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 (1,414,656 Views)
Mubo Loravcik
Member Avatar
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
That's quite an impressive straw man there Peter, didn't realise the fans were demanding a £40-50 million warchest :ffs:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lubo The Magician
Member Avatar
The Devil's right hand...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Peter Lawwell
 
There is an excitement here which should be an attraction for somebody to come
:ffs:

That is such obvious bull shampoo, he can't be a regular attendee at home games if the thinks that. There is no excitement, there is plenty of apathy and discontent. He really thinks Celtic fans are stupid.

He has to go, he is no Celtic fan, he's a money grabbing accountant in love with is £1m a year pay package.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cossy
First-team captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
So no more insight into how much say he's got on who is signed? Thought not.

This guy is toxic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beer_goggler1888
Member Avatar
Harp Lager ICE cold
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]

Who the effs asking for 50 million quid? We should ask why do you earn a million quid a year.


The premier league isn't the only league in the world Peter. All were asking is appoint a football manager with proven ability and stop spending our hard earned on crap footballers like Amido Balde and more Bangura. Too much to ask?

Ps. Stay the eff out of Dundee and Edinburgh when scouting players.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
McStay
Member Avatar
Espanyolification
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
He added: "It's an opportunity to change and reinvigorate. We have a long, long list which we'll shorten. There are the usual suspects, if you like, but hopefully there will be others we talk to as well.

"The further afield you go the more risk there is. We need to ask: 'Is that something we want to consider right now?' or should we be taking a lower risk option with someone closer to home.


Was always expecting either Lennon or Lambert anyway but this just makes it more obvious, imo.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
West End Bhoy
Member Avatar
First-team starter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Lawwell is a pompous, arrogant pumpkin and this interview puts the tin lid on it.

Me, me, me. I, I, I. A self-absorbed buffoon.

"The supporters are entitled to their opinion". Eh, aye.

"The new me might not be as good as me". We'll take our chances

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fearghas
Member Avatar
First-team captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
not a word about res 12.

no surprise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fearghas
Member Avatar
First-team captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
tinytim81
10 May 2016, 10:52 PM
Larbert Bhoy
10 May 2016, 10:46 PM
tinytim81
10 May 2016, 10:32 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepPosted Image
You are being a dick.
No, I'm making reasonable points.
as has been pointed out, it was very bad timing to give the sun an exclusive.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Belgrano
Member Avatar
-
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
He has to go, he has to get to eff!

Was that interview conducted behind a mahogany desk? Murray-like arseholeness reeking from it. It's like bullshampoo bingo with this guy now in what he says every year, and how he says it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
riddlehouse
Member Avatar
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Belgrano
11 May 2016, 02:41 AM
He has to go, he has to get to eff!

Was that interview conducted behind a mahogany desk? Murray-like arseholeness reeking from it. It's like bullshampoo bingo with this guy now in what he says every year, and how he says it.
COMMENTATOR'S EYE.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fearghas
Member Avatar
First-team captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
player of the year, now he's a dick.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nacho
Member Avatar
For eating a meal?! A succulent chinese meeeeaaaal????!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
At least Murray owned the huns
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lubo The Magician
Member Avatar
The Devil's right hand...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Nothing on the official site from pathetic pete.

The post from the Huddleboard said he had done two interviews one for Celtic and one for a newspaper.

I doubt the official one will have anything not already with the murdoch rag so guess we know where pathetic pete's priorities are.

(edit why is l.a.w.e.l.l. swear filtered to Lawwell - who is offended by the deliberate misspelling of pete's name :ffs: he's a self serving clown who cares more about his salary than any football club)
Edited by Lubo The Magician, 11 May 2016, 03:38 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
barcabhoy
Member Avatar
First name on the team-sheet
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
A few thoughts on Res 12, and LNS , and what options are open to clubs . These issues are complex and thanks to others who have provided the research on some of the key points . They know who they are.

Res 12.

Do I think Rangers were incorrectly awarded a Uefa licence ? ....I don't know for sure , however i believe it's highly likely. Can it be proven ? Not without Uefa co-operation in my view.

If Rangers were incorrectly awarded a Uefa licence , who is responsible ? The SFA / UEFA / Rangers ? .....

1) I believe the SFA are in the clear. Their responsibility was to approve the licence application at March 31. There was no overdue tax at that point.

