At the end of the previous article, we noted that Rangers had been informed by HMRC that they had a liability. This would have made them ineligible for European competition.
Those rules are quite clear, and even if the SFA were in any doubt about awarding a licence, then what they should have done if there was a doubt , was to consult UEFA for clarification.
As we know, they did not. Perhaps they didn’t have the correct information from the club, or perhaps they decided to overlook it. Again, in the context of the period, Rangers were hurtling towards administration and eventual liquidation. They had another outstanding issue with their unique outlook on paying taxes, and there didn’t seem to be any way of finding the money to pay them.
Unless they had that champions League cash. Cash they were not, as we have seen, entitled to.
Already you can se that the SFA should answer the questions that are appearing. As you know, they didn’t then and they haven’t up until now.
If the SFA were truly independent of any influence from the club, then they would have tried to make sure they were making the right decision, and they would then have absolved themselves of all blame for the impending crisis at Ibrox, one that would show the SFa were working for the benefit of the new owners of the former clubs assets. We’ll deal later with the five ways agreement, and the aborted attempt to shoehorn the new club into the Premier League and the Championship before they were forced to start at the bottom, although technically even that isn’t where they ended up.
If they were ready to help New Rangers then, it follows they would have helped the old club as much as they could as well. Again, an issue they have refused to explain.
In order to make the right decision regarding the issue of a licence, all they had to do was ask UEFA, and as this extract, taken from CAS papers detailing the case against Greek side Giannina, who had also applied for a licence in similar circumstances;
Substantive Issue Taken From CAS Papers.
74. The Panel notes that it is not disputed that, as of 31 March 2013, the Appellant owed EUR
1,290,000 to the social/tax authorities as a result from contractual and legal obligations towards
employees that had arisen before 31 December 2012.
75. Against this background, the Panel further notes that, according to Annex VII(2)(b) of the
CL&FFP Regulations, payables are not considered as overdue, within the meaning of these
regulations, if the licence applicant/licensee (i.e. debtor club) is able to prove by 31 March that
“it has concluded an agreement which has been accepted in writing by the creditor to extend the
deadline for payment beyond the applicable deadline”.
76. In the case at hand, the Panel finds that there was no written agreement as of 31 March 2013
confirming that the Greek Tax Authorities had accepted to extend the deadline for payment
beyond the applicable deadline.
77. In this regard, the Panel observes that, on 3 January 2013 and, again, on 26 March 2013, the
Appellant submitted to the Greek Tax Authorities applications for the settlement. However, in the
light of the applicable regulations,itisinsufficienttotake actionswith aviewofobtaininga
deferral. According to the Annex VII(2)(b) of the CL&FFP Regulations an agreement with the
competent tax authority must be made in writing within the applicable deadline
78. In the case at hand, it is not disputed that the Appellant reached a written agreement with the Greek Tax Authorities to reschedule and pay its overdue payables in 48 instalments. However, such agreement was concluded on 29 May 2013, i.e. almost two months after the expiry of the applicable deadline.
79. It results from the foregoing that, as of 31 March 2013, the Appellant had overdue payables towards social/tax authorities as a result of contractual and legal obligations towards its employees that had arisen prior to 31 December 2012. The Panel therefore determines that the Appellant infringed Article 50 of the CL&FFP Regulations.
There is no reason, as the cases are very similar, to expect that Rangers would have been treated any differently, and the outcome been any different, had UEFA or the CAS been given the case to make a decision on.
The statements make UEFA’s intent in Article 50 very clear, which is that overdue tax from a prior year not paid by 31st March gives any club an unfair financial advantage of clubs with no such sums owing and so under FFP principles means a license should not be granted.
Based on the foregoing there is a very strong case that the Licence to play in UEFA competitions should not have been granted by the SFA but it was and it was retained during the monitoring checkpoints in June under Article 66 and September under Article 67 so how was this possible?
In terms of the granting in view of the foregoing a more accurate statement from Grant Thornton on 30 March would have been;
“All the recorded payroll taxes at 31 December 2010 have, according to the accounting records of the
Club since that date been paid in full by 31 March 2011, with the exception of a £2.8m liability
arising from tax overdue from 2000/01 to 2002/03 accepted by Rangers which HMRC have
agreed, after discussions, to postpone collection of until after Takeover. thecontinuing
disThe liability arises from……………of£2.8 contributions between 1999 and 2003 into a discounted
option scheme. These amounts have been provided for in full within the interim financial statements.
As opposed to the one submitted, as we saw in part one;
“All the recorded payroll taxes at 31 December 2010 have, according to the accounting records of the Club since that date been paid in full by 31 March 2011, with the exception of the continuing discussion between the Club and HM Revenue and Customs in relation to a potential liability of £2.8m associated with contributions between 1999 and 2003 into a discounted option scheme. These
amounts have been provided for in full within the interim financial statements.”
We’ve left out the bit that says ” the continuing discussions between the club and HM Revenue and Customs in relation to a potential liability. ” Largely because it wasn’t a potential liability, but an actual one, as we have seen.
Had this more accurate statement of events been presented to the Licensing Committee on 30th March 2011 could they have granted the licence or would they have to have sought advice from UEFA ?
Or, like the Greek FA refused the application but put forward to UEFA to consider after Giannina FC appealed?
As Celtic shareholders is there a case here that Grant Thornton provided Rangers FC with a free pass to UEFA money or were they acting on information provided by Rangers FC?
Either way the truth regarding the liability was not stated and that allowed a licence to be granted to Rangers FC that may not have been had a more accurate statement been provided. This would have impacted on Celtic share value had they as SPL Runners Up taken the place of Rangers FC.
In short is there a criminal case of misrepresentation to aid and abet financial gain against Grant Thornton and against Rangers FC of misrepresentation for financial gain?
This does not necessarily mean pursuing a settlement, particularly as one party is in liquidation, but it has to be made clear somehow that such behaviour by a football club and auditors is totally unacceptable in the modern business of football.
Football is a sport. a sport which demands a level playing field, literally and practically.
Have we seen a tilting of the table in favour of one particular participant ? Are we setting the standard for the future of the game by ignoring this issue?
For the good of the Scottish game, its international image, and more importantly , for guys and girls like me and you who have emotional and financial investment in football this needs to be brought out into the open and dealt with independently of the SFA.
Questions must be asked , in the Scottish Parliament if necessary, not because of the money lost or gained, but simply because we have a right to know if when we watch the football, no one is exempt from the rules.
We need to know they are being applied without fear or favour, because anything other than that, and its not a game any more.
Still, if thats what we want, we could always watch the wrestling.
. In Part Three, yes, there’s more, much more, we’ll look deeper into what the SFA have said so far about the case, and you’ll be able to conclude for yourself whether or not there are questions to be answered, and why this issue cannot be ignored any longer.
If only so that we can keep whats left of the Corinthian spirit in football.
Cannae wait. Thanks for being such a hound. Props for a proper Tim.
Ralph,
Again a great piece.
From it, I can see that in your mind you have answered the question that I posed in comments on part 1. You think naming and shaming is worth it….even essential.
I do not have a problem with that, provided it is an initiative from an independent agency and not one led by Celtic.
Rebus
Rebus, naming and shaming will not be enough, we are talking brass necks here and that is just Lawwell and the Board at Celtic
Resolution 12 has fallen between two stools because those who raised it tried to be exclusive… just them and the Board,.the Board agreed and promptly kicked it into the long grass where it died. Ordinary fans are not on the ball with it and the Requitisioners are to blame. THEY made it exclusive rather than approach other Clubs supporter groups to make it like original block which made PretendyGers start at the bottom rather than SPL or Division 1.
Naming and shaming will not work with the SFA, they are the Law as far as Scottish Football is concerned and they know it.
Look at Ashley at the Court of Session trying to ascertain King’s proper person status… SFA denied King was PretendyGers Chairman… Ashley had to chuck it and had to pay SFA costs.
Celtic Supporters don’t realise it yet but eventually TWO options are open to them… Get back in their box or take Lawwell and the Board to the Court of Session for the losses the Board have cost the PLC by their support of SFA/SPL actions.
Our Board have damaged the Club.by their actions, WE as a support must separate CLUB from PLC and act against the PLC and Board.
Personally I can’t see it happening.
Well done and thanks (hopefully on behalf of EVERY true Celtic fan),
for keeping this in the spotlight , especially after being so deflated last Saturday.
I must admit I’ve had that same feeling ,[ re- the whole collection of cheating issues apparently being “put behind us” ] , for a while now.
Unfortunately , those who would wish those issues “put behind us” , bank on us losing spirit and just giving up .
Then there are those who bank on our love for Celtic allowing us to put up with virtually anything , cheating/collusion included .
They are the most contemptible ; to effectively use our love for the Club against us .
So again , well done and thanks.
Great again Ralphy,The comparison with the Greek case,one deals honestly with the facts and the SFA illustrates the manipulation and the misrepresentation of the truth.
We are indebted to you and the Res 12 bhoys for everything that they and you have put into this shenanigan.
If we do nothing about this then the same will reoccur at another date,perhaps even next year,when the mankies try AGAIN to enter the European arena when they are not elegible under FFP rules.
What exactly HAVE the Requitisioners done to be thanked for?
They took an issue which belonged to ALL clubs and made it a secret issue between them and the Celtic.PLC.Board.
They did not even include CELTIC SUPPORTERS never mind the other Clubs supporters.
The result? The Celtic PLC Board colluded with the SFA and pished on them.
OK that is done and dusted. Will the Requitisioners now tackle the PLC Board in the Court of Session? I doubt it, so now what?
They and They alone,discovered the issue,They pursued the issue on behalf of the supporters,They advertised the issue on CQN. They requested and raised the funds through CQN. to bring this issue to the mainstream press,which of course was ignored.There campaign raised this issue with UEFA,they have been relentless in fighting this cause despite many obstacles being put in front of them,including the Board.
They have not given up on this issue and neither will bloggers like Ralph,we are indebted to each and every one of them.
Where do we go? If cash is to be raised,to fight on then we will back them.
The Requisitioners are not resposible for any other clubs,
if they wish to join the fight there has not been much sight of it so far.
Nonsense, they pursued it in THEIR own fashion, agreeing with the Board to punt it down the line. Like a gentleman’s club they kept it to themselves and did not broaden the base of support, in fact MOST fans did not know what Resolution 12 actually was.
Even when they received a reply from UEFA they did not publish it allowing STV to pour more smoke on the mirror by pushing an alternative version.
The Requisitioners have made it a CELTIC v the rest issue and CELTIC PLC do not want to know. The Board has treated them with contempt, even with this last meeting.
Let’s keep it private said the Board no need to raise it at the AGM..OK said the Requisitioners to have the Board back stab them yet again.
It Should have been raised at the AGM.
Show me this great CQN reportage and coverage, I must have blinked and missed it.
As I have said, it has been treated as a Private discussion not the public debate it should have been.
NOTHING will happen without the involvement of other clubs… I can’t remember CELTIC’S CEO or Chairman standing up and calling the SFA corrupt… The opposite in fact, I can not remember anything but a trite joke.
Expand this to Every Issue against Celtic and its Supporters and Lawwell’s reaction has been the same… sweep, sweep. Don’t upset the status quo.
Absolute rubbish,Agreeing with the Board? when they have been rebuffed at every attempt to discuss it with them.
They tried to publish in several papers but again were rebuffed.
They canny be held accountable for a board that is not listening or is not interested in it,like wise its hardly there fault if you do not read what is published in CQN.
Did you contribute to the crowd funding or offer any support?
I agree with you that this issue should be put forward to the CSA Joe O Rourke there General Sec. should be asked to speak to his members to ask there opinion and other clubs should be approached,but they canny do everything,sometimes others should lend a hand.Mibbee you?
The Requisitioners kept it private between them and the Board.
They chose Not to escalate it, they chose to agree with the Board, THAT is why it was kicked into touch.
The Requisitioners could have, in fact SHOULD have insisted that it came back to the last AGM.
Yes I did contribute and again I ask you to show me the In Depth reports on Resolution 12 in CQN.
The Requisitioners DID agree with the Board hence the 4 years of delays, they even agreed NOT to take it back to the AGM opting for yet another Private Meeting.
Where are they now? It seems divided with one reported to say it’s over, while others not sure what to do.
I have stated a fact when I say the Requisitioners kept it between just them and the Board by AGREEMENT.
The question is how do FANS now take it further. As I also stated it is now narrowed to an argument between Celtic PLC and their fans when it should be about the lack of governance by the SFA.
I agree with others a great read around the circumstances of granting old Rangers a EUFA license when it seems that they failed to qualify for one under both EUFA and SFA rules. I also agree that this happening a second time is best avoided. I think the campaign to get all this out in the open will go a long way to stopping it happen again. The root cause of this is the belief in Scottish football that it needs some form of Rangers and the orcs that follow them to be viable financially. I believe we have to prove this to be false for our own Board and the Boards of other clubs. Does four games a years with some form of rangers really make that much of a difference? or does TV money go up that much? I really doubt it and that said I have no proof. If we can show that Scottish football can live without sevco than lets just dump them and move on.
EUFA?
UEFA ya dick. Spelling police are the scourge of the web
Brox,
I believe the major advantage to come out of the R12 campaign will be better scrutiny of “rangers” attempts to gain a licence at the end of this season. That in itself is a victory.
Rebus
Agreed
Rebus,sorry to look like stalker but I disagree. NOTHING has come from Resolution 12 except Celtic PLC collusion with the SFA.
Celtic will do NOTHING again if a new licence issue is forthcoming. Throughout all the CHEATING and crap Lawwell has not Once stood up for CELTIC the Club… He has acted purely for the PLC, HE has let them shit on the Club while achieving his targets and bonus.
Celtic as a CLUB have a good Manager who will develop the team. We as a support will have to define the difference between Lawwell and the PLC Board and CELTIC the Club or Lawwell and the Board will surf Brenden’s goodwill and our Club will go down the Swanee.
The problem you have in that is that Peter Lawwell and the Board do see the entity that is Celtic as a “Club” in the traditional sense?
It’s a business now that operates a Football Team as a way of making money for said business.
The emotional side of it doesn’t come into it for men who are in business to them it is a matter of priorities.
ie they priorities the year end over EVERYTHING else.
Sorry to burst a few bubbles with this but Celtic Fc is just a name now not an actual entity folks.
It’s a PLC has been for a long time.
If you wish that to change then you seriously need to consider returning this entity back to it’s former purpose.
To do that we would need to own it outright and totally alter the priorities of Celtic.
Which as you know I am totally in favour of and have been for a very long time.
All this “Believe” and “More Than A Club” stuff is purely marketing the only reality about that is you guys ,the ones who donate and plough in their hard earned to see it transform folks lives and too see their heroes play.
Our Board will have been complicit in not blocking the SFA.
The reason being they had to ensure the Blue Pounds still remained a factor in our game?
In whatever capacity that was it was no 1 priority for our suits.
That’s business folks it’s ruthless,cold hearted and devoid of romantics.
Other than the BJ from the office minker at the Christmas doo that is.
You want change?
You have to change it because if you don’t then sorry expect more of the same.
That’s the reality of the situation.
Rangers died..they don’t fucking care so long as 45,000 heid the ba’s plough their money into the tribute act.
don’t see
The other thing we need to pay attention to and avoid getting sucked in to, is the media trying to make sevco equivalent to Celtic. The “old Firm” myth. This false equivalency is everywhere. Celtic and Rangers may move to England, Celtic and rangers colts may enter league, Celtic have wonder kid rangers have wonder kid. This nonsensical false equivalency promotes the old firm myth as if things have never changed. As if there was no liquidation, no new club. The media and some ex Celtic players are easily sucked into this myth. It is fake and we should treat it with contempt. There is no Old Firm and there is only one superpower club in Scotland and that is Celtic FC
This has never been a game and that big, HUGE 5 pointed star at the front door of Paradise, that remains not commented on, tells us everything we need to know. Surely an EGM needs to be called and the Res 12 issue is to be put to a vote among the shareholders. HH
From someone who had a very rough grasp of what Resolution 12 was about, I just want to say thanks for clarifying the whole episode. This is clearly not about vilification of the SFA or the deceased club, it’s about clarification of what appears to be a very murky issue.
I don’t understand why the club don’t want the issue brought out into the open and properly investigated. There may be a reason for the decision taken (although I can’t immediately see what that would be) but at present there is at least some considerable doubt as to the legitimacy of the decision.
Oh, and if you could post a pre-January transfer window rumour mill you would go right to the top of my Christmas card list (if I ever bothered to send any)!
Cheers
Craiginho
money – our board think that we need some version of the Huns to make money. Other boards think the same.
Not wishing to be pedantic, but actually ending up that way, was the R12 issue not about the confirming of the licence by the SFA. I thought the famous four had no issue with the granting of the licence, but they did highlight that the SFA had enough evidence to refuse to confirm it?
However, I can see why there is issue with the initial granting.
Rebus
Good part 2 Ralph.Good to see you saddled up again.Agree with Shoosh,call an EGM.I actually hope Sevco finish second(about 30 points) behind us and let’s see them put in for a license to play in Europe(qualifiers).All hell should break loose.
Rob,
That is the big concern for me. Having done it once, it will be so much easier to do it again. I firmly believe UEFA only act when it suits them. I am not convinced there is a level playing foeld there either. Hope I am absolutely wrong.
H H
Great article Ralph. I can only presume that the board are reluctant to give the SFA a doing in case it scares off the EPL. Everyone knows what a bag of shit the SFA is and why go after them . I am not surprised by the lack of intervention by an organisation worse than the SFA ie UEFA even though they are supposed to be the guardians of the game.
It’s a shame the governing bodies are rotten at all levels of its administration but it seems most sports are the same I.e. Olympics etc.
I am too far removed to provide a balanced argument on the boards proactive or not running of the club. We are miles ahead of the domestic competition, great stadium, safe standing but realise living wage issues, harrasment of fans in ground etc offset this. Mind you continuous fines by UEFA etc for fans behaviour doesn’t help them.
The key thing is we don’t lose focus on ourselves and what we get out of supporting the team.
Rebus67 December 21, 2016 at 5:05 pm · Reply →
You are correct on a change of tack because the precedent of the Giannina case only came to light around the time UEFA replied on the 8th June this year.
You should read it, some interesting stuff on private agreements the Greeks had failing another FFP rule on fair presentation of accounts. May or may not apply though to side letters.
That CAS case gave pause to revisit what we always knew which was the liability was not potential at 31st March. More on that later I suspect.
Auldheid,
Thanks for that. Sometimes I think I have a grasp of the situation and then a question pops into my mind. I then feel I am one or two regulations short of understanding what should have happened.
One question for you, are you pretty sure that R12 would have been defeated if it had stayed on the original agm agenda?
My hope is that either an independent agency, such as a government, will take this on and examine events. Alternatively, My wish is that someone with deep pockets will take it on via lawyers. I think the famous four plus others have done enough. A light has been shone on the interactions between Rangers and the SFA….not wuite as bright as you hoped but enough to show reality,
Rebus
Ralph,
If you can raise so many serious doubts about the licence process, why o why can the Celtic Board not act or at least publicly support the Res12 guys? If they themselves have nothing to hide, why the silence and apparent procrastination? This baffles me much more than the legal twists and turns. I await possible enlightenment in part 3.
Thanks again for your breakdown and explanations.
H H
Pensioner,
I am one as well! Thank heavens for it too!
Others have suggested that it is about money or profits….those that acrue from having a version of them in the league. I do not believe that is what is behind it. It is possible for the Board to act on this and not bury “rangers” They are a new club after all. So shaming the old one would have little effect on the existence of the current one.
It is about something else…..what, I do not know.
Rebus
It’s about money Rebus.
It’s always about money when it comes down to business and business people.
Agree that’s what it’s about and also Lawwell meeting his targets to make it all OK at the PLC.
Charlie and Iantm,
We shall agree to disagree on that.
It is all about opinions.
Rebus
Bravo Ralph, another wonderfully worded insight into Res 12.
Once again the work by the Res 12 guys,should be applauded by all in Scottish football who seek to see fairness to all.
Yet what do we gave scorn poured from the printed sheets.
Our game is fucked if res12 does not get backing from our board. Imagine that is not Rangers,but Aberdeen or Hearts, do you think SDM would have looked the other way,when we were minutes from death,did they wonder oh my fuck what are we going to do. Did they hell,they were rejoicing all over Scotland.
So let’s fuckin bury them. Every last stinkin one.
Great read and thanks for putting it together.
The SFA is corrupt and the Celtic Board have assisted them re Res 12. As stated, why else would they refuse to act on this.
Let’s think of the club greats- Big Jock, McNeil, Jinky, Tommy Burns etc and the support.
On the 12th minute of every home game the support should walk out of the ground and then return at half time.
We either roll over and get pumped up the arse by the board or we fight on.
We are Celtic supporters faithful through and through!!!
Regarding Res 12 and the lies perpetrated by the media, this will continue as they are all part of a self serving establishment in this wee country full of bigots.
Celtic Board missed a chance to rock the boat, but look at them, a shower eating from the establishment trough. We were cheated as other teams were by the entity called Rangers.
As a club Celtic should look at avenues to escape from this corrupt organisation called the SFA, as changes will happen over the next ten years within Europe.
I agree with the comments made by Broxburn Boy we should distance ourselves from anything to do with the tribute act.
Ralph part 2 is excellent, keep the good work up.
I agree, don’t give the bastards a penny. Boycott ibrokes, the Bhoys will win whether we are there or not.
Perhaps the promised storm tomorrow (Friday) will blow off the ibrokes roofs…..hopefully.
Banners banners banners TELLING the world, ok the TV world,all about Resolution
Recently, I expressed the hope that this blog wouls continue despite Ralph’ s genuine concerns over the tone and content of the recent meeting between the R12 folks and the club. This is even more true now. This is the forum where both the blogger and the participants are able tp discuss the issues. Sure discussions are happening in other blogs but not with the same level of background info being supplied as here.
Personally, I am still forming my views on the way forward. Perhaps I am just slow but it is far to serious a situation to respond on purely emotionally. However, I do appreciate that there is an emotional component to it. If you doubt that go listen to the Dropkick Murphys version of “Blood”!
I am churning through the material available on this in order to form my opinion. I am, however, sure of two things. Firstly, Iantm is correct in his/her assertion that this is a matter of concern for all Scottish football fans, not just Celtic fans. Secondly, the Board need to make a statement on events surrounding the meeting.
Ralph, I think recognised my first point with his petition. We need to get the issues out to a broader audience and quickly because a similar licencing event is on the cards by season end.
Rebus
There is three parties that arny listening and all are aware of the Res12 issue.
The SFA.
The Board.
The SMSM. Who were approached to publish but would not.
An EGM would fail because you need at least !0% of the companies voting shares to call one.
What is left is,
1. An approach to the Cellic Supporters Ass.whose Secretary Joe O Rourke,could canvass opinion on whether the broader support are willing to assist the Res.12 bhoys and us,to bring this out into mainstream recognition.
2. Approach all Clubs to see if they are interested in taking it further.(good luck with that).
3. Crowed Fund legal representation to take it further and be prepared to raise a serious amount of cash to do so.
4. Lye doon and get oor tummies tickled yet again.
Rebus67 December 21, 2016 at 8:56 pm · Reply →
Auldheid,
==================
They would have voted it down on the basis of an SFA response to am enquiry Celtic made in 2011. There would have been much hoo ha on social media but no way forward with the authority the adjournment provided.
Celtic asked it be withdrawn but it could not be in all honesty because of e mails leaked by Charoltte Fakeover the tone and content of which spoke SFA complicity (and still do). That is what led to adjournment.
Since then as result of Res12 lawyer activity and research on similar cases resulting in a better understanding of the process, a much more solid case now exist not only of highly questionable activity in 2011 but disingenuous and misleading public statements since to cover up what did take place then.
The Scottish Government got a copy of the TJN/TOG report and there is no doubt that the fear of upsetting FIFA no longer exists as a reason not to interfere and the ongoing SFA incompetence makes outside intervention much more likely AND a vote winner given both sides of the green and white divide and all shades between feel they have suffered as a result of said incompetence.
Res 12 sawed away at the tree trunk, by next June when COS has ruled on ebts and CW trial is over will be “TIMBER!” time.
Hello Auldheid, there are several points to be addressed in this.
I do not decry the Requisitioners efforts, I applaud them for doing it but rage at their naivety.
How many chances do you give someone who is Lying to you?
FOUR YEARS worth of vague commitment and broken promises is not a good sign of their awareness. The fact that Lawwell was playing to the gallery, NOT defending Celtic in any issue be it “Honest Mistakes” which are Still happening, or his Manager being shafted by the SFA, all the while being PROMOTED within the Football Hierarchy… Is it just me who smelt a big rat? the Requisitioners apparently did not… Or did not want to. I think they believed Celtic PLC would come round to recognising the facts by persuasion. I never did.
I can honestly say I asked Lawwell by letter all of my misgivings. I can also say I wrote at length on it on another blog, Monti is the only name I recognise here, he can confirm it.
My personal feelings on the subject still are:
The Requisitioners started off well but made it a private conversation between them and the Board who had no intention of doing anything to upset the PLC applecart. A big mistake.
that was fair enough in the FIRST instance but FOUR YEARS… Come on!
I recognise the knowledge they obtained… But they then wasted it.
Mick mentioned Joe O’Rourke, I know Joe on a personal level, a Rottweiler of a Shop Steward, afraid of no one while fellow Union Reps were being bagged on a pretence.
HE would have taken this to other Clubs and built a base with the info as it became available.. But No, a gentlemans agreement with a Board who had no intention of helping killed inter Club co-operation before it got started.
Secrecy between the Board and guys hoping to influence them has wasted YEARS, meanwhile the SFA has done what it wants and Lawwell has grown his influence with them.
Even when the Requisitioners received a reply from the licencing guy they did not publish, this allowed the SFA to rubbish their case with an alternative explanation… There has been too much secrecy.
” Res 12 sawed away at the tree trunk, by next June when COS has ruled on ebts and CW trial is over will be “TIMBER!” time.”
I admire your optimism.
IF the Supreme Court rules against RFC(IL) it will be written up as OldCo debt, remember those bad Rangers2012 fekers? it will be all their fault not the Eternal “Rangers”.
Barring Ibrox collapsing due to a storm, or financial collapse, we will be getting the same shite next year.
mike December 22, 2016 at 3:55 pm · Reply →
Proposals on those lines were made at the last meeting and a response is awaited. The disappointment was they came from the Res 12 folk and not Celtic.
It is possible as a result of growing awareness the past arrangement is not working that they will be taken up.
To be fair to CSA they had offered to support in the past but at that time we had not run into a brick wall. Both they and CST are more than welcome to contribute now.
Thank you Auldheid,Sadly we are often disappointed in our Board,it was always thus,so no suprise this time.
I look forward to the mainstream support assisting you in your travails, to have this issue resolved,satisfactorily.
There is a lot of supporters awaiting your call or to help relieve your burden.
We will not let you down.
Good work you guys,have a great Christmas and a successful 2017.
H.H.
I personally can’t bring myself to be absorbed in the misgivings of another club, in fact it seems only Celtic supporters are engrossed in these irregularities committed by another club
Before I’m accused of being a Hun, which I’m not, far from it I will say that I regognize that there is high corruption in Scottish football and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that we as a club have to operate our business in this malevolent climate and certain truths need to be told and action must be taken so it never happens again
But I’d rather be obsessed with my own club and take heart inpositive steps we’ve taken to grow especially this season
I don’t have the energy to hate and am a bit suspicious that the ennui of winning titles year after year is the root cause in being over involved with ‘rangers’
If you think winning championships is boring then so be it. I love to win Championships. I also want to focus on Celtic and I do. Celtic play in a league under a national association against other clubs and that all affects Celtic. So I have to pay attention to what the association and the other clubs do. It’s part of my focus on Celtic. One of those clubs and the association seem to have colluded to gain false entry to Europe and so denying Celtic potential CL qualification. My focus is Celtic being treated fairly and to make that case we need to address the club that seems to collude and the association they colluded with outside the rules. I know you may disagree with this and this is where we are. The sooner we can dump Sevco the better.
We have to move on, we can’t re enter the 2011 champions league. Certainly look at compensation, no association in their right mind are going to abort a club who get 50k at home games when the other clubs are lucky to get 10k a game.
Football is big business and it will remain that way in the foreseeable future. Refer to what Charlie saiz about reclaiming the club. Does anyone know what our original mission statement was before we came a plc? Or for that matter does anyone know the current one ?
Corporate Social Mission Statement
http://www.celticfc.net/pages/corporate_socialmission
INTRODUCTION
Celtic Football Club is legendary and as with most legends as much myth as fact surrounds its history and what the Club stands for today. The Social Mission Statement aims to simply define what the Club stands for and seeks to promote within society
HISTORY
Celtic Football Club was founded in 1888. Its principal founder was a Marist Brother named Walfrid. The Club had two principal aims: The first aim was to raise funds to provide food for the poor of the East End of Glasgow, an area of the City that was greatly impoverished and had a high rate of infant mortality. Within the East End was a large Irish community and friction was growing between the native Glaswegians and the new influx of Irish. Brother Walfrid saw the need for social integration and his vision was a football club that Scottish and Irish, Protestants and Catholics alike could support. A new football club would be a vehicle to bring the communities together and this was the second aim. The Marist brother sought for the Club to have both a Scottish and Irish identity and hence, the Club’s name “Celtic” came about, representing a bridge of cultures across the Irish Sea.
CURRENT POSITIONING OF CELTIC FC
Celtic Football Club is a Scottish football club with proud Irish links. The primary business of Celtic is as a football club. It is run on a professional business basis with no political agenda. However, the Club has a wider role and the responsibility of being a major Scottish social institution promoting health, well-being and social integration.
WHO IS CELTIC FOOTBALL CLUB FOR?
Celtic Football Club is for people who want to support a football club that strives for excellence in Scotland and in Europe, is proud of its history, supportive of its local community and seeks to support the following aims: “To maximise all opportunities to disassociate the Club from sectarianism and bigotry of any kind. To promote Celtic as a Club for all people, regardless of gender, age, religion, race or ability.”
SUMMARY
Celtic is a club for everyone who believes in football as a medium for healthy pleasure, entertainment and social integration. The Club always has been and always will simply aim to be the team of the people
If we had an upcoming fixture on the last 16 of th champions league, do you think res12 discussion would be so prominent?
Yes i do, This is a must this Res.12 issue,cos if we do nothing then the Game is finished in Scotia.
Cheats aided and abetted by the SFA (the cozy brotherhood) gained entrance to a competition (The C.L.)that they were not entitled to,it was FRAUD.In gaining entry to this competition they DENIED other clubs,but especially Celtic out of C.L.revenue.If they get away with this, it WILL happen again.
If you were done out of your hard earned cash,would you not seek recompence,i know that i definetely would.
I do this could potentially split the Support.
Charlie Saiz is well meaning about retrieving our club from the plc,however,we dipped into our pockets for the Bunett,i cannot see the support doing so again,the whole support that is.
Fitba. is a huge business, we fight and cannot agree even on blogs,so much as i would like to see it,i do not think that it will ever happen,tis but a dream,a wet dream for some but the reality is different.
I agree but the fact remains NOTHING will change at Celtic under the current setup.
Those who run Celtic and they do run Celtic regardless of what anyone might think do so with the head of business folk.
They do not run Celtic with the romance or emotional investment of a Supporter.
Those that claim they do are talking shite.
Fans Invested in a vision under McCann that vision was realised v=but has now developed into something even more Corporate.
The Charitable side is admirable but I think it is paying lip service to the original ethos.
Many of us give willingly to the Foundation and collections that are popping up with ever more frequency in these most testing times.
The Club it seems does enough to justify the claim of being more than a Club?
But does it push the boat out percentage wise in the big scheme of things?
I don’t think so.
You say there may not be an appetite for a takeover or fan control?
Let’s see how this debacle (res 12)pans out first Mike and then see if the wider fanbase resolve will be tested to the max?
I have a feeling it might this time.
I ask you again if it was a matter of every Supporter of Celtic finding £20 to totally change the way our Club is being run would fans find it?
I think most of us blow £20 in a week purchasing absolute shite be it snacks,fags,booze or whatever.
When Celtic was saved in 1994 there was no Internet,no means of instant payment like Paypal or Crowdfunding so these things invariably took time too build up and get going.
The Crowdfunding for Palestine proved that in a short space of time large amounts of money can be generated for a good cause or as in this case an injustice and a great cause.
Now think what taking control of Celtic Fc and running it as most of us see fit might generate if it turns out our Board were complicit in placating the farce that unfolded over Newco and Licensing them for Europe?
I should imagine a great many will be motivated to chuck £20 at it if that turns out to be the case.
We have people within out fanbase who are professionals in Law,Business,Corporate Regulations and Charitable Work.
People who I think would come on board if that was what was required to make this happen?
Last thing … would it be worth £20 to find out?
Of course it would and for those who would struggle to find £20 there will be those who will give £40.
We need to seriously consider these things I think because it is clear we are never going to get the Club we want or deserve for that matter whilst it’s being run like Tescos or some other Corporate giant with absolutely no focus other than making percentages year in year out?
It’s not a Club like no other it’s a PLC like plenty others.
Great believer in karma mike and guffaw at the tribute act conning their fans into buying season tickets with psycho marquee players like joey Barton and duds like garner. I personally like them in the league as it stands. Nearly men watching rogic Sinclair Forrest and dembele taking the piss
Ian,
To an extent I agree that we should focus on our own club. However, not to the exclusion of ensuring that there is proper governance in the league(s).
“rangers” are sitting second in the SPL at the moment. They are continuing to run at a loss, as before. In essence they are using financial doping once again to gain advantage in the league. In all likelihood they are again in breach of UEFA rules to obtain a licence for Europe. For example, do they owe moneys to other clubs for transfers? Have they had three straight years of losses? Will the outstanding cases against them result in an actual liability? To what extent do they accept the financial football liabilities of the last incarnation? Any of these issues and more should hole them below the waterline. Unfortunately, without proper governance they could continue to blow smoke in our eyes.
Why the other clubs are not responding to this is beyond me. Oh, perhaps not, maybe they are intimidated by the “rangers” travelling support and the implication of “social unrest”.
The result of LNS should convince you that anything can happen in the current environment. Casuistry is alive and well in Scottish football.
Rebus
In fact I’m “glad all over”
I would like to see thems,apologize for all there cheating,but believe me there new board is worse than Minty,if we do not hold them to account and let them of with this,then me,i will take up some other sport.Cos Fitba. will be finished in Scotia.
Iantm @ 8.10.
If the Requisitioners kept it private,then how come i have been reading about it for the past 2 years?
If they chose not to escalate it and agreed with the board why did they try to take out Ads in the press?
If you like me contributed to it,how did you find out how to contribute?
Clearly the board strung them along,they surely must have believed that the board were interested,its clear that they felt disapointed by the boards response or lack of.
How can we take it forward,Ralph will have an opinion,mine is that if the CSA request an opinion from its members and if that opinion is positive then that gives belief if not then short of crowd funding,then it must be limited in what can be achieved.
As for the SFA,you just had to view the sorry episode today re. young players registration at Hollyrood to see that it is not safe for purpose,it requires a complete revamp.
Mike that is pedantic pish. They DID, by and large, keep it to themselves.
I read the STV version while the true version was under wraps… I was in Perth recently for a reunion of the few of us who survive our working days, only Tim there and the Res 12 came up. Verdict?
Rangers are still the same club but they recognised that the NEWCO had to wait three years before qualifying for Europe… THAT is the perception of others.
I am still awaiting the in depth coverage you assure me CQN published.
In truth they did NOT. The Requisitioners kept it within their group and the Board by MUTUAL AGREEMENT and info was brief when provided at all.
That is my stated fact, show me where I am wrong.
They could have broadened the issue by including the likes of Joe O’Rourke who would have made it an all club issue, they did not.
When they had the info of how other clubs were treated with similar profiles it should have went ballistic… it did not.
In truth it was kept in house, BY AGREEMENT, between them and the Board.
As I have already said it is now how do Celtic fans progress it… It has become a “US” versus the Celtic PLC instead of a Scottish Football Fans pull up of the SFA.
I reiterate, The Celtic CEO and Board HID when Rangers went tits up… Lawwell progressed HIS Career on the back of it while allowing Celtic to be shat on by the SFA.
FOUR YEARS of trusting that and then settling for a PRIVATE MEETING… What have I missed? If you come back please bring a FACT with you. 😉
Fact,They have put there heart and soul into this issue,it is a very complicated issue,with one hand tied behind there back,trying to deal with shysters both within the board and the National Association.Not easy that,is it?especially when you have to find out the technicalities and the regulations involved,feeling your way through a maze of secrecy.
Fact,i have read about this on cqn and other places for 2 years,it has been discussed and commented on.
Fact, they discovered the issue and have been trying admittedly in house to have the board take this up with the SFA,how can you critique supporters for that.
My own opinion is that this Res.12 issue should have been brought to the CSA,but that is with hindsight,which is easy to say later.
Fact, they did try to advertise this within Britain,but were rebuffed.
If they made an error by being to trusting of others,is that a crime?
Fact,they put in one hell of a work om this very complicated issue,they IMHO should be applauded for this not villafied.
Fact,you are getting on my tits,but i agree that this needs a broader audience and i like many others want this dealt with and the SFA brought to account.So next time you are in Perth,give me a shout and i will discuss it further.
Ralphy will give you my e-mail address.
Mike you are just repeating the same thing over and over.
The fact is though for all the effort the Requisitioners put into it, it is in danger of being wasted and is Four years late IF others are now allowed to be involved that is.
You keep telling me you read about it on CQN.
How did that expand the base of folk involved?
The simple answer is as I keep saying, It did not. The Requisitioners AGREED with the PLC BOARD and kept discussions private between them.
They even agreed NOT to report back to the AGM but to have yet ANOTHER Private Meeting resulting in this report we are discussing here.
It takes two to Tango and The Requisitioners were willing dance partners with the PLC BOARD.
To say that the Board is to blame is bullshit… They did what they intended… The Requisitioners allowed them to time and again.
As for an advert what exactly would that achieve even if allowed? An advert can claim green cheese is better than blue…
If the base of involvement had been expanded and taken beyond the Club back in the day we could be in a position of a crowd funded action ready to go ahead… Instead we are nowhere because The Requisitioners decided to continue on their own in private discussion with the Board.
As I have said it is now an internal Celtic fight in finding how we can tackle the Board rather than an attack on a corrupt SFA.
I am glad I got on your tits because you are just repeating the same thing. 😉 The good intentions of the Requisitioners.
Good intentions are not enough…The road to Hell is paved with them apparently.
My tits are still got on,we are never going to agree on the semantics of this,i can see where your argument is coming from,however this Res.12 issue is not finished YET.
I detest looking back on negatives,however i realize that by looking back you can always learn.I am not saying that mistakes were not made,only that if they were made,then they were made for the best of reasons.
What matters now, is,hopefully we still have time to continue with the fight.
Lets see what Ralphy!s next article says,tomorrow.
btw Green cheese IS better than blue,every day of the week.
Mike, I don’t believe there was seperation between the Requisitioners and the Board and that was the problem. They trusted the Board and the board achieved their Agenda.
The Requisitioners trusted the Board to act in Celtic’s best interests but they did not.
I hope it is not too late too.
My problem with the whole issue is it will cause a split in the support.
Until we separate the PLC Board from the Club in our actions Lawwell and Company will ride roughshod over the ordinary fans and the majority will let it happen because of the current feel good factor that Brenden has brought.
I have had issues with Lawwell for years, from paying a minimum wage to non support of Lenny when the SFA were pishing on him.
Three red cards for Rangers players, Fat Sally in the Celtic technical area, then THAT whisper… THREE RED CARDS rescinded, one for manhandling the ref, who assured the panel he felt safe in those strong Hunly hands. it ended up the only person sanctioned was Lenny and Lawwell did Sweet F*ck all.
That is just one instance, think for a moment and I bet there will be others which pissed you off big time.
The point I was making was I would not have trusted him or that Board anymore, certainly not for four years and definately would not have agreed to a last private meeting rather than a report back to the AGM.
Lawwell pished on them while they were looking for a Celtic solution.
I agree, time for peace and let’s see how we can go forward.
I hope part three has some good news.
Let us do what we can Ian,we are all Tims looking for the best for CELTIC,not the Board but CELTIC.
What a force we can be if we UNITE and move forward together.
H.H.