European Commission seek explanation on Celtic land deals

[NitPicker14 0]

How much longer will we need to wait for this to be in the public domain or for the European Commission to make some sort of statement.

We had been told months ago on numerous occasions that an "announcement" or "statement" was just a few days away.

I'm starting to give up hope that they will get caught out.

[cumnockbear 2,446]

How much longer will we need to wait for this to be in the public domain or for the European Commission to make some sort of statement.

We had been told months ago on numerous occasions that an "announcement" or "statement" was just a few days away.

I'm starting to give up hope that they will get caught out.

Forever if you're the Scottish press, The EC will reveal it's decision when their investigation has came to it's conclusion which has no time scale, could take a year or more.

[Getstiffed 8,863]

Forever if you're the Scottish press, The EC will reveal it's decision when their investigation has came to it's conclusion which has no time scale, could take a year or more.

I think the mhanks actions recently, downsizing etc, tells us they believe it will be sooner rather than later.

[cumnockbear 2,446]

I think the mhanks actions recently, downsizing etc, tells us they believe it will be sooner rather than later.

I hope you're right Brother, i'm dying to see them getting punished severely and justice being served.

[Thermopylae 15,286]

I think the mhanks actions recently, downsizing etc, tells us they believe it will be sooner rather than later.

It couldn't happen to a nicer shower

[soulboy 2,518]

How much longer will we need to wait for this to be in the public domain or for the European Commission to make some sort of statement.

We had been told months ago on numerous occasions that an "announcement" or "statement" was just a few days away.

I'm starting to give up hope that they will get caught out.

pzj said that all land deals were being investigated even though originally FTH had only complained about westhorn.

Would the eu have asked to see the lennoxtown initiative accounts ? i very much doubt it so FTH digging up all these extra bits of info take time to be scrutinized by the EU.

If there was nothing in a complaint the complainant gets told within 2 months there is no case to answer, the fact that this has gone on for 9 months tends to suggest that this will go to a full investigation.

[Bad Robot 21,133]

The EC release a press statement every Friday with regards the situation on new, current or closing investigations.

You can subscribe to their weekly newsletter:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/newsletter/current_issue.pdf

[NitPicker14 0]

Really hope it does go the full way. I just wish their was some indication of something happening, a statement or a question from someone worth listening to.

In no way am I meaning PZJ or anyone else digging isn't. They are doing a brilliant job in trying to dig up dirt on the mhanks. But let's be honest it's not their or our opinion that matters.

It's the EC and UEFA that need to come out with something.

[Getstiffed 8,863]

I hope you're right Brother, i'm dying to see them getting punished severely and justice being served.

I have no feeling either way tbh. I wont lower myself to their level by sitting every day hoping for misfortune to befall them, time better spent wishing fortune on my own team.

However, they will get no sympathy from me either if there has been wrong doing on their part, which is looking more and more likely. They should be punished severely.

[Getstiffed 8,863]

It couldn't happen to a nicer shower

Now there's a word that rarely appears in connection to them.

[lancedeangers1 287]

What we need is to hire a full time group of professional experts and investigators funded by Rangers fans and any other person or group interested in sporting integrity and summary justice.

[soulboy 2,518]

https://footballtaxh...as-involvement/

New update today I didn't think that the eu would do anything about lennoxtown because it was greenbelt land but this is a different angle.

The scum got all the money back for lennoxtown and more and also used it as mortgage/loan security meaning they could afford to use the money on players instead financial, doping anyone ?

[The Educator 1,572]

Are there any records in existence that prove that c****c actually supplied the services they were being paid for under the terms of the SLA? The community education carried out in East Dunbartonshire was usually carried out in partnerships with colleges, the EDC, and any other funding body they could success a funding pot from and for a time that included EU funds.

The one name that I have never seen involved in any community education program in that area was c****c. Having said that as I have never had much to do with community education in the sporting field, though I would suggest that any local Bear who has access to the archive of whatever the local news paper is to have look as one would expect to see a number of stories showing representatives of c****c carrying out work paid or under he SLA, it would be good publicity for them. If there are none then one would have to ask if they were they carrying out their commitments as agreed under the SLA at all. If they were and there is no publicity one would have to ask were they keeping it quiet so that they wee not exposed as being paid to do it at the level they were.

One thing I would say is it would be very interesting to see if EDC had any community education agreement with Rangers via Murray Park. As this facility opened earlier than c****c's and sits within the area of East Dunbartonshire one would have expected that EDC would have been wanting to get in to a community program with Rangers at that time or later to get the 'Old Firm' angle for publicity reasons. I they have never had any community partnership with Rangers it would certainly look very strange.

