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
The Board - general discussion (including Res 12); notes from the AGM
Topic Started: 15 Jul 2014, 12:03 AM (1,414,711 Views)
dovercelt
Member Avatar
First name on the team-sheet
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
shugmc
11 Mar 2016, 01:29 AM
paulfg42
11 Mar 2016, 12:36 AM
Who are all these folk waiting in the wings gasping to buy a season ticket the minute newhuns are in the league? Sounds like another Lawwell gamble. And as reliable a gamble as the Deila appointment.
They'll be bringing back the 'waiting list' soon :lmao:
We're all on the waiting list - waiting for a new feckin manager and board and it looks to be a long wait. :cry:
Edited by dovercelt, 11 Mar 2016, 01:35 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
St. Peter
Member Avatar
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The saddest thing about the board's actions in relation to res 12 is that it's not really a surprise... it's became more and more apparent that the people running our club were fully signed-up to the ridiculous "armageddon theory" from the moment Stewart Regan pronounced it.

We should be in a much, much stronger position than we are currently - the board are going to turn more and more fans away from supporting the club.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
k3vkr
Member Avatar
The weather is fine in Majorca
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
This thread is sad... :(

Only the other day I seen one of those, admittedly bollocks, surveys about great grounds... Celtic Park was on it, the picture was from the 125th anniversary game against Barcelona.. Ive never felt so proud to be a Celtic fan as I did that night, maybe Seville excluded, and from that to what we see today.. 3 seasons later..

Its a effing disgrace. What can be done though? As far as I can see, the internet bampots are well versed in the boards incompetency but your non-internet every day fan seems oblivious..
I don't go to many games these days, but, for anyone who does, is there any murmurings at ground level? People need their eyes opened, but would anyone even go about that?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Toga Toga
Member Avatar
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Belgrano
10 Mar 2016, 10:55 PM
The board's ultimate hope is we'll stagger over the line and win the league. Maybe even, by some miracle, qualify for the Champions League next year (which has absolutely no chance of happening if Delia is still in charge). They are banking on enough people buying season tickets to guarantee 2 home matches against the huns. That's the actual fanbase they need to appeal to now. And if you're the type of fan they want to appeal to, then that's the type they'll get. And they'll continue to take for granted that the head-in-the-sand brigade will faithfully stump up another year's season money in advance, to allow them to justify and continue the way they're currently running the club.
Can't disagree with any of that - well put.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
john67
Member Avatar
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
How about a poll on here about season books renewals
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SwavBhoy
Member Avatar
Getting on a bit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I heard a wee rumour yesterday that Lawwell is for the off at the end of the season. :pray:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hairytoes
Member Avatar
First-team captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
SwavBhoy
11 Mar 2016, 09:48 AM
I heard a wee rumour yesterday that Lawwell is for the off at the end of the season. :pray:
Does his seat on the many boards he sits on automatically transfer to his replacement?
As in, it's Celtic that sit on these boards - not Peter Lawwell.
A lot has been made of his place on the ECA & SFA etc

Love to see him g go, but the damage is done - new person has a hard job, especially if it's another jumped up accountant.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dannybhoy95
Member Avatar
Champions Again Olé, Olé
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
SwavBhoy
11 Mar 2016, 09:48 AM
I heard a wee rumour yesterday that Lawwell is for the off at the end of the season. :pray:
Nah. He's paid a guaranteed £1 million to turn up at an AGM once a year.

Why in the name of eff would you leave that? It's basically free money. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Farkakt AlteKaker
Crowded elevators smell different to midgets
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
SwavBhoy
11 Mar 2016, 09:48 AM
I heard a wee rumour yesterday that Lawwell is for the off at the end of the season. :pray:
Personal reasons :suspect:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SaMule
Member Avatar
NSFW
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
SwavBhoy
11 Mar 2016, 09:48 AM
I heard a wee rumour yesterday that Lawwell is for the off at the end of the season. :pray:
Anyone know what sort of notice period he'd have to serve, or when such an announcement needs to be made to shareholders?

