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
- 8
- ...
- 13
- »
Rebus67,
The res was never withdrawn, get it right, next week the complaint and evidence will be going to the CFFB, it may be accompanied with a simple footnote.
As there is no identified qualification on who can bring complaints to the attention of the chief investigator within your detailed rules, we consider this formal notice, please respond directly to the shareholders representatives, as you will see from the cc notice and previous correspondence attached, both the association and club are well aware of our concerns.
kind regards:)
And a wee smiley thing
Philbhoy on 11th March 2016 2:26 pm
Since you backed it. Can I ask what your expectation at the time was?
Philbhoy,
Didnt mean to be aggressive in my previous post to you. As someone who posts and reads CQN, can you not spread the word?
Greenwell’s Glory,
That suggestion sounds perfectly reasonable and straightforward. I haven’t read anything on here that would preclude that.
WC – Thanks
Philbhoy,
Horse and water, then.
Bring Tony back???
Cascarino wa never much cop first time around!
where is td67?
WEEMINGER
I expected the Club to back us.
Immediately. Not drag their feet.
We are five years down the road with this. Is this the normal timescale for this type of action?
No one at the club seems to have shown any kind of urgency, or surely we would be much further on than 20 days away from being time barred after “actively pursuing” this for 4 years and 49 months.
Is it really the governing body who has stalled this for years and years?
Did the club not see this and take steps to get things moving?
Or did they sit quietly hoping it would all go away?
Are the board in it up to their ears?
These are my concerns.
Wee Fergus would have come out guns blazing.
And it wouldn’t have taken him 5 years to get to this point.
Afternoon Bhoys
Just popped on to say I think it is incredible that Directors of a Plc are asking shareholders to do the work for them. In any other business (and we are a business), those board of directors would be removed.
Perhaps our absent landlord and major shareholder can join the Res12 shareholders and help the fight.
Shakes head in disbelief.
HH
CRC
Ps thanks again for all the good wishes, emails and help given over last few days. This is what CQN is about!!!
Celtic Football Club @celticfc 19s20 seconds ago
Full Time. 4-0 Celtic. Domineering performance rewarded with goals from Aitchison (2), Murray & Lafferty.
Mowbray Has been sent to Coventry.
Philbhoy lots of Tims stayed in Muslin Street The George corner of Main and Muslin st, big Tim boozer a lot Tims could handle themselves, back in the day,and The Billyboys kept there distance
Jude2005 – Bring back Tony Stokes and Tony Watt.
They’re Green,They’re White… They’re Fenian Dynamite!!
Any one of the 2 up-front alongside LG-Force…Propelling Celtic all the way to to 5 Championship Titles on the spin.
Faster than the speed of sound.
COME ON CELTIC!!
KTF.
Philbhoy on 11th March 2016 2:48 pm
As commented earlier by Winning Captains it took 3 years to get Farry out, and I’d suggest that an investigation of 1 player registration is far easier than this.
Was it not first raised at the 2013 AGM? So not 5 years.
http://videocelts.com/2013/11/blogs/latest-news/celtic-take-shareholders-licence-concerns-straight-to-sfa/comment-page-1#comments
Paul67 et al
So let get this straight, in 2012 resolution 12 requested that the Celtic Board refer UEFA/CFCB to the administration of licences by the SFA in 2011; the SFA in 2015 refused to engage directly with Celtic shareholders, (didn’t they want to know who these people are) and in 2016 the Celtic Board notifies said Celtic shareholders you’ll need to do it yersel. This however is somehow a good thing since it will lead to UEFA contacting the Celtic Board and asking them, ‘what’s it all abaht?’
Canamalar,
Thanks for the clarification. My words may have been less than precise. I intended to convey that the res was not voted on at the AGM when it was originally muted. I do not wish to insult you by pursuing what ifs had it remained as a motion that was voted upon, as you originally intended.
Rebus
I’ve changed the WiFi password until everybody has tidied their rooms.
Warbsmeister bumping his gums about The Evil Genius?
The Big Mooth must stay open
Jobo Baldie on 11th March 2016 12:26 pm – They didn’t go directly to UEFA they went to EC in brussles
Celtic Mac,
Res12 was raised at AGM 2013
It had been discussed and decided it would be proposed in 2012, but Nov 2013 was when it became official policy of the Plc to see if there was more than just rumour.
WEEMINGER on 11TH MARCH 2016 2:56 PM
Philbhoy on 11th March 2016 2:48 pm
As commented earlier by Winning Captains it took 3 years to get Farry out,
Fergus went through the SFA complaint procedures from the moment Celtic were cheated, it is no surprise that the SFA found no case to answer in regards of Mr Farrys cheating, Fergus then went down the legal route, the SFA continued through their friends in the media to state no case to answer, however the SFA and Farry both capitulated when the legals told the SFA there case was not winnable
Celtic FC have not made an official complaint in 4 years, bot cases are not comparable
Rebus67,
I don’t mind you debating the ifs and but of it being voted on, it was adjourned because it questioned the commitment of the board to protect the shareholders interests, had they voted it down the resolutioners would have had every right to go to higher legal authorities and force the issue, that is the long and short of why the board had second thoughts.
You can obfuscate and argue all you want but when push came to shove during the discussions with the Plc they never argued with that truth. They adjourned it because they had to.
Canamalar,
You are correct in that it is the future that matters. Good luck with your approach to UEFA. I really hope that you achieve success.
Rebus
NEGANON2 on 11TH MARCH 2016 12:41 PM
Johnnyrambo
Your response is simply to give up and say it’s too hard.
——————–
No it wasn’t. My response was quite clearly what is the alternative. You do not present a credible one. You throw some delusions and assumptions around and present them as fact. Who accuses the club of collusion in corruption? You? You’re a nobody. You don’t represent the fans. Even if you had the full backing of CQN it would still only amount to a tiny minority of the support.
Deliberately downsized?
Take a look around. This is the SPFL. We cannot compete with English Championship clubs for players. Crowds were slipping long before the death of Rangers and they have continued on a downward spiral. The apathy, the sense of entitlement, the lack of competition throughout the league. These are all circumstances that the board can do very little about.
We cannot build teams because top players do not want to play in Scotland. Why would they if they can play in England and earn 2/3/4/5/10 times as much? I don’t like our place in the food chain but I’m not so naive that I’m blind to it. There are only a handful of clubs in Europe that can build a team. Dundee Utd, Celtic, Southampton, Liverpool, Arsenal aren’t amongst them.
You have no idea what a boycott would achieve. You have no idea how DD would react. But you’re willing to gamble the future of our club to achieve your wet dream, the hell with the consequences.
The board are tasked with making this club as successful as possible without jeopardising our future to get there. They have overseen the death of our rivals. If Roy Keane turned down the job it is because he was unwilling to work within the constraints that face our club in Scottish football. Ditto Neil Lennon who has a great relationship with Peter Lawwell. They have tried to bring in a manager who will develop young players and play attractive football that entertains the fans. That is 100% the right strategy. The question is whether it is being implemented properly. Last season the football was superb, IMO as good as it’s been since Larsson left. This season has been poor no doubt, but there’s no need to spit the dummy out, instead I credit Aberdeen for the challenge the media said only Rangers could provide.
Performances will have to improve or the manager will go, the recruitment policy should be looked at regardless, the squad is far too big, and we continually swing and miss on strikers. We are trying to be the 1st in Britain to have safe standing to improve the atmosphere, we are looking to ways to improve the experience of fans in the ground, such as the ability for fans to nip out for a smoke at half time. We’re trying to improve the facilities at Lennoxtown. The stadium is looking terrific. I thoroughly believe we’ll win the league and hopefully we’ll qualify for the CL, but ultimately we’d just be there to make up the numbers.
Yeah I’d say the board are doing a decent job.
If Canamalar tells me Res. 12 is still in play and developing further that’s good enough for me.
Canamalar it looks like OCD obsession on 11th March 2016 2:31 pm –
Canamalar. Good day.
Can you say how the services of a top league firm acting on behalf of the shareholder requisitioners was funded?
Thanks
Johnnyrambo67,
Sorry pal, up to and after
“IMO as good as it’s been since Larsson left”
Was a decent argument, that line for me just relegated everything else to, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, sorry.
cananalar
Was Resolution 12 discussed at the 2012 AGM in any way shape or form?
Kill Ultra,
A couple of bank jobs sorted it pal :)
Seriously, all expenses have been paid for by supporters.
BTW are you a hun ?
Celtic Mac,
No, it wasn’t a conscious thought/idea until nearer Christmas, when steinreignsupreme told me to shut up moaning and do something about it.
Celtic Mac,
If you can find the right time frame you can see/read exactly how, why and the reasoning that led to res12 on this very blog.
Me, I’m scared to read back :)
Auldheid for Celtic Board.
I’d wear that t-shirt.
PHYLLIS DIETRICHSON on 11TH MARCH 2016 11:48 AM
Paul67 I have a question – why did the board wait for two months before telling the RES 12 guys they were not going to UEFA?
……………………………
Spot on. The elephant in the room. Clearly the Board are now panicking. They have obviously tried to kick Resolution 12 into the long grass and by delaying until March before revealing that they have not taken the matter to EUFA, they have hoped that fans would feel that it is now too late for further action and that Res 12 would become time-barred on March 31st. I’m sure they will have soiled their pants by the reaction from supporters on this blog alone.
I don’t think I’m being melodramatic here but I have a feeling that BRTH’s post on here a couple of days ago which informed us of the Board’s unwillingness to take the matter to UEFA will in Due course see the downfall of the current Board.
Johnnyrambo67
I agree the board have done a decent job and get a lot of things right , but they have also got a lot wrong their communication with the support is woeful.
canamalar
It was just the reference, by BRTH I think, in today’s article, to the 2012 AGM that led me to believe that Res 12 was introduced then.
CANAMALAR IT LOOKS LIKE OCD OBSESSION on 11TH MARCH 2016 1:42 PM
‘Could Celtic be adversely affected if they contact UEFA direct?’
####
Assuming
1.there’s a statute of limitations/ time bar on submitting an enquiry/complaint/claim
and
2. the SFA have refused or delayed providing information that would allow Celtic to decide whether there were grounds for them to make an enquiry/complaint/claim.
then I can’t see how a letter to UEFA referencing those two points could result in damage to Celtic.