As I have posted earlier I know that Cumbernauld College supplied tutors on a part-time basis to both Murray Park and Lennoxtown, how these contracts were funded I don't know, I had always presumed they were in partnership between the individual clubs and the College, and that the clubs would be paying the college for these services. I now have to wonder if this was the case especially in regard to c****c, if anybody has close links to staff to Murray Park I suggest you have a word and see what you can find out.

[sprotson11 147]

Are there any records in existence that prove that c****c actually supplied the services they were being paid for under the terms of the SLA? The community education carried out in East Dunbartonshire was usually carried out in partnerships with colleges, the EDC, and any other funding body they could success a funding pot from and for a time that included EU funds.

The one name that I have never seen involved in any community education program in that area was c****c. Having said that as I have never had much to do with community education in the sporting field, though I would suggest that any local Bear who has access to the archive of whatever the local news paper is to have look as one would expect to see a number of stories showing representatives of c****c carrying out work paid or under he SLA, it would be good publicity for them. If there are none then one would have to ask if they were they carrying out their commitments as agreed under the SLA at all. If they were and there is no publicity one would have to ask were they keeping it quiet so that they wee not exposed as being paid to do it at the level they were.

One thing I would say is it would be very interesting to see if EDC had any community education agreement with Rangers via Murray Park. As this facility opened earlier than c****c's and sits within the area of East Dunbartonshire one would have expected that EDC would have been wanting to get in to a community program with Rangers at that time or later to get the 'Old Firm' angle for publicity reasons. I they have never had any community partnership with Rangers it would certainly look very strange.

As I have posted earlier I know that Cumbernauld College supplied tutors on a part-time basis to both Murray Park and Lennoxtown, how these contracts were funded I don't know, I had always presumed they were in partnership between the individual clubs and the College, and that the clubs would be paying the college for these services. I now have to wonder if this was the case especially in regard to c****c, if anybody has close links to staff to Murray Park I suggest you have a word and see what you can find out.

I get your point, but surely they would not even go that far

[soulboy 2,518]

I read somewhere that local schools were to use lennoxtown training ground and this is what the sla was for but none of the local councils would pay for a bus to take the kids back and forth so they never got to use it..

So basically the scum got their money via the sla for nothing

[soulboy 2,518]

Are there any records in existence that prove that c****c actually supplied the services they were being paid for under the terms of the SLA? The community education carried out in East Dunbartonshire was usually carried out in partnerships with colleges, the EDC, and any other funding body they could success a funding pot from and for a time that included EU funds.

The one name that I have never seen involved in any community education program in that area was c****c. Having said that as I have never had much to do with community education in the sporting field, though I would suggest that any local Bear who has access to the archive of whatever the local news paper is to have look as one would expect to see a number of stories showing representatives of c****c carrying out work paid or under he SLA, it would be good publicity for them. If there are none then one would have to ask if they were they carrying out their commitments as agreed under the SLA at all. If they were and there is no publicity one would have to ask were they keeping it quiet so that they wee not exposed as being paid to do it at the level they were.

One thing I would say is it would be very interesting to see if EDC had any community education agreement with Rangers via Murray Park. As this facility opened earlier than c****c's and sits within the area of East Dunbartonshire one would have expected that EDC would have been wanting to get in to a community program with Rangers at that time or later to get the 'Old Firm' angle for publicity reasons. I they have never had any community partnership with Rangers it would certainly look very strange.

As I have posted earlier I know that Cumbernauld College supplied tutors on a part-time basis to both Murray Park and Lennoxtown, how these contracts were funded I don't know, I had always presumed they were in partnership between the individual clubs and the College, and that the clubs would be paying the college for these services. I now have to wonder if this was the case especially in regard to c****c, if anybody has close links to staff to Murray Park I suggest you have a word and see what you can find out.

The sla was with the lennoxtown initiative not the EDC although as pzj said when the money ran out from the Lennoxtown initiative it was EDC who had to put money in to service the scums sla

[soulboy 2,518]

Found this from Pzj on Bills blog. The letter at the bottom he has written is a holy shit moment.

pharez, zarah and judah says:

July 20, 2014 at 9:33 pm

Below is correspondence sent to Historic Scotland, with questions posed in reference to the demolition of the London Road School.