2) Uefa could have granted an exception should there have been unpaid tax at June 30, however there were restrictions on their ability to do that and a responsibility to inform the SFA that an exception had been made . There was overdue tax and therefore if a licence was granted it had to be by exception.

" Exceptions related to items a), b), c), e) and f) are granted to a UEFA member
association and apply to all clubs which are registered with the UEFA member
association and which submit a licensing application to enter the UEFA club
competitions."

The Process for requesting an exception

"An exception request must be in writing, clear and well founded", and other for exceptions under the 3 year rule, "must be submitted by the UEFA member association to the UEFA"

In other words, for an exception to be granted, it is the SFA who would have required to have submitted the "clear and well-founded" written application.

Relevant grounds, in the case in question, for UEFA discretion over the requirements of Annex VIII.

a) The relevant amount has been paid.
b) The creditor has accepted, in writing, an agreement to extend the payment terms.
c) It has brought a legal claim disputing liability.
d) It is able to demonstrate that the clain against it is manifestly unfounded.

We know that none of the above applied in Rangers case . So it's highly unlikely a
"clear and well-founded" written application could have been made.

Given the heat the SFA have had over this they could have killed Res 12 stone dead by confirming Uefa issued an exception. They would also have had to inform all Scottish clubs at the time of the exception. The fact that they haven't and didn't is as conclusive you can get that there was no exception. There is also the fact that none of the exceptions criteria applied in Rangers case. We just don't know 100% that there was no exception but we can be almost certain that this was the case.

3) Which leaves only one possibility for the issuing of the licence . Rangers lied to Uefa when they had to confirm they had no overdue tax payables at June 30. Whyte lied to anyone and everyone, therefore it's no stretch at all to believe that he lied to Uefa.

LNS

The key issues for me are :

1) Why was the enquiry period covered changed from 1998 to 2000 ?

The SPL announced on March 5th 2012 that the enquiry would cover payments made on or on behalf of Rangers since 1st July 1998 .

The SPL then on 2nd August 2012 announced that the enquiry would cover payments made on or on behalf of Rangers between 2000 and 2011.

Suggestions that the DOS was subject to appeal are nonsense. The debt was included in the CVA proposal from Duff and Phelps on May 2012. It wasn't in a category of "to be confirmed " . It was confirmed at £3.052 Million and confirmed as due to HMRC. So no dispute no appeal.

2) Why did the SPL accept that Rangers EBT use was and always would be lawful even if it was overturned on appeal ?

The unanimous decision of the Court of Session has shown that acceptance of permanent innocence to be ludicrous. The FTT majority decision clearly suited the SPL. So much so that they didn't want to use any future decision that overturned it.

3) Why did the SPL accept Bryson's interpretation ? Why didn't they bring evidence of action taken by the SFA over minor discrepancies in registration for other clubs. These routinely resulted in the SFA overturning results and expelling clubs from competitions for issues as trivial as only dating a document once rather than twice. Bryson's interpretation clearly suited the SPL.

4) Why did the SPL accept Ogilvie's evidence without question or query.

They must have been fully aware of his role in setting up the DOS scheme given their original intention to include it in the enquiry . Ogilvie's response that he knew nothing about the EBT scheme opened up an obvious follow up along the lines of " were you aware of or involved in any tax schemes for players during your time at Rangers " . That the SPL didn't ask that question indicates clearly that were content to portray Ogilvie as innocent of any involvement in behaviour that brings the game into disrepute .

My own view is that Doncaster restricted the scope of the LNS enquiry to ensure Rangers would not receive the punishment their actions deserved. Doncaster more than any other regulatory official is responsible for damaging the integrity of the game in Scotland . His removal from office should be a prerequisite and a precursor to any reopening of the LNS enquiry.

LNS was the SPL's enquiry. It's scope and terms of reference were set by Doncaster, he instructed the SPL's solicitors .

What can the clubs do.

Ask yourself the following questions :

1) "Have i read the Rules of the SPFL ? "

2) " Have I read the articles of The SFA and the SPFL"

3) " If Yes to 1) and 2) do you fully understand what you have read ?

If you haven't answered Yes to all 3 of the above you shouldn't be venting about what any club can do . If you demand the club should be accusing anyone of cheating then you are effectively demanding the club be charged with bringing the game into disrepute and be slapped with a significant fine as a minimum.

Then ask yourself some follow up question.

4) Am i a senior decision maker in a £200 Million a year industry or am I a professional advisor in an industry of that size. Because if you haven't had that experience you aren't likely to understand that ranting and being overly confrontational is counter productive.

IF you can answer Yes to all 4 questions above you will know that you need to present your case in a manner that is fact based, is relevant and doesn't offend the people you are hoping will support your cause.

The alternative is to mouth off empty platitudes, promise the earth and generally rabble rouse in an irresponsible manner. Otherwise known as the Dave King strategy .

I'm happy my club take the issues seriously and don't look for cheap applause at the expense of a positive outcome. There is no guarantee Celtic will get justice for our support , and for Scottish football. They will though not dupe the support to take the pressure off of themselves


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomtheleedstim
First-team captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
barcabhoy
11 May 2016, 06:22 AM
A few thoughts on Res 12, and LNS , and what options are open to clubs . These issues are complex and thanks to others who have provided the research on some of the key points . They know who they are.

Res 12.

Do I think Rangers were incorrectly awarded a Uefa licence ? ....I don't know for sure , however i believe it's highly likely. Can it be proven ? Not without Uefa co-operation in my view.

If Rangers were incorrectly awarded a Uefa licence , who is responsible ? The SFA / UEFA / Rangers ? .....

1) I believe the SFA are in the clear. Their responsibility was to approve the licence application at March 31. There was no overdue tax at that point.

2) Uefa could have granted an exception should there have been unpaid tax at June 30, however there were restrictions on their ability to do that and a responsibility to inform the SFA that an exception had been made . There was overdue tax and therefore if a licence was granted it had to be by exception.

" Exceptions related to items a), b), c), e) and f) are granted to a UEFA member
association and apply to all clubs which are registered with the UEFA member
association and which submit a licensing application to enter the UEFA club
competitions."

The Process for requesting an exception

"An exception request must be in writing, clear and well founded", and other for exceptions under the 3 year rule, "must be submitted by the UEFA member association to the UEFA"

In other words, for an exception to be granted, it is the SFA who would have required to have submitted the "clear and well-founded" written application.

Relevant grounds, in the case in question, for UEFA discretion over the requirements of Annex VIII.

a) The relevant amount has been paid.
b) The creditor has accepted, in writing, an agreement to extend the payment terms.
c) It has brought a legal claim disputing liability.
d) It is able to demonstrate that the clain against it is manifestly unfounded.

We know that none of the above applied in Rangers case . So it's highly unlikely a
"clear and well-founded" written application could have been made.

Given the heat the SFA have had over this they could have killed Res 12 stone dead by confirming Uefa issued an exception. They would also have had to inform all Scottish clubs at the time of the exception. The fact that they haven't and didn't is as conclusive you can get that there was no exception. There is also the fact that none of the exceptions criteria applied in Rangers case. We just don't know 100% that there was no exception but we can be almost certain that this was the case.

3) Which leaves only one possibility for the issuing of the licence . Rangers lied to Uefa when they had to confirm they had no overdue tax payables at June 30. Whyte lied to anyone and everyone, therefore it's no stretch at all to believe that he lied to Uefa.

LNS

The key issues for me are :

1) Why was the enquiry period covered changed from 1998 to 2000 ?

The SPL announced on March 5th 2012 that the enquiry would cover payments made on or on behalf of Rangers since 1st July 1998 .

The SPL then on 2nd August 2012 announced that the enquiry would cover payments made on or on behalf of Rangers between 2000 and 2011.

Suggestions that the DOS was subject to appeal are nonsense. The debt was included in the CVA proposal from Duff and Phelps on May 2012. It wasn't in a category of "to be confirmed " . It was confirmed at £3.052 Million and confirmed as due to HMRC. So no dispute no appeal.

2) Why did the SPL accept that Rangers EBT use was and always would be lawful even if it was overturned on appeal ?

The unanimous decision of the Court of Session has shown that acceptance of permanent innocence to be ludicrous. The FTT majority decision clearly suited the SPL. So much so that they didn't want to use any future decision that overturned it.

