Menu Close

Resolution 12; Why Don’t They Answer ?

There’s been a bit of chatter on various social media sites over the last week or so regarding the Resoluion 12 issue. Very often, there has been conflicting information in the cybersphere, and so its been a little more difficult to find out who we should be angry with, why we should be angry and what, in actual fact, we’re getting angry about.

 

So, what is, or was, Resolution 12 ?

At the AGM in 2013, a group of shareholders decided that there was something amiss in the way the SFA were handling things, specifically the registering of teams, okay, a certain team, for European competition.

One who in fact, owed money to the taxman, in direct contravention of UEFA rules;

Article 66.

1 The licensee MUST PROVE that as at 30 June of the year in which the UEFA club competitions commence it has no overdue payables (as specified in Annex VIII) towards its employees and/or social/tax authorities (as defined in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 50) that arose prior to 30 June. 

Note its the licensee who must prove this, to the licensor… the SFA

So, what can be deemed as “proof “.

If its a summary of the accounts written on the back of a menu most responsible associations will probably ask for a little more, something official, something that carries a little more weight than a document where its a little difficult to make out all the figures.

If such a document had been handed over, it would have revealed that this club, now unsurprisingly in liquidation, would not have met this criteria.

The SFA would have been forced to deny them a place in european football.

Article 55 – Responsibilities of the licensor

1 The licensor must:

  1. a) communicate the deadlines of the monitoring process to the licensee;
  2. b) cooperate with the Club Financial Control Panel in respect of its requests and enquiries;
  3. c) as a minimum and in accordance with Annex IX G, ensure and confirm to the Club Financial Control Panel that in respect of the break-even information, all information submitted by the licensee is complete and corresponds to the information previously submitted for club licensing purposes;
  4. d) assess and confirm to the Club Financial Control Panel that the selected

reporting entity/entities is/are the same as those that fulfilled the club licensing criteria and is/are appropriate for club monitoring purposes;

  1. e) inform the Club Financial Control Panel of any relevant information submitted by the licensee in respect of club monitoring requirements and any event occurring after the licensing decision that constitutes a significant change to the information previously submitted by the licensee.

So, without calling those involved at the SFA a bunch of liars and cheats, resolution 12 sought to gain a little more information on what was potentially a an incidence of rule breaking at international level. something which could jeopardise Scottish footballs postion within European football, notably participation in both club and national competitions…

It was presented at the AGM, and read;

RESOLUTION 12. SFA and compliance with UEFA licensing requirements

Resolution 12 has been requisitioned by certain members under the provisions of section 338 of the companies act 2006

the following statement is circulated on behalf of those members in accordance with section 314 of the companies act 2006

“We the undersigned request this course of action, from our club custodians and corporate representation, responsible to protect our interests in line with corporate law. We consider the SFA governance has displayed a disregard for the rules and spirit of fair play, contradicted FIFA, UEFA and SFA mission statements and acted in contravention to the spirit of the rules of fair play outlined in FIFA, UEFA and SFA rules, regulations and supplementary documents of which the SFA are signatories, such as;

FIFA code of conduct article 3 – eleven principles for behaviour and conduct of FIFA family (note 2)

A Number of recent examples of this including but not limited to the following;

1. Unprecedented transfer of membership and granting of license to operate to an unqualified new club, facilitating queue jumping Into lower professional set up, at expense of existing qualified clubs, who applied through the recognised process.

2. Secret cross governance agreements to facilitate point 1. Goes against SFA “ethos”

3. Participation of a new club in an SFA affiliated club competition without proper registration.

4. SFA handing of inquiry over players registration

we ask you to support this resolution, in the interest of a stronger Celtic 

(Note, it was quite difficult to find the full text, oddly enough, but this is fairly close to it. Anyone who can find a full copy please add it in the comments below )

At the time, those behind the resolution were invited to talk with representatives of the board, and persuded that the club was already on the case.

As Peter Lawwell explained back then;

“When hugely sensitive issues come up we don’t always go public. 

And this is a sensitive issue.

History has taught us – remember the Jorge Cadette registration fiasco?-that perhaps we should be a little cynical when it comes to dealing with the SFA, for although they should have every clubs best interests at heart, it has been known for them not to follow that line exactly to the letter.

And it appears that is what the current fuss is about.

The share holders wrote to the SFA with a list of questions.

Someone, again, could maybe add those questions in the comments, or perhaps put together a follow up artcile with details.

The SFA replied that they would only reply to the club, and not the shareholders. Effectively telling them that although they have a legal interest in this issue, as a mistake, honest or otherwise, did affect the clubs income and consequently the value of their shares, that it is noithing to do with them.

An example of their contempt toward football supporters, and not just Celtic supporters and shareholders.

The club claim no such reply has yet been received, but are loathe to either state this publicly, or even push the SFA for an answer.

The position of the club, who have said that they are acting in their best interests, is a little vague at the moment, and needs to be clarified.

As for the SFA, they don’t even want to comment.

Lets assume that they aren’t going to.

Is this because they genuinely feel that they don’t have to ?

Is this because they know what they have done and are hoping, that as this particular case has a five year limit within UEFA rules for it to be dealt with, it will all go away, and they won’t have to hand in their blazers ?

In the current world of football, both UEFA and FIFA have been tainted by accusations and , indeed, convictions of corruption.

Should the SFA not be falling over themselves to distance their own Association from the murky web of international football, and at least give those of us who , directly or inde=irectly, finance the game in this country, an assurance that they have nothing to do with any of that, and run a clean and transparent organisation within our own borders ?

As it stands, I’m under the impression that the club are asking supporters/shareholders, to write to UEFA for them . That way, the investigation can continue.

But don’t they have a duty to shareholders to act in the best interetss of the club ?

Does this mean that they feel an investigation of this matter, which certainly warrants a full, independent enquiry, if only to allow the game to move on from the mess it found itself in back in 2012 , isn’t in the best interests of the club ?