For the attention of Ms. Barbara Cummins, Director of Heritage Management

Dear Sirs,

DEMOLITION OF THE LONDON ROAD SCHOOL, GLASGOW

I am in receipt of your letter Ref HGG/A/SL/173 dated 16th June, 2014 following my complaint dated 23rd May, 2014 in respect of the demolition of the London Road School in Glasgow. This letter, together with attached letters of 3rd September, 2012 and 26th June, 2013 are attached in [Appendix 1].

I enjoyed your letter of 3rd September, 2012 and felt that you stated the case for preservation and re-use of the school very well.I would be obliged if you would confirm that the ‘justification document’ referred to in paragraph five is the SHEP Report submitted by Celtic Football Club (CFC) in July, 2012.

With reference to your letter dated 26th June, 2013 the statement by Glasgow City Council (GCC) that ‘demolition of the building will allow more scope to ‘showcase’ Glasgow during the Commonwealth Games’ is noted.

Your comment that ‘demolition being proposed at a very late stage’ is noted, as is your comment in paragraph five ‘we are not satisfied that the normal tests for demolition…………have been met.’

These noted comments have not been taken in isolation. When considered along with the fact that the Commonwealth Games appears to have taken some priority over the normal tests in line withnational policygives great cause for concern.These tests are:

• Importance of the building

• Condition of the building

• Economic viability of re-using the building

• Wider public benefits

I am in full agreement, that neither of these tests have been adequately applied.

May I also point out to you that the decision to demolish the London Road School was taken by CFC and GCC prior to their compilation of the SHEP Report in July, 2012.

Clearly the report is biased towards demolition, with no attempt made to explore alternatives.

It is also clear that the SHEP Report is not really a report on the listed building or how to save it, or how to restore it, but entirely pre-supposes demolition.

All in all, the SHEP Report is undoubtedly flawed and utterly biased, to the extent that it should be discredited and erased from records.

I am certain that the very poor quality of the Report did not escape your attention, in that it has been shoddily put together by either McInally, Waterman, GCC, CFC or a combination of all four to ensure demolition. Page 13 (Conclusion) of the McInally section is missing, as is the first five pages of the Waterman section. A third section has been added by ‘others’ posing as an ‘engineering’ report. The matter has been recorded with GCC in a letter dated 16th May, 2014 [Appendix 2].

Surely, Historic Scotland should have recognised the above and discarded the SHEP Report?

Are you aware that a binding contract existed between GCC and CFC giving CFC an ‘Option to Buy’ the school, made in 19thJanuary, 2007 for a three year period, which mysteriously extended toseven years. CFC only purchased the school on 24th December, 2013.The school could therefore not be marketed despite your statement to make ‘considerable effort to find a new user for the school.’

Historic Scotland originally put up three strong arguments in support of retaining the structure, and also appeared to question a structural report submitted by the Applicant, which did not support the case for demolition, as most of the damage occurred via the theft of materials from the roof.

The case for demolition has, by your own admission, not been made, therefore demolition proposals should have been called in. It appears that, were it not for the Commonwealth Games, the decision to demolish taken by GCC would have been called in for review.

That reasoning does not accord with the four national policy tests highlighted above.

The fact that the Scottish Ministers felt that the school should be demolished whilst failing to meet any of the four tests does not make it right. In effect, this important building was demolished as Celtic Park is being used for one day to host the Commonwealth Games opening ceremony; but possibly more importantly, to meet with the development plans of a football club

This matter has been highlighted to the EC Commissioner for State Aid afforded to Celtic plc by Glasgow City Council, and perhaps other public bodies.

Historic Scotland then asked me to contact Ranald MacInnes,at Ranald.macInnes@scotland.gsi.gov.uk. Ranald is Head of Heritage Management West, and Historic Scotland basically said in their own words I do not, however, think there is anything I can add to my letter of 16 June and attachments, which explains our involvement in the case fully. (that was the letter posted in my previous post)

It seemed Historic Scotland had no answers.

Now a letter was sent to Ranald on the 1st of July along with a letter and email to Nicola Sturgeon, and below is that letter,

For the attention of Mr. RanaldMacInnes, Head of Heritage Management West

Dear Sirs,

DEMOLITION OF THE LONDON ROAD SCHOOL, GLASGOW

I have been referred to you by Ms. Barbara Cummins, Director of Heritage Management by way of her latest response to me dated 30th June, 2014, which I have attached in [Appendix 1].

Ms. Cummins has nothing to add to her letter of 16th June, 2014 [Appendix 2]. I highlighted several points in my letter of response, dated 17th June, 2014 [Appendix 3] which are very relevant, and I seek reasonable and truthful answers to several points made therein.

• Why did Historic Scotland appear to suddenly capitulate to Glasgow City Council when they were insistant that the London Road School would be demolished?