Changing CEO at the very time we're supposed to be negotiating contracts for selling some players and signing new ones (not to mention with any luck appointing a new manager) doesn't sound like the cleverest idea to me, surely it'd be better to just get it out of the way now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wailer
Member Avatar
Rebel music.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
SwavBhoy
11 Mar 2016, 09:48 AM
I heard a wee rumour yesterday that Lawwell is for the off at the end of the season. :pray:
Would make sense if Moyes was coming as I doubt they'd work together. Here's hoping.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
georgiesleftpeg
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
sevilliano
10 Mar 2016, 10:52 AM
georgiesleftpeg
10 Mar 2016, 09:37 AM
Sev^
Are you suggesting that a potential reason for the board of Celtic dragging their collective feet in this matter may be concerned with some stuff (i.e. bonus's paid to individuals for player sales, individual boards members links to certain agents) having to be disclosed?

I thought that this issue was only concerning the dead hun, so why would we have to disclose information into the public domain that involves our executives?

May have got the wrong end of the proverbial stick, but. :ponder:

Interesting sheidt, though...
No i'm simply asking the question if anyone knows the answer

I assume that as an aim listed plc we'd have to disclose any such arrangements, if any did indeed exist, as only then could you get a full picture of earnings and be able to watch for conflict of interest.
:thumbsup:
Dunno the answer.
S'been a while since I ditched my shareholding, and I'm thankful that I did.

Thinking back to the accounts, though, can't say I ever read the balance sheets forensically (or that I'd know how to) but if there was any intimation t'ward the merest possibility of the suggestion of any (ahem) of our exec's being into football agencies in the way described, you know that someone would've been all over it.

Maybe remuneration per se, if it involves a third party not directly related to the main activities of the company, doesn't require disclosure via AIM? If it's not actually costing/gaining the company directly?
Certainly, delisting onto the AIM may well have had attractions other than reduced accountancy fees.
Dunno.

Interesting, all the same.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
georgiesleftpeg
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hairytoes
11 Mar 2016, 10:31 AM
SwavBhoy
11 Mar 2016, 09:48 AM
I heard a wee rumour yesterday that Lawwell is for the off at the end of the season. :pray:
Does his seat on the many boards he sits on automatically transfer to his replacement?
As in, it's Celtic that sit on these boards - not Peter Lawwell.
A lot has been made of his place on the ECA & SFA etc

Love to see him g go, but the damage is done - new person has a hard job, especially if it's another jumped up accountant.
'wake me up before he g go's'

Could be a tune in there :lol:

:thumbsup:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CaltonBhoy1967
Member Avatar
Billy McNeill - "Mr Celtic"
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Farkakt AlteKaker
11 Mar 2016, 11:39 AM
SwavBhoy
11 Mar 2016, 09:48 AM
I heard a wee rumour yesterday that Lawwell is for the off at the end of the season. :pray:
Personal reasons :suspect:
He did have a potential personal reason* but fortunately that is okay now.

*Irrespective of your take on the man it wasn't the sort you would wish on anybody.

I still think when he goes it will be of his own volition - He has hinted he won't go on forever - I think he would work with Moyes the exception would be Keane I think he would exit sharpish on that one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CelticTigress
Member Avatar
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
“There is a great deal of chat on social media this week about Res 12 which was tabled and adjourned at the 2012 AGM of Celtic PLC, and so I want to clarify a couple of things which Paul has allowed me to do here

As a reminder, the exact terms of the resolution are to be found here:

This AGM requests the Board exercise the provision contained in the Procedural Rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body Article 10 with jurisdiction and investigation responsibilities identified in articles 3 & 11 (Note-1), by referring/bringing to the attention of the UEFA Club Financial control Body (CFCB), the licensing administration practices of The Scottish Football Association (SFA), requesting the CFCB undertake a review and investigate the SFA’s implementation of UEFA & SFA license compliance requirements, with regard to qualification, administration and granting of licenses to compete in football competitions under both SFA and UEFA Jurisdiction, since the implementation of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations of 2010.

While the Celtic PLC Board originally viewed the resolution as unnecessary, once further consideration of the issues raised by the shareholders had been examined, the Celtic board changed their mind and agreed to adjourn the resolution with a view to working with the shareholders representatives by investigating the procedures complained of and making enquiries of the SFA.

In the intervening period of time, there have been numerous meetings and consistent correspondence between those shareholders and officials of Celtic PLC, all with a view to furthering the aims of Res 12, and there is no doubt that the Celtic board have played a full part in taking the resolution to where it now stands.

Whilst the investigation process was slow, both shareholders and the board were satisfied that there was merit in seeking answers from the SFA, as previous responses to earlier enquiries from Celtic PLC were not convincing or sufficiently detailed.

Working together, the board and the shareholders have seen to it that formal letters of enquiry have been sent to the SFA, together with various pieces of documentation and supporting evidence.

Through the shareholders’ lawyers, the SFA were asked to answer specific detailed questions in relation to their procedures, however the SFA responded by saying they would not answer any questions other than through the “member club” i.e. the board of Celtic PLC.

This raises an issue for all football supporters – especially those who are shareholders in a football club – and it begs the question whether or not supporters and shareholders should be able to hold a governing body to account in the event of maladministration.

I believe they should but that is a bigger issue for another day and it will be revisited in due course.

However, what is most important for everyone to know is that there can be no doubt that serious questions have been asked, were asked of the right people and were backed up by documentation prepared in conjunction with the board of Celtic PLC.

I have seen speculation yesterday that perhaps Celtic did not fully know of what was going on or that somehow there had not been full and forensic research completed into the matters concerned etc, or that Celtic PLC have done nothing to back the resolution. All of that is simply not true and at all times the Celtic PLC board have been party to, and have played their part in, the entire process.

The whole purpose of writing to the SFA in the first place was to afford the powers that be within Hampden the chance to avoid a potential enquiry by UEFA into the way that they handled UEFA licence applications in 2011.

The SFA did not take that chance and ducked answering the detailed legal questions put to them by the Shareholders’ solicitors and instead chose to respond saying they would only explain matters to Celtic PLC and their board.

It would now appear that the SFA are prevaricating (again) in giving any meaningful response to Celtic PLC and so, after a period of silence, the obvious next stage in the process is to make formal enquiries and investigations through UEFA.

At the outset, both the board and the shareholders agreed that this would be the inevitable outcome if the SFA were not full, frank and forthright in providing any response.

Both the Celtic PLC board and the shareholders wish the matter to be referred to UEFA at this time, that is agreed, especially as there is a need to ensure that there is no prospect of any investigation being time barred by the UEFA rules which place a five year time limit for proceedings.

However, it is here that there is a divergence of opinion between the board and the shareholders. The shareholders believe that any reference to UEFA should come from the club, while the club would prefer the shareholders to refer the matter to UEFA in line with the previous enquiries made to the SFA.

However, I stress both parties have stated they want the matter placed before the appropriate UEFA committee.

As of yesterday, it was agreed that the Shareholders will formally write to UEFA via their solicitors, but they believe that ultimately this will be, and should be, a matter for the club as it is undoubtedly the case that any complaint to UEFA will have to make reference to the correspondence and answers already provided to Celtic PLC via the SFA.

There is also no doubt that whoever refers the matter to UEFA, that same body will end up having to make enquiries of Celtic PLC as it was to Celtic that the SFA said they would reply, and it was to Celtic PLC that the SFA gave previous replies by way of correspondence.

Accordingly the board will have to advise UEFA quite clearly what those replies entailed, comment on the matters raised in the shareholders letter, and whether or not they, as a board, are satisfied with the replies provided to the board by the SFA.

Accordingly, once the matter goes to UEFA there is no prospect of the Celtic Board not being further involved.

What is also quite clear is that once the shareholders have referred the matter to UEFA, there is very little else they can do as an independent body. They have taken this as far as they can, have worked with the PLC board, engaged independent solicitors and formally presented questions to the SFA together with supporting documentation and all with the help and support of the board of Celtic PLC.

If there is a clamour for greater representation and accountability for the ordinary football fan then they can lend their support to that – irrespective of what team the fan may support.

However, in relation to the particulars of Res 12, the shareholders have approached the board, worked with the board ( and acknowledge that the board have worked with them ) but ultimately it is for the PLC to take these matters to their final conclusion as the board of directors represent the whole PLC and speak with a far stronger corporate voice.

That was the whole purpose of the resolution in the first place.”

- See more at: http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/res-12-the-journey-so-far-and-the-journey-to-come/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.JBHdqZrE.dpuf
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SwavBhoy
Member Avatar
Getting on a bit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dannybhoy95
11 Mar 2016, 11:34 AM
SwavBhoy
11 Mar 2016, 09:48 AM
I heard a wee rumour yesterday that Lawwell is for the off at the end of the season. :pray:
Nah. He's paid a guaranteed £1 million to turn up at an AGM once a year.

Why in the name of eff would you leave that? It's basically free money. :lol:
He might not want to and may have been told to. :lol:

Edit: To add, I don't know the ifs and hows, but just that he might not be here at the end of the season. I'm not PMing sources or 'owt, before any carrot tries to batter me with it. But it's via a journo.


Edited by SwavBhoy, 11 Mar 2016, 01:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Farkakt AlteKaker
Crowded elevators smell different to midgets
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
SwavBhoy
11 Mar 2016, 01:02 PM
Dannybhoy95
11 Mar 2016, 11:34 AM
SwavBhoy
11 Mar 2016, 09:48 AM
I heard a wee rumour yesterday that Lawwell is for the off at the end of the season. :pray:
Nah. He's paid a guaranteed £1 million to turn up at an AGM once a year.

Why in the name of eff would you leave that? It's basically free money. :lol:
He might not want to and may have been told to. :lol:

Edit: To add, I don't know the ifs and hows, but just that he might not be here at the end of the season. I'm not PMing sources or 'owt, before any carrot tries to batter me with it. But it's via a journo.


You owe me one :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pussyfoot
À la mode if you will
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
CelticTigress
11 Mar 2016, 12:57 PM
“There is a great deal of chat on social media this week about Res 12 which was tabled and adjourned at the 2012 AGM of Celtic PLC, and so I want to clarify a couple of things which Paul has allowed me to do here

As a reminder, the exact terms of the resolution are to be found here:

This AGM requests the Board exercise the provision contained in the Procedural Rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body Article 10 with jurisdiction and investigation responsibilities identified in articles 3 & 11 (Note-1), by referring/bringing to the attention of the UEFA Club Financial control Body (CFCB), the licensing administration practices of The Scottish Football Association (SFA), requesting the CFCB undertake a review and investigate the SFA’s implementation of UEFA & SFA license compliance requirements, with regard to qualification, administration and granting of licenses to compete in football competitions under both SFA and UEFA Jurisdiction, since the implementation of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations of 2010.

While the Celtic PLC Board originally viewed the resolution as unnecessary, once further consideration of the issues raised by the shareholders had been examined, the Celtic board changed their mind and agreed to adjourn the resolution with a view to working with the shareholders representatives by investigating the procedures complained of and making enquiries of the SFA.

In the intervening period of time, there have been numerous meetings and consistent correspondence between those shareholders and officials of Celtic PLC, all with a view to furthering the aims of Res 12, and there is no doubt that the Celtic board have played a full part in taking the resolution to where it now stands.

Whilst the investigation process was slow, both shareholders and the board were satisfied that there was merit in seeking answers from the SFA, as previous responses to earlier enquiries from Celtic PLC were not convincing or sufficiently detailed.

Working together, the board and the shareholders have seen to it that formal letters of enquiry have been sent to the SFA, together with various pieces of documentation and supporting evidence.

Through the shareholders’ lawyers, the SFA were asked to answer specific detailed questions in relation to their procedures, however the SFA responded by saying they would not answer any questions other than through the “member club” i.e. the board of Celtic PLC.

This raises an issue for all football supporters – especially those who are shareholders in a football club – and it begs the question whether or not supporters and shareholders should be able to hold a governing body to account in the event of maladministration.

I believe they should but that is a bigger issue for another day and it will be revisited in due course.

However, what is most important for everyone to know is that there can be no doubt that serious questions have been asked, were asked of the right people and were backed up by documentation prepared in conjunction with the board of Celtic PLC.

I have seen speculation yesterday that perhaps Celtic did not fully know of what was going on or that somehow there had not been full and forensic research completed into the matters concerned etc, or that Celtic PLC have done nothing to back the resolution. All of that is simply not true and at all times the Celtic PLC board have been party to, and have played their part in, the entire process.

The whole purpose of writing to the SFA in the first place was to afford the powers that be within Hampden the chance to avoid a potential enquiry by UEFA into the way that they handled UEFA licence applications in 2011.

The SFA did not take that chance and ducked answering the detailed legal questions put to them by the Shareholders’ solicitors and instead chose to respond saying they would only explain matters to Celtic PLC and their board.

It would now appear that the SFA are prevaricating (again) in giving any meaningful response to Celtic PLC and so, after a period of silence, the obvious next stage in the process is to make formal enquiries and investigations through UEFA.

At the outset, both the board and the shareholders agreed that this would be the inevitable outcome if the SFA were not full, frank and forthright in providing any response.

Both the Celtic PLC board and the shareholders wish the matter to be referred to UEFA at this time, that is agreed, especially as there is a need to ensure that there is no prospect of any investigation being time barred by the UEFA rules which place a five year time limit for proceedings.

However, it is here that there is a divergence of opinion between the board and the shareholders. The shareholders believe that any reference to UEFA should come from the club, while the club would prefer the shareholders to refer the matter to UEFA in line with the previous enquiries made to the SFA.

However, I stress both parties have stated they want the matter placed before the appropriate UEFA committee.

As of yesterday, it was agreed that the Shareholders will formally write to UEFA via their solicitors, but they believe that ultimately this will be, and should be, a matter for the club as it is undoubtedly the case that any complaint to UEFA will have to make reference to the correspondence and answers already provided to Celtic PLC via the SFA.

There is also no doubt that whoever refers the matter to UEFA, that same body will end up having to make enquiries of Celtic PLC as it was to Celtic that the SFA said they would reply, and it was to Celtic PLC that the SFA gave previous replies by way of correspondence.

Accordingly the board will have to advise UEFA quite clearly what those replies entailed, comment on the matters raised in the shareholders letter, and whether or not they, as a board, are satisfied with the replies provided to the board by the SFA.

Accordingly, once the matter goes to UEFA there is no prospect of the Celtic Board not being further involved.

What is also quite clear is that once the shareholders have referred the matter to UEFA, there is very little else they can do as an independent body. They have taken this as far as they can, have worked with the PLC board, engaged independent solicitors and formally presented questions to the SFA together with supporting documentation and all with the help and support of the board of Celtic PLC.

If there is a clamour for greater representation and accountability for the ordinary football fan then they can lend their support to that – irrespective of what team the fan may support.

However, in relation to the particulars of Res 12, the shareholders have approached the board, worked with the board ( and acknowledge that the board have worked with them ) but ultimately it is for the PLC to take these matters to their final conclusion as the board of directors represent the whole PLC and speak with a far stronger corporate voice.

That was the whole purpose of the resolution in the first place.”

- See more at: http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/res-12-the-journey-so-far-and-the-journey-to-come/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.JBHdqZrE.dpuf
From Paul:

People in public or quasi-public bodies don’t get sacked as often for making mistakes as for the subsequent cover up. I have seen evidence which suggests the SFA was duped (to borrow a term) by a member club in 2011 regarding their Uefa eligibility application.

No information was available to the Association at the time which could have substantiated this, but evidence has come to light since through legal and liquidation processes, and more will be presented at court in due course. The SFA’s failure to critically assess what happened in 2011 feels like a cover up. When you start a cover up, you better be in total control, or you end up getting sacked.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ffdiva
Member Avatar
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Pussyfoot
11 Mar 2016, 01:18 PM
CelticTigress
11 Mar 2016, 12:57 PM
“There is a great deal of chat on social media this week about Res 12 which was tabled and adjourned at the 2012 AGM of Celtic PLC, and so I want to clarify a couple of things which Paul has allowed me to do here

As a reminder, the exact terms of the resolution are to be found here:

This AGM requests the Board exercise the provision contained in the Procedural Rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body Article 10 with jurisdiction and investigation responsibilities identified in articles 3 & 11 (Note-1), by referring/bringing to the attention of the UEFA Club Financial control Body (CFCB), the licensing administration practices of The Scottish Football Association (SFA), requesting the CFCB undertake a review and investigate the SFA’s implementation of UEFA & SFA license compliance requirements, with regard to qualification, administration and granting of licenses to compete in football competitions under both SFA and UEFA Jurisdiction, since the implementation of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations of 2010.

While the Celtic PLC Board originally viewed the resolution as unnecessary, once further consideration of the issues raised by the shareholders had been examined, the Celtic board changed their mind and agreed to adjourn the resolution with a view to working with the shareholders representatives by investigating the procedures complained of and making enquiries of the SFA.

In the intervening period of time, there have been numerous meetings and consistent correspondence between those shareholders and officials of Celtic PLC, all with a view to furthering the aims of Res 12, and there is no doubt that the Celtic board have played a full part in taking the resolution to where it now stands.

Whilst the investigation process was slow, both shareholders and the board were satisfied that there was merit in seeking answers from the SFA, as previous responses to earlier enquiries from Celtic PLC were not convincing or sufficiently detailed.

Working together, the board and the shareholders have seen to it that formal letters of enquiry have been sent to the SFA, together with various pieces of documentation and supporting evidence.

Through the shareholders’ lawyers, the SFA were asked to answer specific detailed questions in relation to their procedures, however the SFA responded by saying they would not answer any questions other than through the “member club” i.e. the board of Celtic PLC.

This raises an issue for all football supporters – especially those who are shareholders in a football club – and it begs the question whether or not supporters and shareholders should be able to hold a governing body to account in the event of maladministration.

I believe they should but that is a bigger issue for another day and it will be revisited in due course.

However, what is most important for everyone to know is that there can be no doubt that serious questions have been asked, were asked of the right people and were backed up by documentation prepared in conjunction with the board of Celtic PLC.

I have seen speculation yesterday that perhaps Celtic did not fully know of what was going on or that somehow there had not been full and forensic research completed into the matters concerned etc, or that Celtic PLC have done nothing to back the resolution. All of that is simply not true and at all times the Celtic PLC board have been party to, and have played their part in, the entire process.

The whole purpose of writing to the SFA in the first place was to afford the powers that be within Hampden the chance to avoid a potential enquiry by UEFA into the way that they handled UEFA licence applications in 2011.

The SFA did not take that chance and ducked answering the detailed legal questions put to them by the Shareholders’ solicitors and instead chose to respond saying they would only explain matters to Celtic PLC and their board.

It would now appear that the SFA are prevaricating (again) in giving any meaningful response to Celtic PLC and so, after a period of silence, the obvious next stage in the process is to make formal enquiries and investigations through UEFA.

At the outset, both the board and the shareholders agreed that this would be the inevitable outcome if the SFA were not full, frank and forthright in providing any response.

Both the Celtic PLC board and the shareholders wish the matter to be referred to UEFA at this time, that is agreed, especially as there is a need to ensure that there is no prospect of any investigation being time barred by the UEFA rules which place a five year time limit for proceedings.

However, it is here that there is a divergence of opinion between the board and the shareholders. The shareholders believe that any reference to UEFA should come from the club, while the club would prefer the shareholders to refer the matter to UEFA in line with the previous enquiries made to the SFA.

However, I stress both parties have stated they want the matter placed before the appropriate UEFA committee.

As of yesterday, it was agreed that the Shareholders will formally write to UEFA via their solicitors, but they believe that ultimately this will be, and should be, a matter for the club as it is undoubtedly the case that any complaint to UEFA will have to make reference to the correspondence and answers already provided to Celtic PLC via the SFA.

There is also no doubt that whoever refers the matter to UEFA, that same body will end up having to make enquiries of Celtic PLC as it was to Celtic that the SFA said they would reply, and it was to Celtic PLC that the SFA gave previous replies by way of correspondence.

Accordingly the board will have to advise UEFA quite clearly what those replies entailed, comment on the matters raised in the shareholders letter, and whether or not they, as a board, are satisfied with the replies provided to the board by the SFA.

Accordingly, once the matter goes to UEFA there is no prospect of the Celtic Board not being further involved.

What is also quite clear is that once the shareholders have referred the matter to UEFA, there is very little else they can do as an independent body. They have taken this as far as they can, have worked with the PLC board, engaged independent solicitors and formally presented questions to the SFA together with supporting documentation and all with the help and support of the board of Celtic PLC.

If there is a clamour for greater representation and accountability for the ordinary football fan then they can lend their support to that – irrespective of what team the fan may support.

However, in relation to the particulars of Res 12, the shareholders have approached the board, worked with the board ( and acknowledge that the board have worked with them ) but ultimately it is for the PLC to take these matters to their final conclusion as the board of directors represent the whole PLC and speak with a far stronger corporate voice.

That was the whole purpose of the resolution in the first place.”

- See more at: http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/res-12-the-journey-so-far-and-the-journey-to-come/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.JBHdqZrE.dpuf
From Paul:

People in public or quasi-public bodies don’t get sacked as often for making mistakes as for the subsequent cover up. I have seen evidence which suggests the SFA was duped (to borrow a term) by a member club in 2011 regarding their Uefa eligibility application.

No information was available to the Association at the time which could have substantiated this, but evidence has come to light since through legal and liquidation processes, and more will be presented at court in due course. The SFA’s failure to critically assess what happened in 2011 feels like a cover up. When you start a cover up, you better be in total control, or you end up getting sacked.

STILL no explanation of why the club are delegating this to the Res 12 guys to take to UEFA. :suspect:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jamiebhoy76
Member Avatar
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Farkakt AlteKaker
11 Mar 2016, 11:39 AM
SwavBhoy
11 Mar 2016, 09:48 AM
I heard a wee rumour yesterday that Lawwell is for the off at the end of the season. :pray:
Personal reasons :suspect:
Does lynching come under personal reasons.

Would probably suit Lawwell perfectly to leave after this season. The team, support and club standing obliterated all to ensure his bonus is paid and his financials look good. Doesn't have to deal with the R12 issue, doesn't have to deal with any of the other hun/SFA wrongdoing and then when he steps away he gets to live in peace with a small fortune.

The guy has never put anything on the line for us or stuck his neck out once for us, and he's did it with a smile on his face.

eff you Lawwell, eff you.

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