Jump to content

C*ltc

dummiesoot

By dummiesoot
in General Football & Sport

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 41.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Virtuoso

Virtuoso 27,180

Posted
Posted
On 23/10/2019 at 19:13, Virtuoso said:

Brilliant from @TheLawMan

Resolution 12 is still deid bhoys !!!

I see the Res 12 lawyers are still milking the mentalists from across the city……..and Spain.

Apparently they are pushing celtic to get it on the AGM agenda again following slap down after slap down by the celtic plc board. Like any AGM, if you garner support from a percentage of shareholders then you can, in essence, force it onto the agenda. And from reading elsewhere, this may happen at the next AGM. Lets quickly remind ourselves of all the false starts and ALL the money spent keeping some small ineffective law firm in business.

Fail 1:

Originally, Auldheid (the leader of the pack) claimed that as Rangers had an outstanding tax bill at 30th June 2011, Rangers should not have played in Europe that year and celtic were deprived of money.

Then I came along and explained they should sue their law firm as the rules clearly show that had Rangers disclosed the tax due at 30th June, they would still have played in Europe anyway and any punishment from failure to pay it would take place the following season.

A month or so later, UEFA confirmed to Resolution 12 that my interpretation was 100% spot on.

Fail 2:

Their 2nd attempt was to then state it was no longer to do with the 30th June date(they had given up on that idea) and that because the tax was due from a period prior to 31st March, Rangers should not have played in Europe that year and celtic were deprived of money.

Then I came along again and explained the rules further confirming that according to the strict wording of the rules, an amount due in tax only becomes an “overdue payable” when a bill is presented along with a date it has to be paid by. It is not overdue payable at the date of the bill……only if its not paid on time. Rangers received that bill on 20th May. It became an “overdue payable” on the 19th June.

Fail 3:

It was back to the lawyers again for a 3rd go and this time, they will present a case that shows Rangers accepted the tax liability on or around the 27th February and that this in turn means they should have disclosed it on 31st March meaning Rangers should not have played in Europe that year and celtic were deprived of money.

Sorry to disappoint you guys, but you need to get better lawyers. You see, lets assume UEFA ignore their rule about what constitutes an overdue payable(they wont) and agree with you that when Rangers accepted the liability in February 2011, prior to the bill being issued in May 2011(they wont), Rangers STILL would have had to disclose it on 31st March.

Im sorry to disappoint again but this would fail also. The pesky rules are clear that on the 31st March, the bill has to be an overdue payable prior to 31st December 2010. So even if there was somehow a miracle and UEFA sided with you on the other fronts (they wont) it would still fail on the final point.

You are going to be slapped down again.

The celtic Board have taken legal guidance on this on 2 previous occasions and their "more competent" legal team have told them that the 2 bob outfit the Res 12 guys are using are simply wrong and just taking money from the poor sods.

Auldheid and the Res 12 guys are simply trying to keep face with the fans who have funded in excess of £30,000 to keep this circus going. That £30k+ included a full page advert written in French which appeared in a Swiss newspaper. Yip that’s right. Take that in for a minute.

There are no more narratives. You have been pumped for money. And your next step is to consider if there is a potential recovery to be had from the solicitors who have been using you and perhaps giving you wrong advice on rules and laws.

Resolution 12 is still deid.

As you were.

https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sr1tlm

@TheLawMan Seems a deluded bheast hasn't taken notice of your article. From elsewhere:

Quote

The celtic board are recommending a vote against Res 12

"The Board does not consider it to be in the best interests of the Company to take the steps proposed by the resolution. The Board recommends that you vote against this resolution"

There's much to be said about this stance eg Why is it not in the best interests of the company? and much,much more for later on.

In the meantime I'll stick to some basic facts.

Back in the early days of Res 12 almost 6 years ago the guys met with Peter Lawwell. At this meeting,Mr. Lawwell gave his word that " If you guys provide the bullet,I will fire the gun"

After 6 years and countless hours of time,effort and costing in excess of £10,000 in pursuing this, Mr Lawwell and his colleagues (along with the SFA) have been provided not only with "a bullet" but with a whole magazine of bullets along with enough dynamite to blow the whole corrupt mess to hell. I am talking about hard,corroborated evidence which proves Rangers lied to get their licence and the SFA were either incompetent or colluded with this lie,or both.

For a long time many celtic supporters have eyed Mr Lawwell with mistrust but,until now,it's been more of a gut feeling than a hard fact.

