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 (1,414,628 Views)
shugmc
Member Avatar
I was there
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Looks like the Graun can't be bothered with the hassle. I expect better from Greenslade, right enough :suspect:

Hopefully Private Eye will print it. They don't give a f*ck who they annoy :thumbsup:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
idyllwild


Marado
10 Jun 2016, 11:33 AM
idyllwild
10 Jun 2016, 10:28 AM
I don't see the big deal here. Journalists can be wrong, and newspapers can reject adverts for "normal" business or legal reasons. It probably happens pretty frequently.

It doesn't need to be part of a grand conspiracy.
Looks like they have managed to get to everyone. :o
:lol:

The other part of the conspiracy I don't understand is the belief that the sponsors of Scottish football might not want a public squabble between Celtic and Rangers. Eff sake, anyone involved in the game should be playing up the rivalry. Might even be the reason why the club are rumoured to be breaking cover on it. Good for business to fight with the Huns, but without going down the "Old Firm" route.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cossy
First-team captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Luca
10 Jun 2016, 11:20 AM
Forza
10 Jun 2016, 10:46 AM
Luca
10 Jun 2016, 10:41 AM
Can someone summarise this entire Res 12 situation - I'm not well versed enough on the ins and outs of it and my boss, a Londoner, just asked me if I could explain it to him :twitch:
Rangers obtained a licence to play European football in season 2011/12 from the SFA despite *potentially* having overdue payables to tax authorities at a certain date. This would be against UEFA rules for obtaining a licence and the SFA would be culpable for allowing a member club to enter European competitor at the expense of other member clubs who were up to date with their taxes.
So we were fleeced of a potential £10m-£12m of CL money? Or, if not us, another team was?

Is Resolution 12 the name of the rule?

Cheers :thumbsup:
No Resolution 12 refers to when it was first brought up at a Celtic AGM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Devo
Member Avatar
Occasional Substitute
[ *  *  *  * ]
rightsaidted
10 Jun 2016, 09:44 AM
tinytim81
10 Jun 2016, 09:31 AM
I assume there can only be one of two reasons for the Guardian's decision:

1. Lots of Sevco fans are avid Guardian readers and they don't want to upset them.

2. They were concerned that there could be legal ramifications if they ran the 'ad' which as I understand it was basically just a statement.

Based on the fact option one is an impossibility I'd go with the latter.
The most likely reason is neither of your two possibles. The most likely reason the advert was spiked is that a company with a large advertising account at the Guardian (and let's not forget the Herald) leaned on them to drop it. Could have been Ladbrokes or William Hills or both. Ladbrokes is represented by Level 5 and former CEO of Hills is Ralph Topping, now chair of the SPFL. I'd have a tenner on the double.
Edit - At Paddy Powers.
Or Sky and BT which both want the 'old firm' to continue and don't want anything to upset that myth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luca
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Cossy
10 Jun 2016, 11:40 AM
Luca
10 Jun 2016, 11:20 AM
Forza
10 Jun 2016, 10:46 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
So we were fleeced of a potential £10m-£12m of CL money? Or, if not us, another team was?

Is Resolution 12 the name of the rule?

Cheers :thumbsup:
No Resolution 12 refers to when it was first brought up at a Celtic AGM.
Aah, ok, thanks for that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
greenjedi
Member Avatar
Jedi Master
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm begining to think that the board only hired Rodgers to get season tickets moving so they wouldn't have to comment on resolution 12 to get the fans to sign up
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fatboab
Member Avatar
Just before the Dawn

greenjedi
10 Jun 2016, 11:57 AM
I'm begining to think that the board only hired Rodgers to get season tickets moving so they wouldn't have to comment on resolution 12 to get the fans to sign up
you'll run out of tin foil at this rate. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
greenjedi
Member Avatar
Jedi Master
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
fatboab
10 Jun 2016, 12:01 PM
greenjedi
10 Jun 2016, 11:57 AM
I'm begining to think that the board only hired Rodgers to get season tickets moving so they wouldn't have to comment on resolution 12 to get the fans to sign up
you'll run out of tin foil at this rate. :lol:
:lol:

As I said a few days ago the only reason the Board would have backed the fans and Res12 was if they needed them. They don't need us now, as they've got the dosh
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hoops For Me All The Way
Member Avatar
You want equality? Consider if that person feels Equal.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
idyllwild
10 Jun 2016, 10:44 AM
Wanyerma
10 Jun 2016, 10:37 AM
idyllwild
10 Jun 2016, 10:33 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Oh indeed, anyone who thinks that is a rocket. This will all be to do with advertisers threatening to pull the plug. Everything about Rangers/Sevco and the myths being about same club etc are commercial decisions. From newspapers, to sky, to BT, it's about the blue moolah.
I agree, though I wouldn't even think it's about the blue moolah. Not directly anyway. I think they just don't want to be brought into (even if being paid for it) what is largely seen from the outside as a domestic football argument.
I must be wrong, as I was under the impression that this has ramifications for European football relative to UEFA. :ponder:

Of course, there is a domestic element and I agree with you entirely on that aspect. I wonder if the issue might concern other European clubs that RFC encountered on that particular European journey. Maybe in terms of equality of application of rules to allow all teams to participate in UEFA competitions.

You could then perhaps ask if other clubs who have been the subject of sanctions by UEFA for licensing breaches might have an interest, as they might wish to witness rules applied equitably.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quiet Assasin
Member Avatar
..for the maintenance of dinner tables for the children and the unemployed
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hoops For Me All The Way
10 Jun 2016, 01:33 PM
idyllwild
10 Jun 2016, 10:44 AM
Wanyerma
10 Jun 2016, 10:37 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I agree, though I wouldn't even think it's about the blue moolah. Not directly anyway. I think they just don't want to be brought into (even if being paid for it) what is largely seen from the outside as a domestic football argument.
I must be wrong, as I was under the impression that this has ramifications for European football relative to UEFA. :ponder:

Of course, there is a domestic element and I agree with you entirely on that aspect. I wonder if the issue might concern other European clubs that RFC encountered on that particular European journey. Maybe in terms of equality of application of rules to allow all teams to participate in UEFA competitions.

You could then perhaps ask if other clubs who have been the subject of sanctions by UEFA for licensing breaches might have an interest, as they might wish to witness rules applied equitably.
Every team they played beat them :lol:
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CHR15
Member Avatar
I'll take 2 of those feckin sheep giraffes please
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
idyllwild
10 Jun 2016, 10:28 AM
I don't see the big deal here. Journalists can be wrong, and newspapers can reject adverts for "normal" business or legal reasons. It probably happens pretty frequently.

It doesn't need to be part of a grand conspiracy.
Did you miss the bits where CQN relayed the conversations of the ad being spiked from way above the sales editors?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wee Ed KTF
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
CHR15
10 Jun 2016, 02:54 PM
idyllwild
10 Jun 2016, 10:28 AM
I don't see the big deal here. Journalists can be wrong, and newspapers can reject adverts for "normal" business or legal reasons. It probably happens pretty frequently.

It doesn't need to be part of a grand conspiracy.
Did you miss the bits where CQN relayed the conversations of the ad being spiked from way above the sales editors?
And why did The Guardian lie about a French version of the advert, when there was not, ever a French version?

:suspect:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
trevg
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Wee Ed KTF
10 Jun 2016, 02:57 PM
CHR15
10 Jun 2016, 02:54 PM
idyllwild
10 Jun 2016, 10:28 AM
I don't see the big deal here. Journalists can be wrong, and newspapers can reject adverts for "normal" business or legal reasons. It probably happens pretty frequently.

It doesn't need to be part of a grand conspiracy.
Did you miss the bits where CQN relayed the conversations of the ad being spiked from way above the sales editors?
And why did The Guardian lie about a French version of the advert, when there was not, ever a French version?

:suspect:
By the time The Guardian had finished with it the ad would probably look like it was in a foreign language :thumbsup:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CHR15
Member Avatar
I'll take 2 of those feckin sheep giraffes please
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Luca
10 Jun 2016, 11:43 AM
Cossy
10 Jun 2016, 11:40 AM
Luca
10 Jun 2016, 11:20 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
No Resolution 12 refers to when it was first brought up at a Celtic AGM.
Aah, ok, thanks for that.
Resolution 12 was introduced at the 2013 Celtic AGM. It requested the club ask UEFA to investigate the circumstances around the deid Huns getting a licence (from the SFA) to play in UEFA competition in season 2011-2012

UEFA Article 50 requires licence applicants to have no overdue payables to social and tax authorities as of the March 30 cutoff date

UEFA Article 66 is similar, but the cutoff date is 30 June

We know HMRC sent the Huns a bill in May 2011 (around 16 May) with a determination they owed 2.8M in taxes over the Discounted Options Scheme (DOS) used to remunerate Tore Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer.