3) Why did the SPL accept Bryson's interpretation ? Why didn't they bring evidence of action taken by the SFA over minor discrepancies in registration for other clubs. These routinely resulted in the SFA overturning results and expelling clubs from competitions for issues as trivial as only dating a document once rather than twice. Bryson's interpretation clearly suited the SPL.

4) Why did the SPL accept Ogilvie's evidence without question or query.

They must have been fully aware of his role in setting up the DOS scheme given their original intention to include it in the enquiry . Ogilvie's response that he knew nothing about the EBT scheme opened up an obvious follow up along the lines of " were you aware of or involved in any tax schemes for players during your time at Rangers " . That the SPL didn't ask that question indicates clearly that were content to portray Ogilvie as innocent of any involvement in behaviour that brings the game into disrepute .

My own view is that Doncaster restricted the scope of the LNS enquiry to ensure Rangers would not receive the punishment their actions deserved. Doncaster more than any other regulatory official is responsible for damaging the integrity of the game in Scotland . His removal from office should be a prerequisite and a precursor to any reopening of the LNS enquiry.

LNS was the SPL's enquiry. It's scope and terms of reference were set by Doncaster, he instructed the SPL's solicitors .

What can the clubs do.

Ask yourself the following questions :

1) "Have i read the Rules of the SPFL ? "

2) " Have I read the articles of The SFA and the SPFL"

3) " If Yes to 1) and 2) do you fully understand what you have read ?

If you haven't answered Yes to all 3 of the above you shouldn't be venting about what any club can do . If you demand the club should be accusing anyone of cheating then you are effectively demanding the club be charged with bringing the game into disrepute and be slapped with a significant fine as a minimum.

Then ask yourself some follow up question.

4) Am i a senior decision maker in a £200 Million a year industry or am I a professional advisor in an industry of that size. Because if you haven't had that experience you aren't likely to understand that ranting and being overly confrontational is counter productive.

IF you can answer Yes to all 4 questions above you will know that you need to present your case in a manner that is fact based, is relevant and doesn't offend the people you are hoping will support your cause.

The alternative is to mouth off empty platitudes, promise the earth and generally rabble rouse in an irresponsible manner. Otherwise known as the Dave King strategy .

I'm happy my club take the issues seriously and don't look for cheap applause at the expense of a positive outcome. There is no guarantee Celtic will get justice for our support , and for Scottish football. They will though not dupe the support to take the pressure off of themselves


I certainly couldn't answer yes to your three questions ( I'm a mere supporter after all) but perhaps you should ask if Peter Lawwell is able to pass your ability test. He's paid to do that.
If he can, why has it taken so long for res12 to reach this point and why did it take the intervention of other mere fans to get it to this point? My understanding is that he has been a reluctant partner, initially at least.
Is it not his job to ensure that the minutiae of all points Celtic are scrutinised?
Who else is charged with defending the best interests on the club, the shareholders and supporters if it isn't Lawwell?
Do you think he has been unimpeachable since these matters were first raised?

We have every right to question his decision making (The Sun ffs!) and frankly I think it's patronising of you to question the wider supports ability or right to do so, regardless of the issues involved.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lepetitmerde
Member Avatar
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
He really doesn't understand what the fans are saying. No carrot has asked for 40 million to be spent. eff sake.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
remy mcswain
Member Avatar
Big in Canada
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Looks like Lawwell will need to get his office door widened to fit his napper in.

That interview is a glorified PR piece and is a complete embarrassment.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pads99
Member Avatar
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The basic sub text is. STFU cos I'm great and I've had offers you know. Don't be thinking you'll be getting a big name manager.

No vision strategy or plan

Depressing
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerinho
Member Avatar
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
remy mcswain
11 May 2016, 07:35 AM
Looks like Lawwell will need to get his office door widened to fit his napper in.

That interview is a glorified PR piece and is a complete embarrassment.
A case of 'everyone look at me'.... Apart from the fact he chose the sun to interview with, the saddest part of it all is, theres not going to be a change in direction. Hes staying and its the status quo.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerinho
Member Avatar
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
remy mcswain
11 May 2016, 07:35 AM
Looks like Lawwell will need to get his office door widened to fit his napper in.

That interview is a glorified PR piece and is a complete embarrassment. Double post
Edited by Gerinho, 11 May 2016, 07:54 AM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Celtic Football Club Discussion Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply