Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Kerrydale Street. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use.

If you decide to register, please be aware that we don't accept email addresses from free web accounts like gmail, Hotmail, live.co.uk etc. Sorry, but almost all of the abuse and spam that we get is from free web accounts. The software on the forum will automatically block any requests using a free email account.

Upon Registration, you will be given access to all our varied Forums, and you will be expected to comply with our fairly stringent Rules and Regulations. Meantime, enjoy your visit

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Celtic AGM Resolution; Call for UEFA to investigate SFA decision
Topic Started: 26 Sep 2013, 01:07 PM (38,583 Views)
Auldyin
Member Avatar
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Groves
14 Oct 2013, 10:55 PM
remy mcswain
14 Oct 2013, 10:52 PM
paddybhoy86
14 Oct 2013, 10:49 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
The resolution should have stopped at the Euro licence. The Sevco licence was a daft add on and gave them their route out of ot.
Bang on.
Here is what the resolution asks of Celtic.

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.


It makes no mention of a Sevco licence (although that is mentioned along with Membership at Item 1 in the support material regarding SFA behaviour generally) but no where in the above does it mention the award of a SPL club licence to Sevco, or ask UEFA to investigate it. What it does say is did the SFA comply with Club Licensing rules for the SPL, which adopt the UEFA standard and whichthe SFA agreed to apply? Additionally SFL clubs were not subject to UEFA Club licensing standards, (National Club Licensing applies) so again it only refers to the granting of licences to Oldco. Club licensing is nothing to do with granting Sevco membership.


It should be. In fact membership should be conditional on a club being granted a licence but it is not. Membership is at the SFA's discretion with no criteria listed. If the Club Financial Control Body were to investigate, one of the observations to the SFA would be that had UEFA FFP guidance 2010 been around a lot earlier and observed, Rangers would never have got into the position they found themselves in.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OneShotPaddy
Member Avatar
First-team starter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I know little about this type of stuff with boards and plcs and agms but what I do know from experience in life is to only fight the battles you can win. The UEFA license issue, standing on it's own, is a battle I think was very winnable and in fact seemed almost indefensible. Diluting it with all the other stuff takes the focus off of it and allows the issue to buried under a mountain of bullshampoo. As predicted this part of the resolution isn't even mentioned in the media reports.

Standing on it's own, focusing only on the granting of a UEFA license and nothing else would have given no easy escape route for those who wished for the whole thing to just go away.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wanyerma
Member Avatar
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Groves
14 Oct 2013, 10:55 PM
remy mcswain
14 Oct 2013, 10:52 PM
paddybhoy86
14 Oct 2013, 10:49 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
The resolution should have stopped at the Euro licence. The Sevco licence was a daft add on and gave them their route out of ot.
Bang on.
Why would they wish a route out of it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
murphio
Member Avatar
Could start a row in an empty room
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Auldyin
15 Oct 2013, 12:35 AM
Groves
14 Oct 2013, 10:55 PM
remy mcswain
14 Oct 2013, 10:52 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Bang on.
Here is what the resolution asks of Celtic.

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.


It makes no mention of a Sevco licence (although that is mentioned along with Membership at Item 1 in the support material regarding SFA behaviour generally) but no where in the above does it mention the award of a SPL club licence to Sevco, or ask UEFA to investigate it. What it does say is did the SFA comply with Club Licensing rules for the SPL, which adopt the UEFA standard and whichthe SFA agreed to apply? Additionally SFL clubs were not subject to UEFA Club licensing standards, (National Club Licensing applies) so again it only refers to the granting of licences to Oldco. Club licensing is nothing to do with granting Sevco membership.


It should be. In fact membership should be conditional on a club being granted a licence but it is not. Membership is at the SFA's discretion with no criteria listed. If the Club Financial Control Body were to investigate, one of the observations to the SFA would be that had UEFA FFP guidance 2010 been around a lot earlier and observed, Rangers would never have got into the position they found themselves in.
If there was no request for the Celtic board to act on Sevco being permitted on enter Division 3 then it should not have been mentioned at all. Regardless of what was being asked of the board in terms of the resolution it was packaged as a catch-all issue of corruption in the Scottish game. To lump the SFL's decision to permit Sevco into their league structure with the SFA's decision to award Rangers a European license - something which directly affected Celtic - was completely stupid. And now you are seeing the results - already the MSM is painting the request as a group of maverick Celtic fans, opposed by the club, who wanted Sevco to start again in the Glasgow boys league rather than Division 3. Utter madness on behalf of who was behind the drafting of that resolution. Tic will be along to argue at least something was done but that 'something' could very well have killed stone dead what was a legitimate complaint the Celtic board could have acted on. The inclusion of Sevco's direct entry into the SFL was a trap door which has already been opened.
Edited by murphio, 15 Oct 2013, 12:56 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Auldyin
Member Avatar
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
OneShotPaddy
15 Oct 2013, 12:44 AM
I know little about this type of stuff with boards and plcs and agms but what I do know from experience in life is to only fight the battles you can win. The UEFA license issue, standing on it's own, is a battle I think was very winnable and in fact seemed almost indefensible. Diluting it with all the other stuff takes the focus off of it and allows the issue to buried under a mountain of bullshampoo. As predicted this part of the resolution isn't even mentioned in the media reports.

Standing on it's own, focusing only on the granting of a UEFA license and nothing else would have given no easy escape route for those who wished for the whole thing to just go away.
I really doubt it would have made any difference to the smsm, who needed the difference between licence and membership explained to them by bloggers, had the above in bold been said without the subsequent embellishments on other issues. They would have spun it that it referred to Sevco when it simply does not.

Even so what matters is what shareholders do in support, not what the SMSM report, which is more likely to create support for the resolution..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MartyBhoy77
Member Avatar
Death to the brown brogues
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I know this might be far fetched but could the board have been waiting for something like this to happen! Eh not us but it's the fans we will talk to them ps keep it going.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Auldyin
Member Avatar
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
murphio
15 Oct 2013, 12:55 AM
Auldyin
15 Oct 2013, 12:35 AM
Groves
14 Oct 2013, 10:55 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Here is what the resolution asks of Celtic.

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.


It makes no mention of a Sevco licence (although that is mentioned along with Membership at Item 1 in the support material regarding SFA behaviour generally) but no where in the above does it mention the award of a SPL club licence to Sevco, or ask UEFA to investigate it. What it does say is did the SFA comply with Club Licensing rules for the SPL, which adopt the UEFA standard and whichthe SFA agreed to apply? Additionally SFL clubs were not subject to UEFA Club licensing standards, (National Club Licensing applies) so again it only refers to the granting of licences to Oldco. Club licensing is nothing to do with granting Sevco membership.


It should be. In fact membership should be conditional on a club being granted a licence but it is not. Membership is at the SFA's discretion with no criteria listed. If the Club Financial Control Body were to investigate, one of the observations to the SFA would be that had UEFA FFP guidance 2010 been around a lot earlier and observed, Rangers would never have got into the position they found themselves in.
If there was no request for the Celtic board to act on Sevco being permitted on enter Division 3 then it should not have been mentioned at all. Regardless of what was being asked of the board in terms of the resolution it was packaged as a catch-all issue of corruption in the Scottish game. To lump the SFL's decision to permit Sevco into their league structure with the SFA's decision to award Rangers a European license - something which directly affected Celtic - was completely stupid. And now you are seeing the results - already the MSM is painting the request as a group of maverick Celtic fans, opposed by the club, who wanted Sevco to start again in the Glasgow boys league rather than Division 3. Utter madness on behalf of who was behind the drafting of that resolution. Tic will be along to argue at least something was done but that 'something' could very well have killed stone dead what was a legitimate complaint the Celtic board could have acted on. The inclusion of Sevco's direct entry into the SFL was a trap door which has already been opened.
What if the choice was the resolution as it is or none at all? its not all black and white.

I think you are paying far too much attention to the smsm who will not be voting or even influencing voters against it.

This resolution would be as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit to UEFA regardless of presentation, but as it stands it only asks them to investigate the UEFA and club licensing at Oldco under UEFA 2010 FFP until Oldco went bust, without even mentioning them or Sevco for that matter who are incidental in terms of making the SFA realise they can be made accountable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Algarvian
Occasional Substitute
[ *  *  *  * ]
Algarvian
27 Sep 2013, 06:39 PM
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.


Not sure if it has been mentioned already but, did any other club, Spartans etc. actually apply for the vacant position?
I know they have applied before but did they know it was a done deal this time and didn't bother?
I know it's probably not de rigueur to quote one's own post's, but did anyone answer this?
Maybe, buspass/canamalar/tic, or auldyin knows?
There would have been no queue jumping if no other club applied.
Whether they didn't apply for fear of "social unrest" or whatever, is another matter, of course.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wee Red
Member Avatar
not too serious
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
idyllwild
14 Oct 2013, 05:23 PM
sc0tsman
14 Oct 2013, 05:09 PM
idyllwild
14 Oct 2013, 11:29 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
The threat from many season ticket holders and shareholders to withdraw support. Like many other clubs in Scotland.
You believe Celtic would have voted for Rangers to "start again" in the top league if the supporters hadn't threatened to withdraw their season ticket money?
I dont think that Celtic would have voted them into SPL straight away, but it would have been out of Celtic's hands if all the other teams wanted it, and that is where the internet bampots and "diddy" club activists came into play as the conscience of Scots football.
A spine was built around some honest brokers on club boards, and those put under pressure by their fan groups and sponsors, all folk made aware by internet dissemination of disgust and facts about the situation. 20 or 30 internet diggers for info fed an interested public via the internet and the traditional bush telegraph.
If that lot had got back into the SPL via the votes of the other clubs, then you may have seen Celtic become more lawyer orientated regarding financial and football losses associated with the debacle.
I think Murphio is generally correct in the fact that Celtic want Rangers to bring a positive potential to Scots football, but not at any cost, and particularly not at the cost of Celtic not having a decent chance to recover CL funds for a few years, maybe a tad easier than if Rangers were around.
Celtic wanted them punished, but would not push them into complete obliteration, preferring that if that was to happen they would do it themselves.
However the board are now on record as not backing this motion, but they may "have to" demand SFA action if the shareholders vote for it. The intention of such an enquiry would be to open all details on this matter to the general public and see who if any were the guilty parties, and who if any parties were wronged.
Are we saying that in their hearts the Celtic board dont want to publicise the truth, no, they are just being savvy, and coy in their approach., and it could work if all the shareholders use their votes in the footballing public's interests, like those diddy team activists.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
idyllwild


Wee Red
15 Oct 2013, 01:57 AM
idyllwild
14 Oct 2013, 05:23 PM
sc0tsman
14 Oct 2013, 05:09 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
You believe Celtic would have voted for Rangers to "start again" in the top league if the supporters hadn't threatened to withdraw their season ticket money?
I dont think that Celtic would have voted them into SPL straight away, but it would have been out of Celtic's hands if all the other teams wanted it, and that is where the internet bampots and "diddy" club activists came into play as the conscience of Scots football.
A spine was built around some honest brokers on club boards, and those put under pressure by their fan groups and sponsors, all folk made aware by internet dissemination of disgust and facts about the situation. 20 or 30 internet diggers for info fed an interested public via the internet and the traditional bush telegraph.
If that lot had got back into the SPL via the votes of the other clubs, then you may have seen Celtic become more lawyer orientated regarding financial and football losses associated with the debacle.
I think Murphio is generally correct in the fact that Celtic want Rangers to bring a positive potential to Scots football, but not at any cost, and particularly not at the cost of Celtic not having a decent chance to recover CL funds for a few years, maybe a tad easier than if Rangers were around.
Celtic wanted them punished, but would not push them into complete obliteration, preferring that if that was to happen they would do it themselves.
However the board are now on record as not backing this motion, but they may "have to" demand SFA action if the shareholders vote for it. The intention of such an enquiry would be to open all details on this matter to the general public and see who if any were the guilty parties, and who if any parties were wronged.
Are we saying that in their hearts the Celtic board dont want to publicise the truth, no, they are just being savvy, and coy in their approach., and it could work if all the shareholders use their votes in the footballing public's interests, like those diddy team activists.
Are we saying that the Celtic board are refusing to pursue an open-and-shut claim to £10m+? That seems to be what is being said by people in this thread?

I'd be interested to hear their reasoning behind this claim that the club have failed to protect shareholders interests. Basically, if we have an easy £10m+ sitting there, why do the conspiracy theorists think the club haven't taken that money?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wolvibhoy
Member Avatar
First name on the team-sheet
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
In basic terms, what did the SFA do wrong? What was illegal about issuing diedco a licence to play in europe?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
the iron tim
Member Avatar
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Algarvian
15 Oct 2013, 01:30 AM
Algarvian
27 Sep 2013, 06:39 PM
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.


