Dear Mr Bankier

630
159643

Readers may be aware that the group Fans Without Scarves have written to Celtic urging them to seek a review of Scottish football (See here)
On the back of that laudible effort, I have been persuaded to publish a letter I sent to that same board over a week ago (on 8 November)
At the time of publication, I have received no acknowledgment.  Some organisations are like that, of course. (I put it down to the inferior quality of the social upbringing of their boards rather than concern for their postage bill)

The following is the text of that communication;

Mr I Bankier,
Chairman,
Celtic Football Club plc
Celtic Park, Glasgow G40 3RE

08/11/2018

Dear Mr Bankier,

“Resolution 12”

You will, of course, recall as clearly as I that, at the Celtic plc AGM in 2013, the Resolution bearing number 12 on the agenda was not formally debated and voted upon, but was adjourned indefinitely.

I understand that over the intervening years (!) a number of conversations and discussions have taken place between the Board and the immediate proposers of Resolution 12 (among whom, I should perhaps say, I was not numbered in 2013 and am not now numbered).

As an eventual outcome of those discussions and conversations, as again you will recall, Celtic plc in September 2017, shortly before that year’s AGM, entrusted to the Scottish Football Association [SFA] the task of undertaking a thorough investigation into the circumstances under which the Union of European Football Associations [UEFA] granted a UEFA-competitions licence to the then Rangers Football Club in 2011.

Unfathomably, it was not until May of this year that the Compliance Officer of the SFA referred the matter to the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal [JPDT]

In that same month of May 2018, evidence emerged that appeared to cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of the award of the UEFA licence to Rangers Football Club in 2011.

In late June 2018, and following careful consideration of that evidence, the legal representative of what is known as the ‘Res.12 Group’ informed both the SFA and Celtic plc of these doubts, passing to those bodies copies of the evidence which gave rise to those doubts.

In July 2018, The Rangers Football Club Ltd challenged the reference to the JPDT, arguing that the appropriate authority to which any such reference ought to have been made is the Court of Arbitration for Sport [CAS]

This challenge has apparently and inexplicably frozen all action by the JPDT.

To my eye, as a small shareholder, it appears that the Board of Celtic plc have been and continue to be at the very least dilatory and lukewarm if not yet totally remiss in looking after the interests of their shareholders.

It is now November: the reference by Celtic plc to the SFA was made over one year ago. Even by reference to the civil Courts let alone to the internal disciplinary body of a not very large sports governance body such as the SFA, that is an unconscionably long time for a reference not to have been acted upon. I now feel obliged to ask the following questions:

  1. Have the Celtic Board pressed the SFA to say what action they have taken vis-vis the challengemade to the legal powers of the JPDT to investigate the circumstances surrounding the award of the licence ?
  2. If they have not done so, would they care to give their reasons why not?
  3. If the response from the SFA was that the matter of the jurisdiction of the JPDT has been referred elsewhere (to UEFA or to the CAS), are the Celtic Board content with that response and prepared to take such subsequent monitoring action as may be necessary?
  4. If the SFA have not referred the question of jurisdiction elsewhere, have the Celtic Board ascertained at what stage the JPDT’s investigation is at, or even whether it has yet begun?
  5. If the Board have been told that the JPDT has stalled, perhaps indefinitely, what does the Celtic Board propose doing to ensure that the investigation that they were assured would be undertaken will indeed be undertaken by the JPDT as a matter of priority, with a timetable for completion?
  6. Does the Celtic Board actually trust the SFA/JPDT to investigate thoroughly, honestly and deliver true judgement? Is it not time that a vote was taken to pass ‘Res 12’, based on what is now known by Celtic plc, and the matter formally referred by Celtic plc to UEFA to investigate as thoroughly as was done in the recently reported cases of the Albanian, Serbian and Kazakhstan national associations?

The Celtic Board must keep in mind their obligations to shareholders. This would be especially so where there may be grounds for suspecting chicanery on the part of others, in consequence of which Celtic plc might have been denied an actual, defined sum of money and the opportunity potentially to compete for much more in ‘prize’ money.

In such circumstances it would not be at all for the Board on its own authority simply to ignore the possibility of chicanery and dismiss the matter.

There are sufficient grounds for me to believe that the award of a UEFA licence to the then Rangers Football Club in 2011 may have been made in the knowledge that that club was absolutely not entitled to that award.

In my opinion, the granting of a UEFA licence to the then Rangers FC in 2011 is not merely a ‘sporting’ matter, but one which might conceivably, in the absence of acceptable responses from the SFA/JPDT, require reference to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

The failure to date of Celtic plc to insist that the SFA take urgent action to fulfil the commitment they made that a thorough, independent investigation would be undertaken urges me to make such reference on my own initiative as a citizen who suspects that a crime may have been committed.

However, before taking such a step, I think I will await your replies to the questions above if you would be good enough to provide such.

Yours sincerely,

name and address

630 COMMENTS

1 2 3 9
 

  1. So many questions have been asked of the Celtic board (and the boards of other major clubs) over the last six years. The Age of Transparency has not lived up to its promise.

    Both John C and Fans Without Scarves are to be commended for their efforts, which I fervently hope will not be in vain.

    View Comment

  2. The Celtic board must realise the time has come for this matter to be moved to CAS. It doesn't look like the SFA are willing to do that so Celtic must do it themselves if that is what it takes. What they must be prepared for though is a dirty war, which will be assisted by Rangers many friends in the media. There will be some vile mud slinging, of that I have no doubt. I am no lawyer, let alone a Sports Lawyer, but from what I have seen only Rangers and the SFA have a lot to fear about this going to CAS. 

    What I do fear though is the easy option of the SFA offering a full public apology for 'errors' by those who should have paid more attention but are no longer in town. There is one sacrificial lamb left in  the building who was involved and he might be hung out to dry.  Then we will all be told to 'move on' as the SFA continue to grant European licences in the direction of Ibrox no matter how much Rangers rack up in losses! 

    View Comment

  3. Could it be that it was just a coincidence  Scottish football witnessed the year of the "honest mistakes"2010/11 , knowing what we know now ,I have my doubts .

     

    It looks like ragers 1872 's only chance of existence was CL revenue and the only way of having a chance of CL revenue was as league winners . If that were the case ,why would the SFA deny them the licence .

    What if  the perilous state of the finances over in Govan led to decisions being made in order to give a lifeline to a club who died anyway due to circumstances outwith their control (FOOTBALL RESULTS OUTWITH SCOTLAND ) .

    Could it happen ,who knows ? but the delay in investigating the issue properly does nothing to ease supporters doubts 

    View Comment

  4. Thanks John, its good time to raise this issue with this year's board meeting about to happen.

    I don't think you will get a response and I don't think the Celtic Board have ever welcomed this stakeholder initiative.

     

    Maybe, as some of us have always thought, complicity abounds and they just want this to go away?

    View Comment

  5. Thanks John.

    The old club cheated, we all know this. The SFA are not fir for purpose as they like us know they cheated but could have done somthing about it. They to this day have not addressed this for reasons we can guess at. Old club now still in liquidation and SFA would have us believe they are same club. Celtic may have to lead the way for sporting integrity to take place but the smsm will condemn Celtic, fact. All clubs must play thier part, if not then it is in the eyes of SFA and smsm a west coast blah blah blah. 

    View Comment

  6. One of these days a straw will break the camel’s back. I sincerely hope that this letter becomes that straw. The JC letter is of course exquisitely crafted and doesn’t miss the target. I note this morning that the Etims blog has reproduced the letter in full. That Celtic have not deigned to reply is woefully remiss given the importance of the subject matter. I remain hopeful that something substantive will occur this week.

    As regards the SKY deal. There is a graphic accompanying a tweet from SKY today featuring only 2 club managers. It depicts a rather worried looking Brendan Rogers behind a smiling Steven Gerrard. Make of that what you will.

    View Comment

  7. Congrats JC on your first Blog!

    As a shareholder you deserve the same courtesy of a prompt  response – as if it was a query coming from Dermot Desmond himself.

    CFC enjoys a significant support and typically attracts very positive PR from around the world.  Because of the supporters.

    Sometimes those hired hands who are, (temporarily), in charge at CFC appear complacent and disconnected from the people who pay their wages and healthy bonuses…IMO.

    I will fire off an email to the CFC Supporters Liaison Officer in support of your letter: the more the merrier!

    jptaylor@celticfc.co.uk

    View Comment

  8. Long time no post but just had to commend JC for his letter to the Chairman of CFC.

    Never has an 'x' been more merited at the end of 'Chapeau'!

    Watching, as I do,from a distance ,I have been disgusted by the corruption in the governance of Scottish football. I have therefore decided to get off my butt and travel up to Glasgow to attend tomorrow's AGM in the hope that something finally gets done re Res 12.