We now have a hard fact. Peter Lawwell said he would fire the gun if he was given the bullet. He lied.He is not a man of honour.

As a final thought for the moment, it is my understanding that the CEO of a company's first legal duty is to protect shareholder value. In the wider world this has led to many of the problems we face on this planet as CEOs of eg Exxon,Volkswagen etc etc have put profit before damage to the environment.

However,in this instance,we have a group of shareholders who,at their own time and expense,have uncovered a fraud which had a direct adverse impact on their shareholder value and a board telling them they are unwilling to investigate or take the case further.

You haven't heard the last of this.

Especially if the matter is considered to be fraud.

These cunts are beyond obsessed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
scottyscott1963

scottyscott1963 19,159

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Siam69 said:

:lol: 

Told to fuck off and stop annoying me with this nonsense!

Eat, sleep, breath Rangers :UK:

lying in the death bed and hopefully an early grave for that bunch of res12 madmen.
When we get 55 Lawell best find out the best place to emigrate.
Might end up next door neighbours with Fergus in Bremuda,after the amount of money he has squirreled away from them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jb85

Jb85 1,786

Posted
Posted

Aberdeen players actually stopped playing when they scored their first and third goals. McKenna never even stuck out a foot when Edouard took a shot and the whole defence watched Forrest run past and scored. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Paisley Blue Loyal

Paisley Blue Loyal 11,815

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, scottyscott1963 said:

Read somewhere over the weekend that one of the tramps banners suggested that Lazio fans are "annaly born"
Hope that comes back to bite them on the arse big time. :mutley:

Don't think the tramps will be having a pyoor speshul relationship with Lazio after the banners they had on display at the glitter dome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
heathen fish boy

heathen fish boy 8,660

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, scottyscott1963 said:

Read somewhere over the weekend that one of the tramps banners suggested that Lazio fans are "annaly born"
Hope that comes back to bite them on the arse big time. :mutley:

The Lazio fans have a history of being 'anal' about things I'm lead to believe...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtuoso

Virtuoso 27,180

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Siam69 said:

:lol: 

Told to fuck off and stop annoying me with this nonsense!

Eat, sleep, breath Rangers :UK:

More or less what they've just been told:

Quote

 

Shareholder Requisition:


Resolution 12 is an ordinary resolution, requisitioned on behalf of members in accordance with section 338 of the Companies Act 2006 and is not proposed by the directors.


 I/we have read in full the accompanying Recital of significant events since Resolution 12 was adjourned at the celtic AGM 2013 and agree with the conclusion that the matter can no longer be left with the SFA to process under their Judicial Panel Protocol process, where it should not have gone in the first instance, and ask that:


The board of celtic PLC either:


A) pass and approve the original Resolution 12 proposed at the AGM of 2013 but also bring to the attention of the appropriate UEFA’S Disciplinary and Licensing Body the relevant licensing matters arising from the Recital as it is now clear that it is both necessary and essential that the issues concerned are referred to UEFA as the Governing Body for European Football or


B) refer the matter with all available evidence to the City of London Police to investigate if false pretence occurred in 2011 preventing celtic FC entry into the qualifying rounds of the Champions League with a consequent loss of the potential revenue participation offers.

Board Response:

RESOLUTION 12: Shareholder Requisition


Resolution 12 has been requisitioned by certain members under the provisions of Section 338 of the Companies Act 2006. The resolution is not proposed by the directors. This resolution and the text of the supporting statement were prepared by the requisitioning shareholders and accordingly the Board expresses no view as to the accuracy of the matters set out therein.


The following statement is circulated on behalf of those members in accordance with Section 314 of the Companies Act 2006:


“Recital to Justify Restoring Resolution 12 ( celtic AGM 2013) to 2019 AGM Agenda


At the AGM of celtic PLC held in 2013, Resolution 12 requested that the Board of celtic PLC raise certain club licensing issues with UEFA in light of what the Resolutioners felt was evidence which showed clear irregularities occurring in relation to UEFA Club licensing processes in Scotland during season 2011/12. The formal Resolution was adjourned following an agreement between the Resolutioners and the Board of Directors of celtic PLC.

The basis of the agreement reached was that there was sufficient reason to question SFA assurances and an adjournment would provide the time for celtic to make further enquiries on their shareholders behalf with input from the Resolutioners.
Accordingly, it was agreed between the Resolutioners and The Board of Directors that it was in the best interests of all shareholders to await the outcome of those enquiries before proceeding to formally consider the Resolution in open AGM forum.

At each subsequent AGM the resolution hasbeen formally continued and adjourned to the following year by agreement in order to allow those enquiries to continue and to allow legal proceedings against Craig Whyte which did not directly involve celtic PLC, to reach a conclusion.


1. Since the AGM of 2013, The Resolutioners have continued to liaise with the Board of Directors in relation to the enquiries made of the SFA through the Board, and have engaged the services of a multinational commercial law firm in order to communicate directly with both the SFA and UEFA regarding the licensing procedures followed by the SFA and UEFA, and the proper application of the rules of football, in relation to the applications made for European Licences in season 2011/12.


2. During that same period, The Board of Directors have continued to liaise with, and make representations to, the SFA about licensing procedures and about issues of good Governance and proper procedure in relation to licensing issues and with regard to season 2011/2012 in particular.


3. In the course of correspondence between the Resolutioner’s legal agents and the SFA and between those same Legal Agents and UEFA, The SFA has confirmed in writing that it would comply with any investigation or enquiry instigated by UEFA in relation to the matters raised by the Resolution but stated that the SFA itself was time barred from reporting certain matters to UEFA in terms of the Rules of Football.


4. In the course of that same correspondence, UEFA provided information to the Resolutioner’s Legal Agents which seemed to contradict information previously provided by The SFA and advised that if these same issues were raised with them by celtic FC as a member club of UEFA then these would be investigated, but that UEFA could not or would not instigate such an investigation if the matters were raised by shareholders alone. UEFA were not approached by celtic.


5. Subsequent to this correspondence and in light of information that has come to the attention of the Board of Directors since the AGM of 2013, and following the conclusion of the legal proceedings referred to above, The Board of Directors of celtic FC in 2017 formally and publicly called upon the SFA to hold a full inquiry into a range of Governance and Licensing issues including those issues which were of concern to both the board and shareholders. This proposal was supported by The Chief Executive of the SPFL who clearly had similar concerns to those of the Board and the Resolutioners but the SFA refused to instigate any such enquiry.


6. Instead in May 2018 the SFA instructed an internal investigation into certain licensing issues in 2017 and as a consequence of thatinvestigation brought disciplinary charges against Rangers FC alleging breaches of both SFA and UEFA rules but without specifying the events in 2011 that the breaches referred to.


7. However according to a public statement by The Rangers FC Ltd the period at the end of March leading to the granting of the licence was removed from scrutiny because according to them the charges were “ groundless” and “directed by individuals intent on harming the Scottish game”.


8. celtic were then presented with credible and lawfully provided evidence that questioned the basis on which the end of March 2011 period had been excluded from scrutiny but when it was not acted upon the Resolutioners Legal Agents brought it to the attention of the SFA immediately prior to the Independent Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal (JPDT) preliminary hearing In June 2018.


9. It is understood that at that hearing, legal representations were made on behalf of Rangers FC that the charges concerned could not be prosecuted before, and considered by, an SFA appointed Judicial Panel for legal reasons (reportedly as a consequence of the secret 5 Way Agreement that SFA have failed to confirm.) The JPDT considered these submissions and subsequently ruled that they did not have the appropriate jurisdiction to consider the charges which had been brought before it and so could not determine whether there had been a breach of either SFA or UEFA rules or both. The JPDT recommended that the proper forum to consider the charges concerned, and all the evidence surrounding the matters referred to in the charges, was the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The SFA were accordingly advised to raise the matter in that forum.


10. At a meeting in August 2018, with two representatives from other celtic supporting constituencies in attendance, the full import of the evidence Resolutioners presented to SFA in June 2018 in relation to tax overdue and UEFA FFP rules was set out in writing and handed over for celtic to enable them to establish informally if an overdue payable, as UEFA define it, existed. If it did then the proof provided to the SFA that enabled them to grant the licence looks like an act of false pretence/fraud. If there was no overdue payable as UEFA define it then there was no need for further action by celtic other than to convey UEFA’s reasons to shareholders at the 2018 AGM .


11. At the November 2018 AGM the Resolutioners expressed dissatisfaction at celtic’s inaction since May and August 2018 and celtic’s reliance on an SFA judicial process that appeared to have no jurisdiction on the matter and celtic Board were asked a series of questions, to be replied to in writing, asking why were CAS involved, what exactly was going to CAS, and when would it happen, to which answers are still awaited.


12. It has been nearly two years since the original SFA judicial process started in September 2017, and 13 months since the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal (JPDT) decided to have the matter referred to CAS but have not done so, nor has the SFA Compliance Officer addressed the evidence presented by Resolutioners in June 2018 that challenges the exclusion of the end of March 2011 from scrutiny.


