the benefit of one club to the exclusion of the rest.
�
4) Could Celtic be adversely affected if they contact UEFA direct?
Only Celtic know the answer to that but it would be a strange situation where the possible victims of a crime were punished for reporting it.
�
5) Must a club resolve this type of issue with their own association?
That is how the current system works. Closed shop governance with no accountability to paying customer and in Scotland that is match goers. Such a system encourages the very arrogance that Res12 has had to battle with.
�
6) Are things as clear-cut as are they are portrayed?
Right up to Dec 2015 matters where as reported. Shareholder reps and Celtic worked together to establish validity of our points and take them to SFA. The SFA refused to answer specific questions in a letter put to them on 23 July 2015 after two reminders.
Given the domestic solution route was going no where the decision was made late Dec to take case to UEFA not just to answer the prime question and investigate but SFA’S inaction since Aug 2014 when they were shown the tax bill which they said they had not seen. Celtic were aware of this change taking matters out the domestic forum to the UEFA one. There was a hope it might get an answer from SFA.
In the absence of any information thereafter, although I am now reading there might have been a reply in January but that was never passed on if true and a) I doubt it and b) I’d love to see how Art 66 was complied with using Brysonesquethink, the process of writing to UEFA re-engaged but our feelings on the matter, which for all the furore, will make it harder to avoid honest satisfactory answers being made public.
If SFA have in fact answered the points in our letter of 23 July 2015 that we were unaware of it will be enlightening to read what they say in regard of each point made.
�
7) Is there another side to this story?
I don’t know about point but Scotland is some country when it takes the contortions that have happened since 2011 to minimise the impact of years of cheating from 2000 and then turn the world inside out to try and make those contortions appear normal.
This whole farce is as much if not more of an ethical issue and the lack of ethics at play is a sad reflection on our game, those running it in paricular and our society in general.
�
These are reasonable questions and the type of enquiries that any decent legal professional would ask.
And we ask them ourselves
If the shareholders take the res 12 to uefa, and uefa then tell shareholders to
gtf are the board then willing to take it to uefa. Or is that it finished?
I don’t know if this crew is talking about Ezekiel 38….and what he prophecised for,,,,, how soon is NOW?
There is no doubt that Celtic is under a Massive Attack.
Question for the Resolutioner’s (Auldhied, Canamalar, BRTH, Morrisey)
1. Had you not discovered the potential time bar are you confident that the club would have highlighted this to you and requested you make representation to UEFA before this date passed?
2. I note that there was a suggestion that the club had received some form of reply from the SFA with regards your questions back in January but had not furnished you with this information until Paul67 brought it to your attention yesterday. Is this the case, and if so was it a) important information b) information that would have had you take further action sooner?
I read the statement above from BRTH and note the full diplomacy of the statement in order that Celtic PLC are not upset too much at some hard truths that had been published in the depth of these pages in the comments of the last two articles. I understand there is a need for that as you continue in the hope that you can bring focus on the SFA by UEFA.
But IMO having read the comments of BRTH and Canamalar previously it is without question in my mind that a Magnum 45 was loaded, a suppressor fitted to it and a shot fired at you guys by our board that would hit and wound res 12 fatally after the time bar had passed when they would feign being ‘Astounded of Forehead’.
The diplomacy of the above statement in order to keep the PLC on board (pardon the PUN) does not change my mind on the duplicity of our board on this. They are to my mind 100% complicit now in their attempts to re-engingeer deadco and the returned version deadco back into the top league.
I hope that you are successful with this and UEFA reply in advance of the time bar deadline allowing the club time to write their complaint and represent it to them if it isn’t written already. And I hope you are once again not fire upon in the back by the Machiavellian PLC in charge at our club.
Good luck.
MWD
My friends in Celtic,
The time and effort of the Res 12 guys has been acknowledged, of that there is little doubt.
But Lawyers don’t come cheap. There is no way these guys should be out of pocket. Is there any way collectively that we could assist?
HH.
Billybear on last page – some decent lyric there. And most of it scanned OK too.
Lunchbreak over, back to work…..
bhoy@58 on 11th March 2016 1:42 pm
I said earlier that in the current climate it would be foolhardy of UEFA to be seen to do nothing about or deflect an allegation of corruption.
Peter Lawell will not take this further
Sack him and get our club back
Canamalar
3) Will there be any tangible benefit to Celtic if we get the desired outcome?
The tangible benefit to Scottish football will be that those governing will no more act with impunity and make secret agreements that impact on the integrity of the game they are charged with protecting. I think having a more careful SFA will be a tangible benefit to Celtic as will reforming a governance system that apparently worked to the benefit of one club to the exclusion of the rest.
………………………………………….
In yer dreams mate!
One Glasgow Rangers,
There’s only one Glasgow Rangers
Repeat until you spew your guts up.
Matt Stewart
Imagine if we had an image on the blanket of The Board, Neil Doncaster, Stewart Regan…..or HUGH DALLAS!!!
It might encourage folk to throw something else. Possibly in LIDL bags :))
Canamalar, BRTH et al – was this info ever sent to other club chairman? I’m curious about the lack of involvement from any other clubs.
Jeez
Here’s what Barcabhoy was saying, as requested…
“Celtic ain’t the problem, SFA are” Given how much Auldheid has put into this , I 100% accept his word on this Barcabhoy added,
“The bar for proof for the Celtic board is considerably higher than for independent shareholders( IS) . In fact IS set their own bar……The IS who are behind Res 12 have applied a high level to their arguments & much evidence. However Celtic need 100% accredited proof, or …Accusing a UEFA member association of impropriety is a very serious matter for a club. Getting it wrong has real consequences for Celtic”
“I believe the Res 12 guys are correct with their core complaint. I suspect Celtic believe that too. However proof has to be absolute….Anything less than absolute proof & Uefa will stonewall the way the SFA have. The issue is the SFA not Celtic. Anger should be aimed at SFA.”
“The board are as pissed off by the impropriety of the SFA as anyone , especially the LNS enquiry.”
“It took Fergus 3 years to get rid of Farry. Most of the complaint was dealt out of public glare, only going public when no other choice.”
Barcabhoy, let us say, is very well informed re the Celtic board’s thoughts. BRTH said that both himself and Auldheid are going to get in touch with him to clarify etc – this is important in my view.
On SFM Auldheid is also saying that we should be aiming anger at SFA.
I presume the Board are now taking the lead on Res 12.
Can’t fathom their lack of leadership on this. Having said this, I would not want the Trust leadership replacing them, as our new Board. I am all for fan membership of the Board but I would have a preference for those supporters who are primarily driven by a love of Celtic, like, imo, Auldheid and Paul67, rather than some left wing political ideology, which, again imo, is what motivates to a large degree those who started the Trust.
winning captains on 11th March 2016 1:49 pm
I was going to comment on the timescale of Farry. I seemed to recall it taking much longer than you might have exptected. That was in relation to one player registration, and this is far more complicated.
One Earth, One World….. Are you not excited?
Ezekiels Wheel
Come on the Celts.
Wee Fergus would have been all over the SFA like a rash.
Fergus….Fergus……wherefore art thou…Fergus?
Enter stage left Lawwell, Bankier and Livingston, err sorry, this isny a comedy is it?
PAUL 67.
Let me start by saying I absolutely love your blog, however, the explanation in your article just won’t wash.
The RES 12 boys presented the board with an open goal, why they spurned the opportunity is a mystery.
It is so frustrating to think they’re getting away with it.
DRAMBOWIECELT on 11TH MARCH 2016 1:12 PM
Any of the Bhoys who have contacted Taylor had a reply yet??
Iv’e not received any response as we speak…..
———
Not a peep Sir
HH jamesgang
So if the shareholders write to UEFA and UEFA say they will only deal with the club, what then…..?
I know more Celtic people who don’t know anything about Res 12 and who canny wait for the cup semi against the mankies, than the opposite.
So there.
GLASSTWOTHIRDSFULL
The club will do nothing more.
Lip service it’s called.
Or arse licking.
Whichever you prefer.
Greenpinata
Well said about the reference to souptaker. Used too freely out of context.
Why don’t we get a bundle of Celtic Shareholders together, get a lawyer, then write to the SPFL, complaining of the blatant cheating our players endure week in week out from the mibs.
cc UEFA
As a footnote to Auldheids responses, the CFCB rules identify the national associations as the licensors and are as much under scrutiny as the license applicant, so the final word being with the national association is not quite as defined as identified.
BRTH,
I’d have screwd this up a long time ago without you two, that’s why Morissey picked yeas :)
MICKBHOY1888 on 11TH MARCH 2016 1:39 PM
I think Sutton is a balloon.
I did then and I do now.
Dear Res 12 zealots,
I commend your persistence and your ethics. Without people like you change, real change would never happen. How fitting that you should come from the ranks of Celtic fans.
However, unfortunately, it appears that you have been Zenoed….yes, it is not a typo!
Our friend, Zeno posed the arrow paradox, namely that for an arrow to reach its destination, it must first pass the halfway point, but to get there it must pass the quarterway point and so on and on for ever. Conclusion the arrow never leaves the bow.
I fear your efforts will be a current day example of this. Speaking neutrally, it would appear that both the SFA and the Board have played a blinder on this issue. The Monday morning QB is always correct, but I wonder if you regret agreeing to withdraw the Res initially. Life is full of “if onlys”.
None of the above negates my admiration for your stance. Fans should not forget that, whatever happens.
Rebus
Philbhoy,
Dead easy, opinion and hard evidence is the difference, res12 worked only to identify hard evidence which cannot be disputed and we have that.
However I wish you all the luck in the world with your new endeavour any assistance I can give is only asking distance away.
Sutton played when he could be bothered.
Sutton needs the money.
Lots of “the money”.
We’ll see if he changes his tune when we get seriously pumped by the huns in the cup.
Can this really not happen?
I’m a wee bit worried about that game actually.
Pass the Tena’s!
Philbhoy
Why don’t you inform the unenlightened , that you know of, all about Res 12 then?
CANAMALAR
I backed your fight re Res 12 and I was one of the shareholders mentioned. We exchanged a number of emails at that time.
However, the club can’t be arsed with it all.
They needed some severe prodding to eventually get up off their fat lazy back sides and make it look like they had changed their mind and yes, this was a cause worth fighting for.
You really expect if this goes to UEFA that anything will change in Scotland that really will benefit Celtic and her support?
Masons and Orangemen and huns are suddenly going to give us a fair crack of the whip?
Seriously?
As I said earlier.
In yer dreams.
Beat it with this Res 12, any excuses of not renewing your Season Ticket, Loyal Celtic Supporters will see this through, we don’t want fans or so called ones supporting our club,so do us a favour do what you all have to do and let the rest of true fans support Celtic Football Club,
Hi Ghuys, Salve salve;- As stated previously by me, much respect and gratitude to Canalamar, BRTH, Auldhied and all the rest of the Res 12 squad. hopefully you have already maximised the discomfort up on Haemorrhoid Hall. I wish you the very best of luck with UEFFA. As far as The Board’s hesitance due to certainty of proof and possible recriminations ( as per our esteemed Barcabhoy ) is concerned, surely all that would be required in order to prevent this from falling due to time bar would be for the board to write to UEFFA informing them of the res 12 shareholders concerns and evidence and thereby registering the fact that Celtic as a club share these concerns and are awaiting response from the Haemorrhoids and that they may require EUFFA to become involved.
This means a claim is registered without any suggestion of wrongdoing being brought forward at this point.
Greenwells.
Forsan miseros meliora sequentur.
Dharma Bam
They are basically not interested.
The fact that a subject is discussed at length on a blog does not mean 100,000 Celtic fans are aware.
I’ve recommended this Blog to many Tims but I can’t make them join in.