• Was pressure exerted by the Scottish Ministers, or was pressure brought to bear by Glasgow City Council and/or Celtic plc?

• Why did Historic Scotland veer from Environment Policy, and introduce a fifth criteria or test for demolition, the Commonwealth Games?

• Was the introduction of a fifth test (proximity to the Commonwealth Games site) legally founded?

• Was there any real attempt made to explore alternative uses for the school?

• Some artists impressions show the School and the CFC temporary ticket office shrouded in banners, flags and the like. Why was that arrangement not fully explored, which would have allowed the Scottish Ministers to call in the case and given them more time to adjudge the fate of the School?

Historic Scotland (Louisa Humm) clearly stated in a letter to Development and Regeneration Services of Glasgow City Council (GCC) on 3rd September, 2012 [Appendix 3] that ‘it is our view that the justification document does not support the demolition of this listed building when set against Scottish Ministers’ policies as set out in the Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP).’

Ms. Cummins confirmed in her letter of 30th June, 2014 that the ‘justification document’ referred to above, was indeed the SHEP Report produced by the Macinally/Waterman team.

The letter to GCC of 3rd September, 2014 made a clear case against demolition. It also correctly states that ‘the justification document does not demonstrate that any other potential users have been sought. It is important that your Council are satisfied that the school has been properly marketed and that all other options have been investigated, including building preservation trusts.’

It is common knowledge that GCC had a legally binding agreement with Celtic Football Club (CFC) that they had the sole option to purchase the property; the option being for three years, then extending to seven years.

I feel that Historic Scotland did not do nearly enough to establish that the building could not possibly be marketed under these strict conditions between the parties, GCC and CFC.

I also feel that Historic Scotland did not pay sufficient attention to the SHEP Report submitted by MacInally Associates on behalf of their Client, CFC. It is patently obvious that the report did not merit serious consideration to any degree. It is obvious that a Waterman structural report section had been merged with a MacInally report. There are/were several pages missingincluding the potentially important MacInally ‘Conclusion’ section. The Waterman geotechnical report was utterly derisory, continually referring to there being coal seams below bedrock, amongst several other glaring anomalies.

With further reference to your letter of 16th June, 2014 I would point out that the SHEP report that was submitted with the application for London Road School was not at all written to justify any of the four tests required, but entirely pre-supposed demolition.

It is noted that Historic Scotland raised several of the same points that I have mentioned in my complaint. It is also stated that Historic Scotland made considerable effort to find a new user for the School. Surely Historic Scotland would have been well aware of the legally binding contract between GCC and CFC with an option to purchase clause at that time, and were fully aware that the property could not possibly be marketed?

The same letter also clearly states ‘Although we found that none of the SHEP tests for demolition had been adequately met………..unlikely to result in the building being retained because of its condition and proximity to the Commonwealth Games site.’A new, fifth test was put in place.

Your letter of 26th June, 2013 E-mailed to the Development and Regeneration Services department of GCC [Appendix 4] clearly states in paragraph three ‘In our view your Council has not adequately demonstrated that these regeneration benefits cannot equally be achieved by retaining and refurbishing this historic school.’

Paragraph four of that same letter is scathing of the manner in which the Council allowed the School to fall into such a deteriorated state through neglect.

Paragraph five commences with ‘Having considered all the details of the case we are not satisfied that the normal tests for demolition, as set out in the Scottish Historic Environmental Policy, have been met.’

However, the next two paragraphs are in total capitulation to either the wishes of the Council/CFC proposals, or to the wishes of the Scottish Ministers

I put it to you that this report should have been discarded, and the matter called in and put to the Scottish Ministers for proper and full re-consideration.

Should satisfactory answers not be given to the points made in this letter, due consideration will be given to taking matters to both the Ombudsman and Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy First Minister.

May I at this point plainly state that neither Ranald or Nicola Sturgeon’s office has replied to these questions, or even acknowledged receipt of the emails, this despite trying to get confirmation by telephone they have received them. Complete and utter silence.

Lastly below is a letter which has been composed for the benefit of Mr Peter Lawwell (CEO Celtic FC)

Now before the letter is shown, please let me point out that both the Waterman group and Mcinally, have told ‘us’ to contact their client, who in this case is ‘Celtic PLC’

For the attention of Mr. Peter Lawell

Chief Executive Officer

Celtic plc

20th July, 2014

Dear Sirs,

LONDON ROAD SCHOOL – PURCHASE & DEMOLITION

THE SHEP REPORT

As you are aware, there exists a distinct possibility that the EU will soon commence a full investigation into the several allegations of State Aid granted by Glasgow City Council, and accepted by Celtic plc.