13. An exclusion significant for two reasons:
a) it in effect robs Resolution 12 of shareholders locus in that UEFA sanctions after a licence has been granted that relate to the monitoring period fall into the following season and
b) it suggests that the licence was granted on false pretence which if true is a criminal matter that the police should be asked to investigate.


14. In a public response probably prompted by reminders letters from the Resolutioners’ Legal Agents The Chief Executive Officer of the SFA has stated that the SFA as a body has still to determine whether it will refer the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and that this decision will be made by Christmas 2019.


15. In the course of discussions Resolutioners were told by celtic that the representatives of other football clubs who make up the membership of the SFA, have no appetite to refer the charges to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and have expressed no interest in ensuring that the breaches of the SFA and UEFA rules alleged within the charges brought by the SFA after investigation, are considered by any judicial forum with the appropriate jurisdiction, or in ensuring that the rules of the SFA and UEFA are seen to be complied with and if necessary enforced.


16. Whilst it is alarming that member clubs do not appreciate the importance of having a set of licensing regulations that all clubs can rely on to be followed in good faith by all fellow clubs and properly policed by the SFA, nevertheless this apparent licensing failure impacts negatively on the financial value of celtic shareholdings and should not be used as an excuse to prevent celtic from pursuing answers from UEFA whose rules after all appear to have been breached in a manner that is not bound by their statute of limitations if corruption is involved. Something a UEFA investigation would help establish.


17. The SFA have made it plain that they consider that sufficient evidence exists to bring charges alleging breaches of both SFA and UEFA rules, but that for as yet unexplained legal reasons, and despite being the Governing body in relation to football in Scotland and being the appropriate Licensing Authority appointed by UEFA itself in relation to European Licences, The SFA is unable to enforce its own and UEFA’S licensing regulations in this instance and lacks the appropriate jurisdiction to hold disciplinary proceedings when alleged irregularities are uncovered and investigated.


18. Given all of the above, and to rectify their inaction by celtic since May 2018, we would ask the board of celtic PLC to either
a) pass and approve the original Resolution 12 proposed at the AGM of 2013 and to formally bring all of the above to the attention of the appropriate UEFA’S Disciplinary and Licensing Body as it is now clear that it is both necessary and essential that the issues concerned are referred to UEFA as the Governing Body for European Football or
b) refer the matter to the City of London Police to investigate if false pretence occurred in 2011.


Shareholders who agree this is necessary can indicate their support by signing the attached proposal which will be presented to the 2019 AGM.


Glossary: “Resolutioners” refers to those shareholders representing fellow shareholders who formally supported Resolution 12 to 2013 celtic AGM.”


Board Response


This resolution and the text of the supporting statement were prepared by the requisitioning shareholders and accordingly the Board expresses no view as to the accuracy of the matters set out therein. The resolution proposed at the 2013 AGM is available at http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/AGMNotice_2013.pdf


As the premier football club in Scotland, celtic have made a consistent stand, over many years and covering many instances, for fairness and transparency to be at the heart of football governance. The Board of celtic PLC considers that the best way to ensure that these principles are safeguarded is continued and constructive engagement with the Scottish FA, the SPFL, UEFA and fellow clubs. 

In respect of this particular issue, the Board engaged with the requisitioning shareholders over a significant period of time.

The Board has further engaged, over the same period, with the relevant football authorities, according to their respective responsibilities. The matter currently sits with the Scottish FA.


The Board does not consider it to be in the best interests of the Company to take the steps proposed by the resolution. The Board recommends that you vote against this resolution.

 

@TheLawMan

Link to post
Share on other sites
G.E.C.

G.E.C. 19,594

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, LaudrupsPatrickBoots said:

Saw a picture doing the rounds on twitter yesterday of one of their fans "blacking up" his wean to dress up as Edouard for Halloween. Seems to have been deleted though 

Reminds me of this 😂

6E755CFB-8973-41D0-BAA0-AA8D04C6065C.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Robmc1

Robmc1 4,741

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Virtuoso said:

As the premier football club in Scotland, celtic have made a consistent stand, over many years and covering many instances, for fairness and transparency to be at the heart of football governance.

Well, talk about taking irony to another level...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Upcoming Events

    • Rangers v Lyon
      03 October 2024 19:00 Until 21:00
      0  
      Rangers v Lyon
      Ibrox Stadium
      UEFA Europa League
×
×
  • Create New...