We know that same bill had 30 days to be paid before HMRC said they'd proceed with enforcement action

We know the SFA have repeatedly said because there was no 'agreed' liability prior to the March 30 cutoff date, they correctly allowed the deid Huns a licence for Europe for season 2011-2012 per Article 50

We know (per the HMRC bill sent in May) that the deid Huns had agreed the liability at least by that point

We know the bill was never paid

We know the deid Huns raised a petition at the Court of Session to have the HMRC determinations set aside in early June 2011

We don't know (ok, I don't know) what transpired from that petition

We know the SFA are claiming the period ending June 30 (per UEFA Article 66) was UEFA's responsibility to monitor and not theirs

We know the Huns had (per UEFA Article 66) to declare to the SFA they had no overdue payables to HMRC on the June 30 cutoff date, with a requirement to show written acceptance of a deferral agreement by HMRC (the creditor) if they were claiming the overdue payable (tax bill of 2.8M) was deferred or on a payment plan. (The other requirement was to have an accepted legal case against the bill, see my earlier line re: Court of Session, if no deferral agreement/payment plan was in place and accepted in writing by HMRC)

We don't know what the deid Huns said to the SFA nor do we know what the SFA did with any info the deid Huns threw their way



I think that's all correct.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
londonroad
First name on the team-sheet
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
CHR15
10 Jun 2016, 03:10 PM
Luca
10 Jun 2016, 11:43 AM
Cossy
10 Jun 2016, 11:40 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Aah, ok, thanks for that.
Resolution 12 was introduced at the 2013 Celtic AGM. It requested the club ask UEFA to investigate the circumstances around the deid Huns getting a licence (from the SFA) to play in UEFA competition in season 2011-2012

UEFA Article 50 requires licence applicants to have no overdue payables to social and tax authorities as of the March 30 cutoff date

UEFA Article 66 is similar, but the cutoff date is 30 June

We know HMRC sent the Huns a bill in May 2011 (around 16 May) with a determination they owed 2.8M in taxes over the Discounted Options Scheme (DOS) used to remunerate Tore Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer.

We know that same bill had 30 days to be paid before HMRC said they'd proceed with enforcement action

We know the SFA have repeatedly said because there was no 'agreed' liability prior to the March 30 cutoff date, they correctly allowed the deid Huns a licence for Europe for season 2011-2012 per Article 50

We know (per the HMRC bill sent in May) that the deid Huns had agreed the liability at least by that point

We know the bill was never paid

We know the deid Huns raised a petition at the Court of Session to have the HMRC determinations set aside in early June 2011

We don't know (ok, I don't know) what transpired from that petition

We know the SFA are claiming the period ending June 30 (per UEFA Article 66) was UEFA's responsibility to monitor and not theirs

We know the Huns had (per UEFA Article 66) to declare to the SFA they had no overdue payables to HMRC on the June 30 cutoff date, with a requirement to show written acceptance of a deferral agreement by HMRC (the creditor) if they were claiming the overdue payable (tax bill of 2.8M) was deferred or on a payment plan. (The other requirement was to have an accepted legal case against the bill, see my earlier line re: Court of Session, if no deferral agreement/payment plan was in place and accepted in writing by HMRC)

We don't know what the deid Huns said to the SFA nor do we know what the SFA did with any info the deid Huns threw their way



I think that's all correct.
So, in summary, there are known knowns and known unknowns but we don't know if there are unknown knowns?

#donaldrumsfeld.csc
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
markovan
Member Avatar
Why don't we just wait here for a while... see what happens.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quiet Assasin
10 Jun 2016, 01:38 PM
Hoops For Me All The Way
10 Jun 2016, 01:33 PM
idyllwild
10 Jun 2016, 10:44 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I must be wrong, as I was under the impression that this has ramifications for European football relative to UEFA. :ponder:

Of course, there is a domestic element and I agree with you entirely on that aspect. I wonder if the issue might concern other European clubs that RFC encountered on that particular European journey. Maybe in terms of equality of application of rules to allow all teams to participate in UEFA competitions.

You could then perhaps ask if other clubs who have been the subject of sanctions by UEFA for licensing breaches might have an interest, as they might wish to witness rules applied equitably.
Every team they played beat them :lol:
Get some European money but give no opposition a reason to complain.

Was Whittaker not sent off after 18 mins for a stupid, some might say planned, ball throwing incident in one of those affected games? I never understood why he did it and thought it was a Murray vs Whyte issue.