If not, why not ?

One would be tempted to think that there may have been a little bit of collusion here, as Celtic CEO is on record as bemoaning the absence of the club that was liquidated, claiming it has cost Celtic around £10m a year.

Did , in fact, he decide it was better to turn a blind eye to any shennanigans down at Hampden because he felt it was in the best interests of Celtic that Rangers should not go under ?

There are a lot of questions that aren’t being answered, and thats largely because no-one is asking them.

 

When something is rotten within an organisation, it takes a concerted effort from all of those affected to put things right.

The issue here is trying to get a response to and action on  the original resolution, which concerns possible malpractice at the SFA.

Forget the liquidated club, they’re long gone, and so it would be a waste of time to walk down that particular road.

The SFA, if they have indeed been , er, bending or ignoring the rules, must be held to account.

First of all, we need some answers, and they could start by answering the original questions which , safely tucked up in their ivory towers, they have failed to do so.

This failure is leading me to think that something is very wrong in Scottish football, and the longer it is allowed to continue, then the more damage it will do to the game in the eyes of its followers.

When the original club from Ibrox was in its death throes, my fear was that they would take the rest of Scottish football down with them.

They didn’t, and indeed one could argue it has flourished.

There is evidence that if it the clubs continue the way they are, there will be a resurgence, at home and abroad, of our national game.

There is also, however, a deep lying worry that those responsible for protecting it are about to have the last laugh, and send the rest of us down the path that the club they tried to help  have already taken.

Don;t let them do it.

We can start with a simple question.

Email the man at the top after you finish reading this..

stewartregan@scottishfa.co.uk

Resolution 12

Why won’t you answer ?

At least he’ll know we’re onto him.

And in the spirit of Fergus McCann, its worth letting him know we are not going to let it go.

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
91 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Iancelt67
8 years ago

res 22 is fucking boring who cares give us a match report. ronny in and gers humped in april. slavering huns suicidal. were just simple fans i demand a match report fuck the political agendas . how can an echelon club complain about scottish football which in itself is oxymoronic. weee in a good position we have guus hiddink arsene wenger and puskas all rolled into one as a managee. why aee we bogfed down by this dross?

charlie
8 years ago
Reply to  Iancelt67

hun

Vinnie
8 years ago
Reply to  Iancelt67

Did somebody touch a nerve, Ian?
What are you so scared of?
Is you’re poor punctuation/spelling intentional?
Could you, in fact, maybe enlighten us? (if you chose to)
NB You clearly confuse “political agendas” with criminal ones but I think you know that. Is that why you’re in pain?
Join the good fight, you’ve been rumbled.
HH
PS I’ll email Regan, thanks for the address. Don’t have time just now but don’t let this go. They’re seeking a time-bar, it’s clear as day. I posted about this in the last few days (I don’t keep copies/dates) and I’ll try to respond later.
Good luck and “follow the money”, it’ll always lead you to the sources. Who had most to gain, who had most to lose?

mike
8 years ago
Reply to  Vinnie

Vinnie,Mail sent to Regan,book ordered.

H.H.

Vinnie
8 years ago
Reply to  mike

Good on you, Mike and hope you like the book.
Fan power can move mountains and,
We’re Fans Like No Others. Look out SFA, EUFA, SPFL and FIFA if we need to. Your time’s coming. Tick-Tock.

mike
8 years ago
Reply to  Vinnie

Hail Hail, vinnie,the adjusted address made the difference.

Dixierekt
8 years ago

The requisitioners should write to the new UEFA president & maybe he just might take an interest in this…especially when UEFA are serious about the games image & ridding it off corruption. It looks like our “custodians” don’t give a fuck or know that corruption took place,but don’t want to upset anybody.

Bawsman
8 years ago

The address doesn’t work for regan

Iancelt67
8 years ago

typos shocking

charlie
8 years ago
Reply to  Iancelt67

hun

8 years ago

Surely Celtic, as A business, has a duty to its share holders. Therefore the club should have been persuing this for years. But Celtic don’t give a toss about their share-holders or supporters they just want to fleece them of their cash. The club has acted disgracefully in all of the shennanigans involving the dead Rangers. Celtic will be the first club to welcome them back next season and will encouarge Celtic supporters to forget about the Newco debate and simply just accept that they are the same club, all history in tact. Truth is that is what Celtic supporters want as well. They can’t go to Scottish Cup games against Morton but will be relishing the ‘Old Firm’ game. Any Celtic supporter who buys a ticket for the semi-final is not a Celtic supporter, you are Old Firm fans. Only there to see the Rangers that you have missed so much. Shameful. Rangers died but they ahve also killed off Celtic. the club has betrayed the its history. Until this board of Tory, Sevco supporting scum go the club is lost. They are happy to lose the league to Rangers. They only want a return to the garbage of the past 80 odd years. Boycott the semi-final start a drive to get justice and our club back.

charles crichton
8 years ago
Reply to  john

“Rangers died”. The SPFL SFA UEFA ASA ECA Lords Nimmo Smith & Glennie Wee Red Book and everyone else who matters disagree with you. Are you in all seriousness suggesting we take your word over theirs? Wishful thinking born from sheer desperation won’t work you see.

andybhoy
8 years ago

They sure did die zombie, now run along and fantasise elsewhere.

Monti
8 years ago

54 and…..STOP! 🙂

Monti
8 years ago
Reply to  john

John,
Don’t be fucking soft….

maryhillbhoy
8 years ago
Reply to  john

John you have your views on boycotting the semi I have mine they differ deal with it. Btw since I was at the Morton game is it officially ok for me to be at the semi?

Iancelt67
8 years ago

yeah lets get thrilled over playing kolmarnoc etc each year and forget about playing exciting games against the cunts with massive crowds kicking every ball full of adrenalin .

Jim
8 years ago
Reply to  Iancelt67

Are you a lurking zombie?

GerryBhoy56
8 years ago
Reply to  Jim

Lurking???? Hope that was a typo…

charlie
8 years ago
Reply to  Jim

hun

Monti
8 years ago
Reply to  Jim

Not so much lurking, more hurting….

Jay Beer
8 years ago

E mail to Regan on its way….and as far as the Celtic board go…..they are a disgrace to allow the SFA get away with it.
One year left to demand real answers.

Mike Bhoyle
8 years ago

Mornin’…
This is a subject that is close to the heart of all of us.
I have followed “Auldheid’s” efforts on this matter for quite a while now and he (and others)deserve much respect for this.
I am not privvy to any “inside” information so I can’t help there..but based on what I do know…It’s a national disgrace that this still remains unanswered.
No other country in the World would have been allowed to handle this with the contempt that’s been shown by the SFA.
My fervent wish is that in a court of law…somewhere.. some day…these people will be exposed for what they are and for what they’ve done…and pay the penalty.

Mike Bhoyle
8 years ago

Meant to say also…
I WON’T BE AT SEMI-FINAL..
They can shove their corruption up their arse.
Celtic supporters need to take a stand here.

mike
8 years ago
Reply to  Mike Bhoyle

Well said Mike B. i second all of that.

Jay Beer
8 years ago

Wrong e address for Regan….

schoosh71
8 years ago

As member of the SFA board why doesn’t Peter ask ‘himself’ why the SFA will not deal with the shareholders. The CFC board of directors handling of Res 12 and the LNS abomination is nothing short of ‘grubby’ and if it turns out that they have known there was a ‘time bar’ on these issues, that has left the requisitioners with only 3 weeks to deal with it, is a disgrace. This was a ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity to clean up Scottish football, but alas Peter would rather put an apron on with his ‘brown brogues’. Only my opinion. HH

8 years ago

Ian, every game should be a thrill at the moment we are only one point ahead in the league with 8 games to go. Yet thousands of our ‘supporters’ can’t be bothered to show up because we are not one point ahead of them. What does that say about these ‘supporters’? To me it suggests they like to watch them as much as they like to watch Celtic. Old Firm supporters not Celtic supporters. Boycott the semi. Rangers are dead. No more Old Firm nonsense. Demand justice from thieves and cheats don’t allow them to pretend nothing has changed by recognising them

Monti
8 years ago
Reply to  john

John,
What the fuck are you gibbering about min?

Mattybhoy
8 years ago

Email not correct!

8 years ago

Well said! The full text of Resolution 12 is below. There is a link to it in my ‘annoyed’ blog about the Celtic Board!
https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/what-is-the-point-of-the-celtic-board/

RESOLUTION 12: SFA and compliance with UEFA licensing requirements
Resolution 12 has been requisitioned by certain members under the provisions of Section 338 of the Companies Act 2006. The resolution is not
proposed by the directors.
The following statement is circulated on behalf of those members in accordance with Section 314 of the Companies Act 2006:

“We the undersigned request this course of action, from our clubs custodians and corporate representation, responsible to protect our interests in
line with corporate law. We consider the SFA governance has displayed a disregard for the rules and spirit of fair play, contradicted FIFA, UEFA & SFA
mission statements and acted in contravention to the spirit of the rules of fair play outlined in FIFA, UEFA & SFA Rules, Regulations and
Supplementary documents of which the SFA are signatories, such as;
FIFA Code of Conduct Article 3 – Eleven principles for behaviour and conduct of the FIFA family. (Note 2)
FIFA Standard Cooperation Agreement of 2004 Article 2.1 – Basic Principles, which states;
The basic principles governing the organization, administration and financing of football are as follows: football statutes and regulations,
democratic election of governing bodies, legality, competence, dignity, probity, mutual respect, responsibility, trust, communication, transparency,
fair play, solidarity, protection of sportsmen and sportswomen’s health and promotion of friendly relations.
A number of recent examples of this including but not limited to the following;
1. Unprecedented transfer of membership and granting of license to operate to an unqualified new club, facilitating queue jumping into the lower
professional set-up, at the expense of existing qualified clubs, who had applied through the recognized process.
2. Secret cross governance agreements to facilitate point 1. above, which took place during the preparation and contrary to the ethos of the SFA’s
own published mission statement Scotland United A 20/20 Vision 2012, regarding trust and respect, as part of the future governance of the sport.
Further the process for the above agreement is in direct contravention of the FIFA Standard Cooperation Agreement of 2004 Article 2.1 Basic
Principles, which identifies Associations responsibilities outlined above.
3. Participation of a new club in an SFA affiliated domestic club competition without proper registration compliance.
4. The participation of the SFA, in an inquiry on improper player registration, an inquiry the SFA declined to initiate on the grounds that; the SFA
required to be neutral, maintaining appellate authority status, then not only compromising that neutrality by participation but providing an
interpretation on player eligibility that UEFA and indeed FIFA should examine.
These in our opinion are just some of the more blatant contradictions to the spirit of fair play, however, far more serious, and the main thrust of this
resolution is the granting by the SFA of a license to participate in European Competition in 2011, to a club who prime facie did not qualify specifically
under the non-payment of social tax requirements identified in the FFP 2010, still outstanding to date, a decision that had a direct financial impact on
our CFC Plc’s financial well being.
Our concern is directed at the governance of the game in Scotland, the SFA, and its apparent disregard for the licensing system that was designed to
protect against such commercial impropriety and to ensure sporting integrity; we wish to eliminate the opportunity for possible future indiscretions
and insist this problem requires immediate action through investigation by the FCFB, to restore trust and respect in the governance of Scottish
football.
We have no confidence in the SFA’s governance within the current framework, to satisfy our concerns and therefore request the Board supports this
resolution.
If the Board cannot support this resolution, we require a response in writing before the AGM, followed up with a statement addressing this issue at
the AGM, justifying any such reticence, as to why it is believed the SFA’s actions or lack of, in granting the UEFA license without due rigor, has not had
a detrimental financial impact on our club, also justifying why there were no license administration irregularities if that is the Boards contention.
We ask you to support this resolution and the written statement above circulated to shareholders in advance of the meeting, in the interests of a
stronger Celtic.
Note 2 referred to:
Eleven core principles for behaviour and conduct of the FIFA family
As a member of the FIFA family, we shall at all times comply with the following principles:
104905 AGM Notice Final 041013.pdf October 6, 2013 17:49:00 Page_7
3.1 Integrity and ethical behaviour
We all behave ethically and act with integrity in all situations, keeping in mind that a reputation for integrity is of the utmost importance to FIFA and its objectives.
3.2 Respect and dignity
We treat everyone with respect, and protect the personal dignity, privacy and personal rights of every human being.
3.3 Zero tolerance of discrimination and harassment
We are committed to a diverse culture. There shall be no discrimination as a result of race, ethnicity, origin, skin colour, nationality, religion, age, gender, language,
physical appearance, sexual orientation or political opinion, or engagement in any kind of verbal or physical harassment based on any of the above-mentioned or any
other criteria.
3.4 Fair play
We believe in the importance of fair play guiding us at all times in all our actions and decisions.
3.5 Compliance with laws, rules and regulations
We comply with all applicable laws and adhere to internal rules and regulations, including respecting stakeholders’ interests.
3.6 Avoidance of conflicts of interest
We act always in the best interests of FIFA and its objectives. It is the personal responsibility of each member of the FIFA family to avoid any conflict of interest.
3.7 Transparency and compliance
We seek transparency and strive to maintain a good compliance culture with checks and balances.
3.8 Social and environmental responsibility
We are committed to taking our social and environmental responsibility seriously. We want to contribute to positive social change through football, and aim to minimise
the negative impact of all our activities on the environment and to promote sustainability within our sphere of influence.
3.9 Fight against drugs and doping
We want to play a pioneering role in the fight against drugs and doping in sport. We are strictly against drugs and all doping practices.
3.10 Zero tolerance of bribery and corruption
We reject and condemn all forms of bribery and corruption.
3.11 No betting or manipulation
We do not take part in betting connected with football and do not tolerate any form of manipulation or unlawful influencing of match results. ”
Board Response
The Board is committed to protecting and promoting the interests of the Company, having regard to, among other things, the principles of fairness
and sporting integrity.
Having regard to those interests and principles, the Board monitored the developing situation at Rangers Football Club carefully. The Company
maintained a consistent position that the circumstances should be considered by the football authorities and the matter dealt with fairly and
proportionately. This position was made clear to the football authorities, including the Scottish FA.
The Company received assurances from the Scottish FA regarding the Club Licensing process for Season 2011/12 at the time. The Board considers
that it took appropriate steps to protect the interests of the Company.
The Board will continue to take steps to protect and promote the interests of the Company. The Company participated in the restructuring of Scottish
football and will continue to monitor the development and effectiveness of governance systems.
The Board remains committed to a strategy that promotes and protects the interests of the Company and does not rely on any other club. That stand
alone strategy has been successful, as demonstrated by the robust results for the year to June 2013 and encouraging start to the current year.
In the circumstances the Board considers the resolution to be unnecessary and recommends that you vote against it.

charles crichton
8 years ago

They will probably reply once they have stopped rolling about the floor holding their sides with tears streaming down their faces at you obsessed bunch. Btw UEFA regard Rangers as the same club,as you will shortly find out so your wasting your time on that one.

BrushwoodGulch
8 years ago

The irony of obsession – a Zombie Sevconian trolling a Celtic blog.

andybhoy
8 years ago

Monti
8 years ago

Charles Crighton,
Ah a Zombie approaches, now monkey, have you brushed your tooth today?

Monti
8 years ago

Nope, no wasting of time, we haven’t even started yet….

Jim
8 years ago
Reply to  Monti

Meant to say where did you read that?

Jim
8 years ago

Where didv= you read that?

BrushwoodGulch
8 years ago

Email address for Regan doesn’t work. Also, why don’t the prominent bloggers – eTims/CQN/Celtic Blog etc pull together and organise mass demos against the board on this ? Too many fans are apathetic at the rampant corruption going on and our very club may be implicated in it. Despite the power of social media now, I fear a “Celts for Change” movement would not get off the ground now because too many people cannot be ar53d

charles crichton
8 years ago

Log onto the SPFL website bhoys and look up Rangers. It states founded 1872 and lists a world record honours hail. This is where you all fail everytime. Instead of daft resolutions to which you will be scoffed at,simply post a screenshot of this to UEFA and Companies House. You seem convinced Rangers were founded in 2012 and have no major honours. Prove it. If your correct both the SPFL and Rangers will be hauled up because it would be illegal. Your not allowed to pose as another business bhoys it’s an offence both civilly and criminally. So go ahead. Of we all know you won’t. And what is more we all know why 🙂

andybhoy
8 years ago

Dead.

Monti
8 years ago

Crighton,
I typed in the word ‘ Rangers ‘ into Google and it came back with a list of films…..
The Hills have eyes
The Hills have eyes II
What lies beneath
Silent Hill etc….

8 years ago

So Charles, how did the SFA get away with relegating the same club . 3 divisions after they came second in the league. why did the same club not sue the SFA for such a blatant discriminatory move. What club is runner -up in the league and then suffers relegation never mind relegation three times. Explain that one if you are the same club. And where have UEFA ever said that they are the same club. Thye have not made any comment on the situation. Liquidation means death. It’s the law in Scotland Club/Company no distinction in Scots Law.

Plumsaucesaurus
8 years ago

Guy going on about others being “obsessed” while commenting on a rival fan-site. They don’t do irony these Zombies.

Must be the schools.

Monti
8 years ago

They don’t do washing, working or brushing teeth either….

charles crichton
8 years ago

Oh….and before i go (iv’e had a good chuckle at your utter lack of knowledge),the”liquidated club is long gone” lol…another area where you continually foul up. You do realise thatin fact NOTHING has as of yet been liquidated,that you actually can’t “liquidate” a club (a club is dissolved)and that as BDO admitted themselves although unusual Kings plan to reunite the club with the oldco is entirely feasible particularly if Rangers win the tax case appeal. If you had bothered to check out the SFA statement on membership transfer you would have known RFC was transferred to the new owners (SFA words) while still in administration. Your kidding yourselves on and it’s becoming pitiful to watch. Sheer desperation. And all because a football club survived.

Monti
8 years ago

Chuckles,
” I was one of the first players to accept the offer of a 75% wage cut, in order to help the original Rangers” – Steven Naismith

What did he mean by original Rangers?
Cough

greendes68
8 years ago

Resolution (and supporting statement) proposal for the 2013 Celtic Plc AGM under the terms of the Companies Act.

This AGM 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 invesügate 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 IJEFA jurisdiction, since the implementation Of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations of 2010.

Supporting Spqtemept

We the undersigned request this course of action, from our clubs custodians and corporate representation, responsible to protect our interests in line with corporate law. We consider the SFA governance has displayed a disregard for the rules and spirit of fair play, contradicted FIFA, IJEFA & SFA mission statements and acted in contravention to the spirit of the rules of fair play outlined in FIFA, UEFA & SFA Rules, Regulations and Supplementary documents of which the SPA are signatories, such as;

FIFA Code of Conduct Article 3 — Eleven principles for behavior and conduct of the FIFA family. (Note 2)

FIFA Standard Cooperation Agreement of 2004 Article 2.1 – Basic Principles. state;

The basic principles governing the organization, administration andfinancing offootball are as follows :football statutes and regulations, democratic election ofgoverning bodies, legality, competence, ignity, probity, mutual respect, responsibility, trust, communicadon, transparency, fairplay, solidarity, protecEon of sportsmen and sportswomen ‘s health and promotion offriendly relations.

A number of recent examples of this including but not limited to the following;

1. Unprecedented transfer of membership and granting of license to operate to an unqualified new club, facilitating queue jumping into the lower professional set-up, al the expense of existing qualified clubs, who had applied through the recognized process.

2. Secret cross governance agreements to facilitate point 1. above, which took place during the preparation and contrary to the ethos of the SFA’s own published mission statement Scotland United A 20/20 Vision 2012, regarding trust and respect, us part of the future governance of the sport. Further the process for the above agreement is in direct contravention of the FIFA Standard Cooperation Agreement of 2004 Article 2.1 Basic Principles, which identifies Associations rsponsibilities outlined above.

3. Participation of a new club in an SFA affiliated domestic club competition without proper registration compliance.

4. The participation of the SFA, in an inquiry on improper player registration, an inquiry the SFA declined to initiate on the grounds that; the SFA required to be neutral, maintaining appellate authority status, then not only compromising that neutrality by

participation but providing an interpretation on player eligibility that UEFA and indeed FIFA should examine.

These in our opinion are just some of the more blatant contradictions to the spirit of fair play, however, far more serious, and the main thrust of this resolution is the granting by the SFA of a license to participate in European Competition in 2011, to a club who plime facie did not qualify specifically under the non-paynent of social tax requirements identified in the FFP 2010, still outstanding to date, a decision that had a direct financial impact on our CFC Plc’s financial well being.

Our concern is dilected at the governance of the game in Scotland, the SPA, and its apparent disregard for the licensing system that was designed to protect against such commercial impropriety and to ensure sporting integrity; we wish to eliminate the opportunity for possible future indiscretions and insist this problem requires immediate action through investigation by the FCFB, to üust and respect in the governance of Scottish football.

We have no confidence in the SFAs governance within the culTent framework, to satisfy our concerns and therefore request the Board supports this resolution.

If the Board cannot support this resolution, we require a response in writing before the AGM, followed up Wilh a statement addressing this issue at the AGM, justifying any such reticence, as to why it is believed the SFA’s actions or lack of, in granting the UEFA license without due rigor, has not had a detrimental financial impact on our club, also justifying why there were no license administration ilTegularities if that is the Boards contention.

We ask you to support this resolution and the written statement above circulated to shareholders in advance of the meeting, in the interests of a stronger Celtic

charles crichton
8 years ago

John UEFA have on numerous occasions stated its stance on RFC. Did you bother to read the reply they gave to the ASA? After all it was you who made the complaint. And list. UEFA have niw updated its Rangers page to last match played…on the “old” Rangers page as well as updating the current squad. UEFA dont report lower league fixtures. As im sure you are aware. Next season UEFA will be reporting on Rangers as normal. What then? Judge Judy? And you seriously think the SPFL SFA hold or would be allowed to hold a view contrary to UEFA? As i said your kidding yourself on and its pitiful. Accept it and move on

andybhoy
8 years ago

Dead.

Plumsaucesaurus
8 years ago

Rangers died.

Accept it and move on.

charles crichton
8 years ago

UEFA website last match played 2015. Not 2012. And on the ” old” Rangers page. Then click on SC squad. You will find the current squad. Again on the “old” Rangers page. UEFA simply dont list lower league games. “We consulted with UEFA who stated their rules allowed for the sporting continuity of a clubs match record even if that clubs CORPORATE STRUCTURE had changed” As ir was you who made the complaint to the ASA i assumed you would have read their reply. Next season will see an implosion of 1906 SF earthquake proportions. And it will be a joy.

andybhoy
8 years ago

Dead.

Monti
8 years ago

Charlie Chuckles,
” We wish the new Rangers club every good fortune ” – Walter Smith.
What did Smith mean by ” New “?

Cough

Eddie Burt
8 years ago

Try stewart.regan@scottishfa.co.uk – it hasn’t bounced back yet. 🙂

Vinnie
8 years ago
Reply to  Eddie Burt

My 1st email (using address in Ralph’s post) came back “Undeliverable”. I re-sent, using address posted by Eddie, over an hour ago and it hasn’t come back.
HH

mike
8 years ago
Reply to  Eddie Burt

Cheers Eddie,My mail delivered also.

charlie
8 years ago

the huns are deid we know it they know it everybody knows it but charles aka norman bates criky would rather delude himself we should pity him

CarlJungleBhoy
8 years ago

Maybe we should bombard him from every possible angle….

His personal Twitter address is @StewartMRegan

If we all lend our weight to this we might even be able get a catchy hashtag trending … that should get some notice.. e.g

#AnswerTheRes12?!

Vinnie
8 years ago

Ralph, copy of the response to email at address given:

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients was aborted after 0 second(s):

* stewartregan@scottishfa.co.uk

Reason: The following message to stewartregan@scottishfa.co.uk was undeliverable.The reason for the problem: 550 5.0.0 … User unknown

Monti
8 years ago

Email sent….

Monti
8 years ago

Charles Crighton,
If Sevco had won the Scottish cup (lol) in each or all of the seasons since original Rangers (IL) went into, well, liquidation….pray tell as to why they could not have taken part or indeed qualified to play in European competition?

Quick now…

Monti
8 years ago

Could someone put a video up for me please?
‘ Thriller ‘ by Micheal Jackson.

Rebus67
8 years ago

Initially I thought that the originators of Res 12 had made a strategic error by not attempting to have the item remain on the agenda for the AGM. After discussions it was adjourned and efforts went on behind the scenes to investigate the issues raised by the resolution. When I saw that there was a time limit on when complaints can be received by UEFA it reinforced my view that the item should have stayed on the agenda for a vote. However, after receiving info from those involved with the creation of the resolution, I see I was wrong. Getting the item adjourned was a victory for the shareholders. Given the voting structure of the shareholders is dominated by three individuals/organisations it would have been defeated if they wished it to be so. I suspect that this is what would have happened. The issues would be dead and buried by now if that had happened.

Now we are faced with an immediate deadline(end of this month) for lodging the complaint with UEFA. and the club do not want to write to that body. Why? I do not know but it may be simply that they feel that they cannot without full disclosure from SFA……something that appears not to have occurred.

My understanding is that the shareholders involved have or soon will send the complaint to the authorities. They will include the evidence that they have. I have not seen this evidence so I do not know how conclusive it is.

The next big issue is whether UEFA will accept the complaint, or whether they will write back to the complainants that they require a complaint from a club. If that happens the door will slam shut on the complaint.

Several people have put a lot of effort into this issue and should be commended for this. If they had not, it would have been swept under the carpet. My own view is that the issues need to be examined by an external body such as UEFA and so I hope that the complaint progresses. Whatever happens, I cannot see it affecting the hundreds of individuals and firms that were owed money by the liquidated entity. This is the shame that supporters of the old and new clubs should be feeling….perhaps some of them lost their job or pay rise because of it. Certainly the money owed to HMRC could have benefited Scottish society in the form of investment in health or education for the all people…football fans or not.

Rebus

Debra Fergus
8 years ago

So…UEFA have made no comment on the status of Rangers Football Club. Another myth perpetuated by the obsessed “sevco” joke group,who will eventually realise (or maybe not) that you can only pretend not to see things for so long. As Charles said,next season you will be able to avoid the inevitable shocking reality no longer. Why it’s better you all accept it now.
From the ASA (responding to a complaint YOUR support laughingly made. You will never learn..now it’s resolution 12.) “We consulted with UEFA, which explained that its rules allowed for the recognition of the “sporting continuity” of a club’s match record, even if that club’s corporate structure had changed. We also consulted with the SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football “club” varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club’s corporate owner. The SFA further pointed out that, following RFC’s transfer to a new corporate owner, Newco did not take a new membership of the Scottish FA but rather that the previous membership was transferred across to them so they could continue as the same member of the Scottish FA. We considered that consumers would understand that the claim in question related to the football club rather than to its owner and operator and we therefore concluded that it was not misleading for the ad to make reference to RFC’s history, which was separate to that of Newco.” Now i know it’s difficult for the flat earth members but try to slowly read that first part. In other words UEFA views the creation of a newco as simply a change to a club’s corporate structure. But then you should have known that becase UEFA made it’s position clear way back in 2012. “Article 12 of the UEFA club licensing and financial fare play regulations (edition) 2010 states that a license applicant’s membership to a UEFA member association (or it’s contractural relationship with a registered member of a UEFA member association) must have lasted – at the start of the license season – for at least three consecutive years.The creation of a newco would fall within the scope of the article 12 in that it would constitute a change to the club’s legal form or company structure which is deemed as an interruption of membership ( or contractual relationship)resulting in the club not being eligible to apply for a UEFA license.

Kind regards,

UEFA Media Services,
UEFA,
route de Geneve 46,
CH – 1260 Nyon 2.”

In the season Celtic clinched it’s first tainted title UEFA on it’s official website stated: “It represents the Hoops’ 44th league crown, leaving them ten behind rivals Rangers FC, who were absent from the top flight for the first time this season.”
Link to current UEFA Rangers page…last match played 8 Feb 2015..if Gers were new club this “old” Rangers page would say last match played 2012..scroll up click Scottish Cup Squad..note it’s the current squad…again,on the old original Rangers UEFA page. As Charles said your simply kidding yourselves on but it will all be to no avail. I can pretend to believe the moon is made from cheese..but no matter how many times i repeat that mantra deep down i know i’m wrong. Ditto “ranjurs are pyoor deed n that,liquidated,sevco”…and next season once UEFA make it crystal clear on their website so that even you lot can no longer avoid reality,what then? The Erskine bridge? Learn to deal with it now..it’ll be much easier for you all.
http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50121/domestic/

charlie
8 years ago
Reply to  Debra Fergus

have yoos paid the facepainter

charlie
8 years ago
Reply to  charlie

if yoos are the same club pay your debt scroungers

charlie
8 years ago
Reply to  charlie

have you no shame

Monti
8 years ago
Reply to  Debra Fergus

Debra,
Do you wash regularly?

charlie
8 years ago
Reply to  Monti

monti it disnae wash atoll and its wan ae the finalists for the miss sevco competition wonder whit the prize is disnae bare thinkin aboot ha ha see whit a done there

charlie
8 years ago
Reply to  charlie

mont wan ae the prizes is yer face painted for free no that the facepainter knows that ha ha

Monti
8 years ago
Reply to  charlie

Lol

charles crichton
8 years ago

So Uefa have made no comment on the status of RFC. Another myth. From the ASA (responding to a complaint YOUR support made. Now its resolution 12 lol. “We consulted with UEFA which explained that its rules allowed for the recognition of the “sporting continuity” of a clubs match record even if that clubs corporate structure had changed. We also consulted with the SFA which confirmed that its definition of club varied depending on context and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the clubs corporate owner. The SFA further pointed out that following RFC’s transfer to a new corporate owner newco did not take a new membership of the Scottish FA but rather that the previous membership was transferred across to them so that they could continue as the same member of the Scottish FA.We considered that consumers would understand that the claim in question related to the football club rather than to its owner and operator and we therefore concluded that it was not misleading for the ad to make reference to RFC’s history which is seperate to that of newco. Now i know its hard but try and read that first part. In other words UEFA view the creation of a newco as simply a change to a clubs corporate structure. But then UEFA made its stance known way back in 2012. “Article 12 of the UEFA club licensing and financial fare play regulations (edition)2010 states that a license applicants membership must have lasted at the start if the license season for at least three consecutive years. The creation of a newco would fall within the scope of the article 12 in that it would constitute a change to the clubs legal form or company structure which is deemed as an interruption of membership resulting in the club not being eligible to apply for a UEFA license. In the season celtic won its first tainted title UEFA stated on its website “it represents the hoops 44th league crown leaving them ten behind rivals Rangers FC who were absent from the top flight for the first time this season.” Last match played 8 february 2015 if Rangers were a new club this “old”Rangers page would say last match played 2012. Scroll up click on Scottish Cup squad note its the current squad again on the original UEFA Rangers page. You can repeat “rainjurs are pyoor deed n that liquidated sevco” but it has no basis in realty. And next season will put it to bed once and for. Im sure the more enlightened among ur support already know this and it is them i cant fathom tbh bot the “pyoor deed sevco luquidated “lot.

andybhoy
8 years ago

Tosser, what voice do the ASA provide in the governance of football.You are talking bollocks, which is quite a feat for a zombie.Now, fuck off back to your hovel you cretinous cunt.

Monti
8 years ago
Reply to  andybhoy

Andybhoy,
I enjoyed that….

jebus
8 years ago

charlie boy i will destroy your claims,

First up the ASA are not UEFA however they are right when they say UEFA recognises a clubs match record, trophies won do not just disapear, for reference see gretna and third lanark.

UEFA have never said anything about wether rangers are the same club or not.

You like to use the membership transfer, firstly a membership is not a football club so that proves nothing. Secondly if you are using the membership to say you are the same how come on the 29/07/12 Rangers FC who were being liquidated held this membership yet the club formed by charles green The Rangers FC were in action against brechin with only a temporary membership of the SFA?

ONE CLUB CAN NOT HOLD TWO MEMBERSHIPS CAN IT?

Then there is the fact that only football clubs can own players unders SFA rules, so if the club was still alive how come they were free to leave i.e they had no contract with a football club? TUPE rules would have applied if it was simply a change of structure…..but they didnt lol

Why if you are the same club after finnishing the previous season 2nd in the spl, were you not in europe? why were you not in the 3rd round of the league cup? And if the SFA viewed you as the same club then why did you not start in the scottish cup 4th round as the SFA’s own rules state any member club who finnish in the top 12 position get a bye to the 4th round? A MERE CHANGE OF CORPORATE STRUCTURE WOULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED THESE SITUATIONS? just look at the example set when hearts who did actually get a CVA changed there corporate stucture…..weird that.

And finally why when you look at the actual asset purchase concluded by charles green did it include as goodwill the CLUBS HISTORY as you lot like to tell us…….SO IF YOU ARE THE SAME CLUB WHOS HISTORY DID YOU BUY? AND WHY BUY SOMETHING YOU CLAIM TO ALREADY HAVE?

We all know you cant buy history and it was a smokescreen created by old chucles to get you gullible bastards buying tickets and lining his pockets HAHAHA

ENJOY FOLLOWING YOUR NEW CLUB

Frank McGaaaarvey
8 years ago

Is this Charles or your weekend persona Debra speaking?

charlie
8 years ago

wee crichton went on follow follow to tell his fellow zombies he was on e tims talking shit to big tims they humoured him and encouraged him to come back on they were sick by his inane ramblings

charlie
8 years ago

crikey are you joining the 1872 zombie club

Rebus67
8 years ago

Charlie Crighton,

You are blurring the issue being discussed here….see the leader article. It is Res 12 not whether your current incarnation is new or old. I agree there is lots of evidence that you are the same club. Here is some of it: sectarian singing(ignored by the powers that be); favoured on the field by the mib(look at the number of penalties awared to you versus other clubs in your lower league, running your legal entity at a loss. You are correct all of these aspects are continuing as before.

Comment on the plight of those who were owed money by your new/old club. Are you going to pay it back?

Anyway, the issue under discussion here is Res 12. Show me that Rangers did not owe the tax man when they applied to be licensed for Europe. Show me the evidence thst they supplied to the SFA and that it clearly indicated that there was no outstanding debt at that time.

Instead of laying claim to old titles and cups take some time to get your house in order, old or new, so that others do not have to pick up the tab for your overindulgence in generating sporting advantage.

Rebus

Vinnie
8 years ago
Reply to  Rebus67

Brilliant post, Rebus, but they really don’t merit your time.
Zombies out!
HH

rebus67
8 years ago
Reply to  Vinnie

Vinnie,

You are correct! Sometimes I just cannot resist.

Rebus

Vinnie
8 years ago
Reply to  rebus67

Ach, hell (and Rebus) slap it intae them.
They cry out for it.
I was brought up not to hate, but jeez they’re testing.
HH
Off now, busy day tomorrow with the guy who brought me up in the faith. Celtic, the only faith I have or want to have. My big brother’s a gem. Ah’ll mibbee even by him a wee hauf or three.
HH

rebus67
8 years ago
Reply to  Vinnie

Vinnie,

I am coming over to Scotland in May to see two of my brothers. Nothing like having a drink and a gab with yer ain folks!

Enjoy,

Rebus

jimmybee
8 years ago

Exactly Rebus,
The problem with resolution 12 it gets lost so many times over the newco/oldco fiasco. It is far more important than that.
Celtic owe it to their shareholders to protect all possible financial gains,from the Celtic brand. If a club was granted a licence to play European football,when it was clear that the said club was owing millions in taxes and should have forfeited that right,then the Celtic board of directors have a duty to its shareholders, to ensure fairness and sporting integrity is won.
This is not about you died no we didnae stuff.
It is about justice,fairness, and sporting integrity.

Ed Findlay
8 years ago

I sent e-mail to Regan saying: Resolution 12: Why don’t you answer ????????????? I had a response from him saying “We Did”

rebus67
8 years ago
Reply to  Ed Findlay

Ed Findlay,

Bet he did not indicate if he supplied all of the info that was requested!

Rebus

Charlie Saiz
8 years ago

Wee update for the guests
https://youtu.be/xFxuPffC08c

Auldheid
8 years ago

First can we avoid the same club debate please? That was a wonderful realistic reply from Rebus but it is an argument like the Glasgow Underground. The Inner Circle goes round one way and the outer circle the other. Both end up at the same starting point and not one foot of territory is gained.

Now on Res12….

I see the full Res statement being posted but most of it is the supporting statement. The part on which Celtic had firm indisputable locus as a club who may have been denied income is this:

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.

Basically it said something wasn’t right about the processing of the UEFA Licence in 2011, can Celtic ask UEFA CFCB to look into it.

Celtic had done so in December 2011 and intended to vote Res12 down because SFA said, correctly, that at 31st March 2011 the tax bill had not arrived. This was true, the liability had been accepted in late March 2011 but the bill had still to be issued, and so the license was granted in the absence of the it. A great deal of play was made of this by SFA using Article 50 in support in answering questions including that put by Celtic.

You would imagine therefore that the arrival of the tax bill on 20th May 2011 was a significant event given that its absence allowed the license to be granted, especially as there was another reporting point at 30 June to UEFA under Article 66 that was never mentioned by the SFA in December 2011 when they wrote to Celtic justifying the granting under Art 50, but avoiding the retention aspect at June 2011 under Article 66.

By 30th June 2011 the bill was around 10 days overdue RFC having had 30 days from 20th May to appeal but did not (and never have although it was oft discussed after Sherriff Officers called to collect in August 2011.)

At this point the rules that appear to have been breached or not applied are: Art 13.3, Art 43h, Art 54c, Art 55e, Art 56b and c. Art 66 and Annex VIII. All could be expanded on in a narrative but in doing so there is a danger of unintentionally influencing the court cases now under way so best not risk that.

However questions about breaches by both the licensee (RFC) and the licensor (the SFA) are contained in the letter the SFA have had since July 2015 from Celtic shareholders, having been first shown the tax bill in August 2014 and it is answering the questions on these aspects that appear to be causing the SFA difficulty.

On a further point of clarification. Res12 was adjourned in 2013 because it was demonstrated that Celtic’s stance that Res12 was not necessary was unlikely to stand the test of time.

However the preference was to explore the issue domestically with the SFA but they have been particularly intransigent in answering the questions in the letter even when asked by Celtic, so the only option for shareholders was to go to UEFA to complete what Res12 asked, particularly when the time bar was recently realised, being introduced in 2015.

Only the matter being under the justice system prevents the full narrative, the letter to the SFA and supporting documentation being published, but that will not last forever and it is in everyone’s interest that the SFA answer the questions in the shareholders letter if they can demonstrate the process was honestly and properly dealt with under the Articles quoted.

If they cannot demonstrate probity and/or refuse to answer there is nothing more the Res12 requistitioners can do to make the SFA accountable and asking UEFA to investigate is the final step under their control.

If wrongdoing has occurred and the criminal investigation may well prove it has, then it will be very difficult for both UEFA and Celtic not to pursue regardless of football’s rules.

mike
8 years ago

Auldheid, but young in the brain, thank you for your explanation and much respect to you and your colleagues and thank you for all your hard work in relation to this and other Tim related business.
H.H.

James
8 years ago

Who wiz gibbering about corporate structure failure?

CORPORATE STRUCTURE

INCORPORATED

aka NO DISTINCTION

equals DEATH!

At least you recognise there’s no difference between clumpany and clubfoot.

You’re getting there!

Follow us on Twitter @ETimsNet