A Scottish Historic Environmental Policy (SHEP) Report was a requirement of a Planning Application to demolish the London Road Primary School.

This report was found within the documents submitted along with the Planning Application on the GCC Online Planning Website.Link – http://docdroid.net/c9np

It is my considered opinion that this document may have been tampered with and/or amended in such a way as an attempt to ensure demolition of the School. The Report does not appear to have been professionally compiled, and looks to have been compiled using separate reports from MacInally Associates and Waterman, with a further section added in by others for ‘good measure.’

I have posed several questions to the ‘authors’ of the report, McInally Associates, and Waterman, and have e-mailed these to both parties, who refuse to respond in an appropriate manner. Both parties have clearly stated that they would require instruction from their Client to allow them to comment on the questions put to them.

I now put this to you, as their client, Mr. Lawell, to instruct MacInally and Waterman to reply, and/or to investigate within Celtic plc, as to whom within the club put forward said alleged hybrid document as part of the Planning Application for demolition of the School. Both Tom MacInally and Waterman have referred myself and colleagues to your goodself for answers. Both parties appear to wish to have no part in the publication of the SHEP Report.

The Planning Application was submitted by Celtic plc. You, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company have full responsibility and accountability for this document, which was key in the untimely demolition of the School.

Who is responsible for that preposterous report? It can only be Tom MacInally, Waterman or your goodself; and as stated, ultimately your goodself.

The citizens of Glasgow and way beyond eagerly await your reply.

Now again may I point out to concerned bears, we can contact either Ranald at Ranald.macInnes@scotland.gsi.gov.uk. or Nicola Sturgeon,at dfm@scotland.gsi.gov.uk to demand answers to the destruction of a ‘B’ listed building.

P.S. letter to Lawwell only sent tonight to him, so await his answer

[ArchibaldLeitch 380]

Tweeted 10 minutes ago by pzj

http://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/direct-chain-from-celtics-payment-to-nhs-ggc-and-their-payment-back-to-the-celtic-sla-sed-sfas-involvement/

[72barca 1,788]

At some point the slithering must stop, Pete.

[cumnockbear 2,446]

Petey in big trouble

[Blue Nosed Babe 20,517]

He will not reply but his silence will speak volumes.

[dummiesoot 15,990]

Fucking hell quality correspondence the sliteyes. Go pzj

[The Educator 1,572]

sprotson11 - "I get your point, but surely they would not even go that far"

Why not? In for a penny, in for a pound. Or in this case in for a penny, in for over half a million pounds.

Soulboy, the original SLA may have been between the Lennoxtown Partnership and c****c, but any community based projects that would involve the young or vulnerable would have had an involvement by EDC as they were being carried out in schools they have responsibility for. So any staff who were involved would require a disclosure to show that they had no restrictions in working with these groups. It would be interesting to see who caught the bill for these. In the case of any college lecturers they would have been paid for by the college, likewise any council employed staff would have been paid for by the council or the staff themselves.

One would presume that any staff or representatives who were involved from c****c would have had disclosures carried out before they could work with the youth teams and as such their disclosure should have been paid for by the club or themselves, not the Lennoxtown partnership. We may only be talking of a few hundred pounds in this, but a few hundred here and a few hundred there soon starts to add up.

The one thing that does stand out for me is the comment about the lack of finance for transport to get kids to and from the Lennoxtown complex, that is something I would have thought would have been covered from within the partnership. Why would you pay for all these services for the young and disadvantaged if you were not going to provide the means for them to get there? That is unless you never really intended for them to get there in the first place, so I wonder who would be the ones to benefit from that?

[soulboy 2,518]

Jo Swinson MP for E Dumbartonshire says she will have a look into the celtic land deal for lennoxtown only if someone in her constituency complains.

So any bears in her constituency get your complaints fired off.

[thebluedoo 2,652]

I don't know if this has any relevence but my wife and a friend were at the dress rehersals for the opening ceremony of the games and came home with a program. After flicking through it, on the back it says with thanks to our sponsors, well one of them certainly drew my attention. If it wasn't one of our favourite paper shufflers/gatherers Harper Macleod LLP

I am no Sherlock Holmes, might mean absolutely nothing, but wonder if any of these guys may have had something to do with this (some might say) dodgy shep report as I am pretty sure your legal guys would cast thier beedy eye over this , then sign it off

Keep up the good work guys (oh Peter think big Des be in touch soon)