Makes a wee bit more sense now...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Smiley
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Wee Ed KTF
10 Jun 2016, 02:57 PM
CHR15
10 Jun 2016, 02:54 PM
idyllwild
10 Jun 2016, 10:28 AM
I don't see the big deal here. Journalists can be wrong, and newspapers can reject adverts for "normal" business or legal reasons. It probably happens pretty frequently.

It doesn't need to be part of a grand conspiracy.
Did you miss the bits where CQN relayed the conversations of the ad being spiked from way above the sales editors?
And why did The Guardian lie about a French version of the advert, when there was not, ever a French version?

:suspect:
Even if it really was passed to a boss's boss's boss that doesn't suggest a conspiracy, though - this may well be normal practice in the Guardian, sounds like normal practice at my midden anyway. And the claim about it being in French mightn't be a lie either - is simply making a mistake not more likely here? Unless...well, what's the suggestion here? A sales manager pretended the ad was originally in French...for what conspiratorial benefit exactly?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
idyllwild


CHR15
10 Jun 2016, 02:54 PM
idyllwild
10 Jun 2016, 10:28 AM
I don't see the big deal here. Journalists can be wrong, and newspapers can reject adverts for "normal" business or legal reasons. It probably happens pretty frequently.

It doesn't need to be part of a grand conspiracy.
Did you miss the bits where CQN relayed the conversations of the ad being spiked from way above the sales editors?
Sorry, I haven't gone near CQN for years.

To be honest, I don't actually understand what grand conspiracy the Guardian are supposed to be part of here. Who's bidding are they doing by rejecting an advert, and why? :ponder:

As I said, my opinion is that they probably can't be arsed with the hassle of what the world outside Scottish football (rightly or wrongly) sees as a domestic dispute between us and them.

We've a fair old history of acting offended and cliping to UEFA about one another's slightest perceived indiscretions. It'd hardly be a surprise if the rest of the world chose not to be a conduit for what they probably perceive to be more of the same. Because this stuff with us and them never ends after one isolated action. It goes on forever, even after they died.

Is this issue worth highlighting? Yes. Is it also understandable that others may not give a eff or wish to be involved? Yes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
murphio
Member Avatar
Could start a row in an empty room
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
idyllwild
10 Jun 2016, 03:38 PM
CHR15
10 Jun 2016, 02:54 PM
idyllwild
10 Jun 2016, 10:28 AM
I don't see the big deal here. Journalists can be wrong, and newspapers can reject adverts for "normal" business or legal reasons. It probably happens pretty frequently.

It doesn't need to be part of a grand conspiracy.
Did you miss the bits where CQN relayed the conversations of the ad being spiked from way above the sales editors?
Sorry, I haven't gone near CQN for years.

To be honest, I don't actually understand what grand conspiracy the Guardian are supposed to be part of here. Who's bidding are they doing by rejecting an advert, and why? :ponder:

As I said, my opinion is that they probably can't be arsed with the hassle of what the world outside Scottish football (rightly or wrongly) sees as a domestic dispute between us and them.

We've a fair old history of acting offended and cliping to UEFA about one another's slightest perceived indiscretions. It'd hardly be a surprise if the rest of the world chose not to be a conduit for what they probably perceive to be more of the same. Because this stuff with us and them never ends after one isolated action. It goes on forever, even after they died.

Is this issue worth highlighting? Yes. Is it also understandable that others may not give a eff or wish to be involved? Yes.
Spot on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adam Smith 11
Member Avatar
Contract up for renewal, now on a diet and trying harder.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
murphio
10 Jun 2016, 04:01 PM
idyllwild
10 Jun 2016, 03:38 PM
CHR15
10 Jun 2016, 02:54 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Sorry, I haven't gone near CQN for years.

To be honest, I don't actually understand what grand conspiracy the Guardian are supposed to be part of here. Who's bidding are they doing by rejecting an advert, and why? :ponder:

As I said, my opinion is that they probably can't be arsed with the hassle of what the world outside Scottish football (rightly or wrongly) sees as a domestic dispute between us and them.

We've a fair old history of acting offended and cliping to UEFA about one another's slightest perceived indiscretions. It'd hardly be a surprise if the rest of the world chose not to be a conduit for what they probably perceive to be more of the same. Because this stuff with us and them never ends after one isolated action. It goes on forever, even after they died.

Is this issue worth highlighting? Yes. Is it also understandable that others may not give a eff or wish to be involved? Yes.
Spot on.
Next you will be telling us Bielefeld is real. :angry:
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