Not sure if it has been mentioned already but, did any other club, Spartans etc. actually apply for the vacant position?
I know they have applied before but did they know it was a done deal this time and didn't bother?
I know it's probably not de rigueur to quote one's own post's, but did anyone answer this?
Maybe, buspass/canamalar/tic, or auldyin knows?
There would have been no queue jumping if no other club applied.
Whether they didn't apply for fear of "social unrest" or whatever, is another matter, of course.
I was told a while back that this was the case, Spartans did not apply. possibly deals were done etc....tho this was told to me by a hun so likely bullshampoo.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Groves
Member Avatar
Getting on a bit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Wanyerma
15 Oct 2013, 12:03 AM
Groves
14 Oct 2013, 10:41 PM
remy mcswain
14 Oct 2013, 10:07 PM
Barcabhoy also confirming (on CQN) that the board were never going to vote Sevco straight into SPL.

I know which side I'd trust on this debate.
Yet at the time 'Phil' wrote blogs filling naive folks heads full of nonsense about the Board supposedly wanting the Edmiston entity back into the SPL.
I think people can form opinions on their own. It's a tad ironic that folk are quoting CQN as some arbiter of truth while disparaging PhilMac.

Celtic plc (the plc is an important bit) have had 10m + essentially stolen from them via either incompetent or corroupt governance. As a plc they should be moving heaven and earth to ascertain the truth of the situation and attempt to recover that money.

Forget conspiracy theories, think simply that the organisation responsible for governance in our area of business screwed us by favouring someone else. If our board don't take that seriously then they can GTF.
Where are you getting this £10m from?

I'm not paying much attention to what CQN has to say on the topic. I'm going on the flaws in the resolution which I and other posters have highlighted together with my knowledge of what the Celtic Board's view was of the situation at the time and their subsequent actions in dealing with the new club.

Read the Celtic response to the resolution again. They make it clear that they were aware of the licensing issue and raised it with the SFA at the time. SFA said the process was OK. So when it came to voting on the cheating cartel the Celtic Board did everything behind the scenes to have Sevco start at the bottom. That is how to deal with the cheats.

That has cleared the way for Celtic to pick up over £100m from CL participation over 5 years without any barriers from what is deemed by some to be a competitor for that income.

That's the bigger picture of this and anyone taking a swipe at the Board over this clearly cannot get their head around what Celtic did to effectively consign Sevco to years of insignificance and ridicule.

I've seen your £10m and I will raise you £100m. Plus the rest. :thumbsup:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Auldyin
Member Avatar
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Groves
15 Oct 2013, 08:26 AM
Wanyerma
15 Oct 2013, 12:03 AM
Groves
14 Oct 2013, 10:41 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I think people can form opinions on their own. It's a tad ironic that folk are quoting CQN as some arbiter of truth while disparaging PhilMac.

Celtic plc (the plc is an important bit) have had 10m + essentially stolen from them via either incompetent or corroupt governance. As a plc they should be moving heaven and earth to ascertain the truth of the situation and attempt to recover that money.

Forget conspiracy theories, think simply that the organisation responsible for governance in our area of business screwed us by favouring someone else. If our board don't take that seriously then they can GTF.
Where are you getting this £10m from?

I'm not paying much attention to what CQN has to say on the topic. I'm going on the flaws in the resolution which I and other posters have highlighted together with my knowledge of what the Celtic Board's view was of the situation at the time and their subsequent actions in dealing with the new club.

Read the Celtic response to the resolution again. They make it clear that they were aware of the licensing issue and raised it with the SFA at the time. SFA said the process was OK. So when it came to voting on the cheating cartel the Celtic Board did everything behind the scenes to have Sevco start at the bottom. That is how to deal with the cheats.

That has cleared the way for Celtic to pick up over £100m from CL participation over 5 years without any barriers from what is deemed by some to be a competitor for that income.

That's the bigger picture of this and anyone taking a swipe at the Board over this clearly cannot get their head around what Celtic did to effectively consign Sevco to years of insignificance and ridicule.

I've seen your £10m and I will raise you £100m. Plus the rest. :thumbsup:
For me an indicator of Celtic's resolve to put sporting integrity first was a CQN blog on Platini's Christmas message of 2011 that was full of sporting integrity statements.

It appeared within hours after it was passed to Celtic because it strengthened Celtic's position .

Hardly the actions of a club putting short term commercial considerations first (not to mention the long terms benefits that are flowing now.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Torquemada
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Groves
15 Oct 2013, 08:26 AM
Where are you getting this £10m from?

I'm not paying much attention to what CQN has to say on the topic. I'm going on the flaws in the resolution which I and other posters have highlighted together with my knowledge of what the Celtic Board's view was of the situation at the time and their subsequent actions in dealing with the new club.

Read the Celtic response to the resolution again. They make it clear that they were aware of the licensing issue and raised it with the SFA at the time. SFA said the process was OK. So when it came to voting on the cheating cartel the Celtic Board did everything behind the scenes to have Sevco start at the bottom. That is how to deal with the cheats.

That has cleared the way for Celtic to pick up over £100m from CL participation over 5 years without any barriers from what is deemed by some to be a competitor for that income.

That's the bigger picture of this and anyone taking a swipe at the Board over this clearly cannot get their head around what Celtic did to effectively consign Sevco to years of insignificance and ridicule.

I've seen your £10m and I will raise you £100m. Plus the rest. :thumbsup:
I can see and empathise with both views of this issue. The unreconstructed Fenian bastard in me wants us to kill them stone dead and make clear to all our role in doing so; the occasional pragmatist, however, wants to believe in your more considered (and in my view, correct) analysis.

As a shareholder, I will be voting for the club to ask Uefa to investigate, but I will not break my heart if the "institutional investors" (where have I hear that expression recently? :lol: ) overrule the fans. I will not be sending my scarf back, at any rate.

Tacking on the Sevco licence issue was a grave tactical error, IMO, no matter how understandable. It gave the puppets of the Scottish MSM an opportunity to deflect and divide, and many of us seem to have fallen into the trap. This issue has been around for weeks. It appeared in two different papers on the same day, and both took the same tack. The grubby fingers of the loathsome Jack Irvine are all over it.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wanyerma
Member Avatar
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Groves
15 Oct 2013, 08:26 AM
Wanyerma
15 Oct 2013, 12:03 AM
Groves
14 Oct 2013, 10:41 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I think people can form opinions on their own. It's a tad ironic that folk are quoting CQN as some arbiter of truth while disparaging PhilMac.

Celtic plc (the plc is an important bit) have had 10m + essentially stolen from them via either incompetent or corroupt governance. As a plc they should be moving heaven and earth to ascertain the truth of the situation and attempt to recover that money.

Forget conspiracy theories, think simply that the organisation responsible for governance in our area of business screwed us by favouring someone else. If our board don't take that seriously then they can GTF.
Where are you getting this £10m from?

I'm not paying much attention to what CQN has to say on the topic. I'm going on the flaws in the resolution which I and other posters have highlighted together with my knowledge of what the Celtic Board's view was of the situation at the time and their subsequent actions in dealing with the new club.

Read the Celtic response to the resolution again. They make it clear that they were aware of the licensing issue and raised it with the SFA at the time. SFA said the process was OK. So when it came to voting on the cheating cartel the Celtic Board did everything behind the scenes to have Sevco start at the bottom. That is how to deal with the cheats.

That has cleared the way for Celtic to pick up over £100m from CL participation over 5 years without any barriers from what is deemed by some to be a competitor for that income.

That's the bigger picture of this and anyone taking a swipe at the Board over this clearly cannot get their head around what Celtic did to effectively consign Sevco to years of insignificance and ridicule.

I've seen your £10m and I will raise you £100m. Plus the rest. :thumbsup:
How much we've made after their demise is nothing to do with them being licensed when they shouldn't. Not sure why some of you keep claiming that because we've gained financially since their demise, everything is fine.

It's not. The corrupt system that allowed them to cheat is still in place. Until we address that we've not gained one bit, because the system is still corrupt.

I don't care how much we've earned since, it's not the issue. At all. Those of you conflating the two things clearly are missing the issue entirely.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
greenjedi
Member Avatar
Jedi Master
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Celtic PLC should be screaming Blue Murder about the fact they were denied entry to the CL and all its revenues due to SFA cheating or incompetance. It had to be one or the other, the SFA should come out and say which. Its not about football its about business.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MILLIGANS ISLAND
Member Avatar
....give us a glimmer......
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I totally appreciate the sentiments behind all of this but it will achieve nothing in my humble opinion.

To all intents and purposes we won - and lawwell and co have made sure we will be winning hopefully long into the future. That's what the huns will have to live with long term. That's their curse for their cheating and financial doping. And that's more than compensation.

We all know fine and well the SFA are in it up to their necks with them and are probably paving the way for another switcheroo as we speak.... But this time lawwell is on the SFA board to make sure our interests are protected.

All the cards are in our favour, why threaten to tip the table over now?
Edited by MILLIGANS ISLAND, 15 Oct 2013, 10:30 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
idyllwild


Wanyerma
15 Oct 2013, 10:15 AM
Groves
15 Oct 2013, 08:26 AM
Wanyerma
15 Oct 2013, 12:03 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Where are you getting this £10m from?

I'm not paying much attention to what CQN has to say on the topic. I'm going on the flaws in the resolution which I and other posters have highlighted together with my knowledge of what the Celtic Board's view was of the situation at the time and their subsequent actions in dealing with the new club.

Read the Celtic response to the resolution again. They make it clear that they were aware of the licensing issue and raised it with the SFA at the time. SFA said the process was OK. So when it came to voting on the cheating cartel the Celtic Board did everything behind the scenes to have Sevco start at the bottom. That is how to deal with the cheats.

That has cleared the way for Celtic to pick up over £100m from CL participation over 5 years without any barriers from what is deemed by some to be a competitor for that income.

That's the bigger picture of this and anyone taking a swipe at the Board over this clearly cannot get their head around what Celtic did to effectively consign Sevco to years of insignificance and ridicule.

I've seen your £10m and I will raise you £100m. Plus the rest. :thumbsup:
How much we've made after their demise is nothing to do with them being licensed when they shouldn't. Not sure why some of you keep claiming that because we've gained financially since their demise, everything is fine.

It's not. The corrupt system that allowed them to cheat is still in place. Until we address that we've not gained one bit, because the system is still corrupt.

I don't care how much we've earned since, it's not the issue. At all. Those of you conflating the two things clearly are missing the issue entirely.
You seem certain that Celtic have had £10m+ stolen from via the SFA. You've suggested moving heaven and earth to recover this money.

How do you suggest the club might get their money back, assuming you have evidence to prove the theft in the first place?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Groves
Member Avatar
Getting on a bit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Torquemada
15 Oct 2013, 10:12 AM
Groves
15 Oct 2013, 08:26 AM
Where are you getting this £10m from?

I'm not paying much attention to what CQN has to say on the topic. I'm going on the flaws in the resolution which I and other posters have highlighted together with my knowledge of what the Celtic Board's view was of the situation at the time and their subsequent actions in dealing with the new club.

Read the Celtic response to the resolution again. They make it clear that they were aware of the licensing issue and raised it with the SFA at the time. SFA said the process was OK. So when it came to voting on the cheating cartel the Celtic Board did everything behind the scenes to have Sevco start at the bottom. That is how to deal with the cheats.

That has cleared the way for Celtic to pick up over £100m from CL participation over 5 years without any barriers from what is deemed by some to be a competitor for that income.

That's the bigger picture of this and anyone taking a swipe at the Board over this clearly cannot get their head around what Celtic did to effectively consign Sevco to years of insignificance and ridicule.

I've seen your £10m and I will raise you £100m. Plus the rest. :thumbsup:
I can see and empathise with both views of this issue. The unreconstructed Fenian bastard in me wants us to kill them stone dead and make clear to all our role in doing so; the occasional pragmatist, however, wants to believe in your more considered (and in my view, correct) analysis.

As a shareholder, I will be voting for the club to ask Uefa to investigate, but I will not break my heart if the "institutional investors" (where have I hear that expression recently? :lol: ) overrule the fans. I will not be sending my scarf back, at any rate.

Tacking on the Sevco licence issue was a grave tactical error, IMO, no matter how understandable. It gave the puppets of the Scottish MSM an opportunity to deflect and divide, and many of us seem to have fallen into the trap. This issue has been around for weeks. It appeared in two different papers on the same day, and both took the same tack. The grubby fingers of the loathsome Jack Irvine are all over it.

The Board were always going to be in a difficult position with this resolution and its demands. I am satisfied that the Board have protected Celtic's best long term interests in their actions, both seen and unseen, over the past 2 years. So while I agree with some of the sentiment of the resolution there is little point in dwelling too much on the past.

The Board stayed silent when the Jack Irvine's and other media outlets were gagging for Celtic to react to the huns demise. Like him or loathe him, Peter Lawwell has built up a power base in Scottish football that is not going to diminish. That power base is being used to protect and develop Celtic's strong position domestically and in Europe.

Is the SFA still corrupt? Perhaps so.
Is the SFA inept? Most definitely.
Is the SFA capable of now doing anything to Celtic's detriment? I doubt it.

We are at an end game in which a battle may have been lost in the past but the war is over and from where I'm sitting it has been well and truly won by Celtic.

The only thing that is going to knock Celtic down is their own failing on the field of play. And I very much doubt that is going to happen with the manager and squad we currently have.
Edited by Groves, 15 Oct 2013, 11:25 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Celtic Football Club Discussion Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply