CQN this evening publishes an official update on Resolution 12 which we ask you to read very carefully.

The Celtic writer James Forrest has had advance viewing of this update and at 6.45pm this evening will provide a detailed analysis which sets out the achievements of the four Resolution 12 Bhoys and what it all means for Scottish football.

He will tell you to “forget everything you’ve heard about this case in the media. Ignore the spin from the SFA. UEFA’s verdict was always the only one that mattered, and it is damning.”

The intention is for everyone to read the official update on Resolution 12 (below), then go over to The Celtic Blog at 6.45pm to read James Forrest’s analysis before heading back to CQN at 7pm where Auldheid will be available to answer your questions for a few hours.

CQN has a final batch of our Persistence Beats Res12tance T shirts available in medium, large, XL and XXL. The profits from these shirts are being used to fund the legal bills incurred in getting this far and indeed taking things even further. We have only 50 t-shirts available and this will be the last run of these so if you want one head over to www.cqnbookstore.com

Here is the Resolution 12 update…



In furtherance of Resolution 12 submitted to the AGM of Celtic PLC in 2013, shareholders acting to achieve the aims and goals of the resolution have engaged the services of an international firm of solicitors with a view to having them correspond with the SFA, Celtic PLC and UEFA.

Over a prolonged period of time, the solicitors concerned have asked the SFA various detailed questions concerning the licensing processes followed by the SFA for and during season 2011/2012 in relation to European Licensing Regulations as determined by UEFA for the purposes of regulating UEFA competitions and Financial Fair Play.

Regrettably but not unexpectedly, no meaningful or satisfactory replies were forthcoming from the SFA and on 27th May 2016 the solicitors wrote to UEFA and asked detailed questions regarding the administration of UEFA licences in Scotland for season 2011/2012 and in particular sought clarification on the role of the SFA in relation to the granting and monitoring of UEFA licences during that season.

UEFA formally replied to the solicitors on 8th June and that reply made a number of points including the following:

  1. During the process of granting any licensing application it was the duty of the SFA to “assess” all documents and submissions made by applicant clubs.
  2. During the course of season 2011/2012 not only were the SFA/UEFA monitoring clubs for that season, the SFA were also assessing clubs in relation to their eligibility for UEFA competitions for the following season 2012/2013.
  3. At an unspecified date during the course of season 2011/2012 it became apparent to the SFA/UEFA that Rangers Football Club ceased to meet the criteria for holding a UEFA Licence.
  4. Any sanction envisaged by UEFA arising from the licensing submission made by Rangers FC and channelled through the SFA in June 2011 would not have applied until the following season.
  5. Ultimately, no sanction was handed down by UEFA to Rangers FC, nor any investigation instigated into the licensing processes followed in season 2011/2012 because according to UEFA
  • Rangers FC, were not granted a UEFA licence for season 2012/2013
  • Following upon the administration of the club
    • a “new club/company” was formed which was ineligible to apply for a licence to participate in UEFA competitions for three seasons and which
    • sought entry into the fourth tier of Scottish Football and this “new club/company” would not, and could not in any event, qualify to play in European competition for the next three years.

It should be noted here that the whole point of resolution 12 was to request that the Board of Celtic PLC to seek the assistance of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body to use their powers to investigate and clarify various aspects of the licensing processes implemented and carried out by the SFA during season 2011/2012.

Shareholders wanted to ensure that the game in Scotland was being properly administered and were seeking to ensure that there was open, transparent and accountable governance and that UEFA rules were being properly complied with.

At no point did the resolution seek any kind of investigation into the conduct of Rangers Football Club or its Directors and the sole object of the resolution is in relation to proper governance and the proper application of the football rules by the footballing authorities in Scotland.

However, in terms of accountability, the full UEFA response, when set against and contrasted with other information in the public domain, previous replies and public statements from the SFA, has raised further significant and as yet unanswered questions that shareholders feel should be drawn to the attention of UEFA Club Financial Control Body, the SFA (who said they would cooperate with any enquiry/investigation by UEFA) and Celtic, whom UEFA invited to take up directly.

NB: The contact details provided by the SFA to CFC Plc were for the Club Licensing & Financial Fair Play section of UEFA and not the CFCB.

These questions will be raised with relevant UEFA authorities (copied to Celtic and the SFA to consider) by the solicitors acting on behalf of shareholders by the end of July to allow for the intervening holiday period now upon us.

When the CFCB are in possession of our concerns Resolution 12 will have run its course as far as the representatives of the signatories to Res12 can take the matter without Celtic’s committed involvement to seek reform of the SFA and introduce greater transparency and accountability based on events since 2011.





Click Here for Comments >

About Author