    I want to be there in person to hear what the board have to say and, more importantly, what is said from the floor.

    In a previous existence, I had knowledge of criminal issues in regards to fraud albeit under English Law but I am convinced that there is a case to answer in Scotland so here's hoping JC gets to report the issue to COPFS. All the elements needed to constitute fraud appear to be there. I bet they can't wait to investigate!

     

     

    View Comment

  9. "Dear Mr. Bankier, …"

    [StevieBC]

    Tue 2018-11-20 10:32 AM

    Sent Items To: jptaylor@celticfc.co.uk;

    Hello John Paul,

    just registering my interest in – and support of – the above letter recently submitted by another fan / shareholder, re: Resolution 12.

    I would be very keen to find out;

    • if Mr. Bankier provides a response.
    • if forthcoming: how long it actually takes for this shareholder to receive a response from the Chairman.
    • what is the established SLA for replying to shareholder's queries to the Chairman, and to other Board Members.

    (From an admin perspective I am regarding the football Ltd. and plc. holding companies as one and the same.

    FYI, I will share this on social media with like minded football fans who have a genuine interest in improving governance across our national sport.)

    Regards,

    [StevieBC]"

    View Comment

  10. Off with the 'flu so catching up here: last post today, honest.

    "_Ex Ludo

    20th November 2018 at 09:05

    As regards the SKY deal. There is a graphic accompanying a tweet from SKY today featuring only 2 club managers. It depicts a rather worried looking Brendan Rogers behind a smiling Steven Gerrard. Make of that what you will."

    ==========================

    Mibbees it is a subtle visual metaphor?

    As per: Rangers taking centre stage – looking smug and full of self entitlement… whilst in the background it is busy rifling through the pockets of all the other Scottish clubs.

    …or more likely it's just a lazy, cheap shot from Sky.  A deliberate and inflammatory graphic to add to the "build up and drama" of an Old Firm clash.

    Somebody should really tell Sky that this fixture died way back in 2012. 

    Has the SPFL knowingly missold the TV rights, again? 

    enlightened

    View Comment

  11. It would be interesting to know if the new Sky deal includes a clause relating to the number of Celtic/Rangers* matches which require to be televised per season.

    I mean, in the light of 'going concern' warnings from auditors every year, who can say with absolute certainty that one of those clubs won't suffer a future insolvency event which would result in no such fixtures taking place?

    It's not as if our football authorities would ever have the audacity to try and fix the game such that Rangers must never be relegated, liquidated, or otherwise lost to the top flight simply because of financial expediency. God forbid!  

    View Comment

  12. Highlander 11:59

     

    "It would be interesting to know if the new Sky deal includes a clause relating to the number of Celtic/Rangers* matches which require to be televised per season:"

     

    The following, perhaps, has been discussed before, I cant remember.

    What happens if one of the 2 don't make the top 6 (more likely to be r than C) and they don't meet in any cup competition, leaving only 3 games?

    View Comment

  13. Up the hoops. 

     

    I think that bringing CAS into the ring is a typical DK strategy.

    However since the matter involves breach of UEFA FFP then nothing can be done without UEFA involvement.

    That will be the problem with the TORs.

    How to ask CAS to arbitrate on what?

    The SFA JPDT have not reached a conclusion on the charges they made.

    Rangers therefore have not disputed any JPDT decision. So what is there to arbitrate on?

    The proper process in my view given latest UEFA statements on club licensing is for Celtic to take the matter to UEFA Club Financial Control Body who then decide if a breach of UEFA FFP occured, how it occurred and take whatever remedial action is necessary.

    If neither the SFA nor TRFC like the CFCB decision then they can take matters to CAS.

    Traverso in his response to Celtic shareholders stated that if a member club (ie Celtic) wanted the matter pursued they should take it up with UEFA direct. Which is all that Res12 asked.

    Nothing more nothing less.

    Now if TRFC are challenging the right of the JPDT to adjudicate because of something in the 5 Way Agreement then the whole Judicial Panel Protocol agreed by all clubs including RFC in 2011 falls on its arse if TRFC are exempt from the Judicial Protocol, so the SFA need to be careful in what they do next.

    Hopefully that will emerge at the AGM.

    View Comment

  14. Apologies, but can't resist this one!

    Ironic headline from the DR today;

    "5 things Sky Sports can do to improve Scottish football coverage

    The broadcasting giant won exclusive rights to screen the Premiership but for many they've got much to prove.

    By DarrenCooney Liam Bryce…"

    ============================

    Erm, well, seeing as this piece is actually in the DR…  how's about another article with the title;

    "5 things the SMSM can do to improve Scottish football coverage

    By the average Scottish footy fan.

    1. Report the truth and the whole truth.

    2. Discontinue the dishonest and antiquated practice of obligingly regurgitating – without question – total PR p!sh… simply to preserve 'preferred media' status with certain club(s). 

    (And why is the SMSM ignoring the fact that social media is developing a growing number of significantly, better informed "Internet Bampots" ?)

    3. On a frequent basis – as required – ask tough questions about the competency and honesty of both the SFA and SPFL at press conferences.

    ["How are you so good?" doesn't qualify as 'tough' ].

    4. There are indeed 42 senior clubs in Scotland, which deserve coverage.  Agreed there are 2 largest clubs – but they do participate in a league structure in which fans are rather interested in the other 40 clubs.

    5. The SMSM could simply take time out to consider why their print circulations are dwindling, why their football coverage is openly derided by most fans,

    …and perhaps along with Sky the SMSM could just…Go Away!

    Neither is adding real value to the Scottish game, IMO, but quite the opposite.

     

     

    View Comment

  15. 'StevieBC 20th November 2018 at 14:07

     

    Apologies, but can't resist this one!

    Ironic headline from the DR today;

    "5 things Sky Sports can do to improve Scottish football coverage…'

    ———————————————–

     

    May I suggest a sixth 'thing'?

     

    Remove the tedious Crokka/Wokka duopoly from the commentators' gantry: that would infinitely improve 'things' for me!

     

    View Comment

  16. Higgys Shoes 13.08

    Despite being a shambles both on and off the park in the past two years we (Rangers) have been 23 then 24 points ahead of the 7th placed team at the time of the split so i don't envisage the scenario you mention happening any time soon.

    View Comment

  17. Slim Jim 16:22pm

     

    No doubt you are right.

     

    But do you think the authorities have a plan B just in case?

     

    Think of the perfect storm of variables that contributed to the LC semi final draw debacle. 

     

    Obviously no plan B there. (or C, or D)

    View Comment

  18. In this country we know that we have a corrupt SFA. Today Celtic are boasting about the £165m they add to the economy every year. It's not Peter Lawwell or Dermot Desmond putting that money in, it's the fans and it's about time they paid attention to that fact and stood up for their own supporters. We are watching Celtic playing their part to desperately sweep this under the carpet. 

    It's not good enough. 

    I am completely scunnered that in every facet of life the powerful appear to be corrupt and always get away with it. I watched the US elections and it's incredible how the rich can disenfranchise minorities who don't vote their way. Nothing is ever done about it.

    I am sick of the cheating. Sick of it. In any other country titles would have been stripped as a matter of course and every Rangers fan would have had no doubt in their minds of what they did wrong. They have got away with it and they know it.

    View Comment

  19. It's outside your area but I thought this to be of interest.

    BBC Radio Merseyside has excellent football coverage and programmes one of which is tonight's Snods and Dizz hour At 6. 

    Ian Snodin (ex EFC) and Garry Gillespie (ex LFC) have a bit of banter and a laugh over recent footie matters.

    All day they've been promoting the programme on air with the tag line that tonight's studio guest would be Steven Gerrard who'd be discussing his new biopic plus 'certain other matters'.

    I thought I'd risk an ear.

    Programme starts with an apology that something unexpected came up and Stevie Gee would NOT be able to take part.

    Have Jabba's tentacles reached all the way down the M6????

    View Comment

  20. Auldheid 20th November 2018 at 13:58

    ===============================

    Thanks for the update. In whatever way possible Celtic need to move this forward and if it's to UEFA then good. This has gone on too long. 

    View Comment

  21. Hello to everyone. I have been reading every day since this site started. I read everything on RTC before that too. I feel lonely as the only woman on here as far as I know!!! I am so grateful that you all post on here. I don't usually understand everything. I do however understand the need to get clarification on this Resolution 12 situation. Move it on to UEFA. Good luck to all of you and I will support any means to do so. 

    View Comment

  22. Hiya Jean.

    Unless I've missed it, but issues / awkward questions aside: why are the Celtic AGM's not live streamed?

    Other organisations do it.

    With its undoubted global support, this communication gap doesn't seem to fit with the club's founding principle of social inclusion, and in the current "…aim to be the team of the people."

    I can't see a live AGM programme scheduled for Wednesday on Celtic TV either.

    [As other overseas viewers will probably agree though, the Celtic TV feed would probably freeze within 5 minutes…]

    Stick it live on YouTube.

    View Comment

  23. I'll play Devil's Advocate on the live streaming of the Celtic AGM. Personally I wouldn't even allow the media in. It's akin to having the neighbours in, giving them your finest wine and whisky all night, then they spend the rest of the week trashing you to the rest of the neighbourhood.  Perhaps if there was a way to issue access codes to shareholders for a live stream I'd agree, but not a live stream for people whose only aim is twist words and damage the club at every possible turn. 

    View Comment

  24. upthehoops 21st November 2018 at 07:15

    I'll play Devil's Advocate on the live streaming of the Celtic AGM. Personally I wouldn't even allow the media in. It's akin to having the neighbours in, giving them your finest wine and whisky all night, then they spend the rest of the week trashing you to the rest of the neighbourhood.  Perhaps if there was a way to issue access codes to shareholders for a live stream I'd agree, but not a live stream for people whose only aim is twist words and damage the club at every possible turn. 

    ==================================

    I would take the opposite stance for all clubs' AGMs.  If you live stream it, then it doesn't matter if the media are there or not. It becomes a matter of public record, of what was said, by whom, and in what context. It would make it difficult for any media representative to twist words.

    Sure, there may be some things that you would prefer not to be in the public domain, but in Celtic, Rangers, Hearts and others cases, they are "Public" Limited Companies, so why shouldn't the public be aware of what it going on in a company that they have an interest.

    View Comment

  25. easyJambo 21st November 2018 at 09:34                    

    —————————————————————————-

    Surely the "public" in PLC's relates to the fact that the public can buy shares in the company and then have right to know what is going on?

    View Comment

  26. I agree that AGM's should be transmitted, where there is sufficient interest, as in a major football club.

    It nullifies media spin.

    I would also mic up reporters at press conferences, who should announce their name before asking their question.

    bordersdon 21st November 2018 at 09:55

    "Surely the "public" in PLC's relates to the fact that the public can buy shares in the company and then have right to know what is going on?"

    The public who have a right to know what is going on is the public who buy shares in the Public Limited Company.

    I don't think the rest of us have a right ,but it would be a courtesy. However, broadcasting live would neuter the slanted Scottish media.

    View Comment

  27. chill ultra 21st November 2018 at 09:53

    Celtic’s questionable stance on the OC/NC argument should no longer be in doubt. The club is joined at the hip for the next ten years with Old Firm partners, The Rangers Football Club plc.
    This joint application for renewal of THE OLD FIRM Trademark was granted on 2nd November 2018.

    =================================

    There is no current entity called "The Rangers Football Club plc".  That is the former name of the Oldco, which was renamed "RFC (2012) plc". That entity is in liquidation. The current entity trading under the name of Rangers is "The Rangers Football Club Limited"

    It would appear that all Celtic has done is to extend the previous arrangement with the Oldco.

    View Comment

  28. "Chill Ultra

    This joint application for renewal of THE OLD FIRM Trademark was granted on 2nd November 2018"

    Depressingly understandable given a few bob might be earned but a shame nonetheless.  I always refer to the entity that plays out of Ibrox as TRFC in a feeble effort to let them not forget and to "the big two" out of respect for those Celtic people who don't buy the continuity scam.  Do I now use the term 'The Old Firm (TM)" as both clubs continue to call themselves that for at least another 10 years? Does the use of old name mean that TRFC can’t use the trademark?  I'm not sure. Probably not important.

     

    View Comment

  29. Now on to the Res 12 subject

    SFA licensing issue from 2012 now on agenda

     

    Michael Nicholson

    The company secretary says the club called upon the SFA to review and they have commenced proceedings.

    He adds it’s a very complex matter and there is a new compliance officer in place.

    “If new information comes out we will be first to know”.

     

    Lawwell says Celtic have been at forefront of chasing the resolution.

    Man from the floor says he’s not happy and the crowd applaud

     

    More on Res 12

    This is getting tetchy on Res 12, which is the call for the decision for Rangers to be handed a UEFA licence back in 2011 investigated.

    Bankier says institute which was too big to fail failed.

    Lawwell chased answers from Regan in an open correspondence.

    View Comment

  30. Have to disagree with the BBC that Res. 12 was 'tetchy'.  Very polite and diplomatic.  In other words we learned nothing.  No progress.  No announcements to demonstrate the board has taken this issue to heart.

     

    Where to now?

    View Comment

  31.  

    easyJambo 21st November 2018 at 11:17

    You wrote, “It would appear that all Celtic has done is to extend the previous arrangement with the Oldco.”

     

    By completing the trademark renewal forms in July, Celtic has demonstrated it has no wish to disassociate itself from the Old Firm brand. This was a proactive decision, based on what it considers commercial realities. As a fan and a shareholder I don’t agree.

    View Comment

  32. Today's AGM, and the failure of the Celtic Board to pay anything more than lip service to the Res 12 guys, leaves the issue in limbo once again.

    I'm sure that the Res 12 guys will be discussing what to do next.  They can continue their search for the truth and a nuclear weapon (clearly smoking guns aren't enough), they can sit and wait ……. and wait ……. and wait for the SFA (and Celtic) to do what they do best (SFA), or they can throw in the towel in the knowledge that they did everything within their power to expose the apparent fraud and deceit that was behind the issue of a UEFA Licence in 2011.

    If they choose the last option, I'd hope that they would publish all the documents they have, including emails, letters, minutes, witness statements et al, and let us all decide for ourselves whether or not Rangers had a case to answer.

    View Comment

  33. easyJambo 21st November 2018 at 16:37 

    '…If they choose the last option, I'd hope that they would publish all the documents they have, including emails, letters, minutes, witness statements et al, …'

    ____________________________-

    Before that stage, eJ, there would be one more: a formal reference to the Police, with the necessary  'evidence' to support  a report that a crime may have been committed and a request that a police investigation be undertaken.

    If, ultimately, no one else will do that ,let  me be given all the relevant stuff and I shall walk into my local cop shop and have a complaint recorded. There could be no possibility of the matter being simply dismissed as a 'sports' matter, or a private matter between two businesses: stuff would have to be looked at, and looked at seriously and professionally, knowing that the decision made might be subject to review elsewhere.( either that or the desk sergeant can whistle up a couple of the lads and beat me to a pulp out of sight! Ha ha)

    The matter is too serious to let it drop without every option being explored. 

    View Comment

  34. I'm interested do people think Celtic (or anyone else) should just let IP rights expire, so that someone else can try to register it. If that's how it works.

    I'm sure there are plenty of people would be happy to own the right to use certain phrases on merchandising. 

    View Comment

  35. So Celtic F.C.Limited own all the rights to themselves, that would include the UK0002181523A rights. Which could be quite lucrative, Class 38, 40,41 and 42 could bring in a lot of revenue. Or do the liquidators get some of the cash?

    View Comment

  36. Actually not a bad idea, I wonder if I could trademark protect "sheepshagger"?  But of course trademarking a name doesn't mean no one else can refer to it or say it: for example I can say Hoover, Google, Honda etc with complete freedom, it's only if I want to commercialise the use of the name that I'd be in trouble.  So I can't see "sheepshagger" making any financial benefit to me.  The owners of "the old firm (TM)" however may (surely must?) see a way to commercialise the term.  Very sad given the continuity scam we all profess to abhor.

     

    View Comment

  37. Easyjambo.  Oh well!  I suppose I could go for "The New Firm" in the expectation of getting relegated.  (Having full set of TD's from Celtic fans now going for the Arabs as well!)

     

    View Comment

  38.  I am in full agreement that we should not throw in the towel and that a complaint be registered with Police Scotland. I would humbly suggest however, before doing so, maybe we look for the best possible legal advice or has this already been done?

    The crime of fraud with the SFA in particular being looked at immediately comes to mind although there might be other offences out there. Celtic FC shareholders are among the victims although they are not alone.

    A request for a full police enquiry with a view to charges needs to be backed up with substantive facts. There is undoubtedly evidence being concealed but as long as those responsible continue to hold closed ranks what chance do we have of convincing the police there is a case?

    Celtic FC possibly, some would say probably, have material they do not wish to disclose. Sadly there seems to be no appetite to fight the cause from that direction. (Maybe they are waiting for the fans to take direct action, maybe not.)

    Whatever the reason it’s clear the can has been kicked down almost to the end of the road. It seems now the only way to get anywhere near a full account of events, both from the so called authorities, the SFA, member club officials at the time, including our own and anyone else involved is for formal police interviews to be conducted.

    Before that can take place however we really must take the best legal advice we can afford to present our case for an investigation. No good turning up with allegations that cannot be backed up. We all know what Police Scotland or any police force for that matter would make of that.

     I have lived down south for too long and am not familiar with the legal position regarding complaints of fraud in Scottish law. I am not aware of the legal firms available who specialise in fraud complaints but I strongly believe we should approach this matter with full preparation. There will obviously be a number of law companies who might already be compromised representing those involved on the other side but I am confident there is good independent legal help and guidance available.

    Although I am a Celtic shareholder this affects all of Scottish football. Not just one club. Everyone who took part in this whole corrupt episode is answerable.

    Maybe a fund could be set up for legal advice before presenting a case for police investigation. . I for one would gladly contribute.

     

     

     

     

    View Comment

  39. It appears the Celtic Board are allowing the SFA review of the 2011 Euro Licence to conclude before deciding what, if anything, to do next.  They are all smart people, and they must know the length of time already taken is completely unreasonable as it is.  What a shocking state of affairs. 

    View Comment

  40. easyJambo 21st November 2018 at 16:37 

    The next steps under consideration and the prime Res12 mover is for taking it to City of London Police after getting some legal advice in respect of what is held.

    That looks like the obvious move given the unwillingness of Scottish football to tackle although if there was more detail on what was going to CAS and some deadlines, whilst less desireable than going to UEFA, that might be acceptable so in the balance for now.

    Here is note of what took place at AGM

    After asking Celtic for an update on Res12, which they had entrusted to SFA to pursue at the last AGM, and having been told Celtic were leaving it with SFA but had emphasised that it would not go away and Celtic were answerable to shareholders, here was my  response.

    Lets see if I have this right.

    Fourteen months after instigating an investigation the SFA are assuring Celtic shareholders via the club that something, but we don’t know what, will be referred to CAS but we don’t know why nor do we know when.

    (A nod to Brendan for The League Cup final: The grass at Hampden will be longer than the grass at Tynecastle)

    The assurances that something unclear will happen comes four months after that CAS referral decision was made and there still has been no referral.

    It has been five months since June when the shareholders lawyer (at a cost of £2.5k on top of earlier bills amounting to £7.5k) put a series of questions along with supporting evidence to the SFA copied to Celtic to which no answers have as yet been given.

    So the questions I have for The Celtic Board are:

    1.    Are Celtic actually bound by the SFA JPDT Decision to refer something to CAS and if so on what basis given that Andrea Traverso Head of UEFA Club Licensing in his letter of 8th June 2016 to Celtic shareholders said and I quote.

    “It is not the general policy of UEFA to write directly to lawyers representing unidentified clients and if this is a matter a member club of the Scottish Football  Association ( IE CELTIC ) wishes to take up with UEFA then the club should do so directly.”  

    Further: can it be explained to shareholders here in the room and at large why Celtic are not asking UEFA CFCB to investigate given:

    1. Fundamentally it is a breach of UEFA rules that is under investigation, which is a job for UEFA – and what Res12 requested.

    And
     
    2.    UEFA’s recent Statement of 12 November  (and again I quote)
     
    “Should new information suggest that previously concluded cases have been abused, those cases may be capable of being re-opened as determined on a case-by-case basis.”
     
    In summary:
    ·       Why have Celtic from the beginning chosen to eschew direct UEFA involvement?
    ·       Why are they not now taking the new information into account in respect of that choice and reviewing it?
    ·       Given the time it has taken the SFA to decide that CAS should be involved (for unclear reasons) are Celtic willing to wait an undetermined period until the SFA are able to progress the matter or will it be all over by ST Renewal time next April?
    ·       Would it be possible for shareholders representatives to meet the SFA Compliance Officer and CEO before Christmas to ascertain progress, to be able to provide assurances based on clarity to those they represent?
    ·       Can we have answers to those questions confirmed in writing please to send to signatories of Resolution 12?

     

    View Comment

  41. brimacel 21st November 2018 at 20:27 

    All of that is under consideration. See my previous to easyjambo.

    The Res12 Lawyer is well acquainted with the details and could advise on next step.  Sum funding was pledged today, probably enough to take things forward but more might be needed. 

    View Comment

  42. ernie 

    21st November 2018 at 19:40

    The owners of "the old firm (TM)" however may (surely must?) see a way to commercialise the term.  Very sad given the continuity scam we all profess to abhor.

    ===============================================

    Or want to make sure that no-one else can.

    Celtic did exactly the same with the old name of the company when it was floated and became a PLC.

    They formed a new company purely to ensure no-one could use the old name, by changing the new company's name to reflect that.

    Much to the confusion of the hard of thinking. 

     

    View Comment

  43. The Res12 Lawyer is well acquainted with the details and could advise on next step.  Sum funding was pledged today, probably enough to take things forward but more might be needed. 

     

    Auldheid let us know how to donate.

    View Comment

  44. Auldheid 21st November 2018 at 21:36
    Would it be possible for shareholders representatives to meet the SFA Compliance Officer and CEO before Christmas to ascertain progress, to be able to provide assurances based on clarity to those they represent?
    · Can we have answers to those questions confirmed in writing please to send to signatories of Resolution 12?
    ………………
    I would hope the new compliance officer will clear her diary from now until christmas and make any date available to meet shareholders representatives,she must be well up to speed by now and willing to meet.
    Ps.
    Thanks for the update Auldheid.

    View Comment

  45. brimacel 21st November 2018 at 20:27 

    '…Maybe a fund could be set up for legal advice before presenting a case for police investigation. '

    _____________________________

    I would not of course discount anything you say, brimacel. 

    I think, though, that a citizen ( or 'subject') in reporting that he thinks a crime may have been committed, does not need to be able to provide evidence that proves the crime( that's for the Procurator Fiscal to do, on evidence provided by the polis once they have investigated) 

    I think that if a citizen were to have

    documents that show that party A  actually owed certain monies in taxes on a specified date,

    and documents that show that party A  had acknowledged that he actually owed those  taxes 

    and if the citizen also has other documents that  show that, by lying about that fact to party B, party A obtained a substantial sum of money from Party C that he was not entitled to, 

    then, if that citizen goes along to the polis to report that he thinks a crime may have been committed , he's not required  to specify in legal language what the crime may be, or to produce the kind of cast- iron evidence that would be required in a court of law.

    He simply needs enough to let the polis know that,on the face of things, something seems not to  be  at all right.

    And it would be for the polis then to:

     'note' the complaint ( and bin it quietly!)   OR

    nod concernedly, while muttering about the complexities  of the business /football world and its rules and  say that there is nothing they can do   OR

    tell him, nicely,while thanking him for his public spirit, to leave 'crime' to the polis, OR

    less nicely, to mind his own feckin business, OR

    lean menacingly over the bar and say to him(as was once said to me by a desk sergeant in Shettleston!)  " There's my effing number, now you get to f..k "  OR

    properly record the citizen's report, take such copies of 'supporting' documents that are presented, give the citizen a note that that has been done, assure the citizen that the matter will be looked at, and thereafter 'investigate', and if the investigation seems to bear out the suspicion that crime has been committed, pass the findings to the PF.

    I would hope that this last would be what my local cop shop would do, if I were that citizen.

    If there happened also to be some documents that suggest that Party B knew he was being lied to, but colluded in that lie by telling Party C that Party A was telling the unvarnished Truth……..?

    As to what the Crown Office would do on receipt of any reference from the polis……..I do not speculate.

    And you know, in passing,  one of my very favourite entertainers was Paul Daniels : what was it he used to say? something like 'It's magic!' when he circled about Debbie before making her disappear.

    And ,also in passing, can I say that the renewal of the 'Old Firm' copyright has caught my attention.

    On this blog much has been made of the readiness of TRFC Ltd supporters' gullibility. 

    I would hope that Celtic FC supporters are not open to that charge.

    And that their absent majority shareholder is  not the other cheek.

    Nothing is more rank than hypocrisy.

     

     

     

    View Comment

  46. Auldheid 21st November 2018 at 21:40

    All of that is under consideration. See my previous to easyjambo.

    The Res12 Lawyer is well acquainted with the details and could advise on next step.  Sum funding was pledged today, probably enough to take things forward but more might be needed. 

    And if it is, I for one, as a shareholder and supporter who forked out thousands to watch a crooked game, will be more than happy to contribute. Just say when.

    View Comment

  47. Auldheid 21st November 2018 at 21:40

    I've been a long time admirer of the work of the Res 12'ers and have now finally got to the point where any benefit of the doubt I felt should be given to the board has gone. I'll happily contribute as much as I can to any legal costs in seeking justice and if Celtic plc really think that this will simply go away then they are hugely mistaken. People who for years paid good hard earned money following a rigged sport with bent governors aren't going anywhere until this is addressed. If that means also taking action against the plc board members then so be it.

    View Comment

  48. Auldheid 21st November 2018 at 21:36

     

    The next steps under consideration and the prime Res12 mover is for taking it to City of London Police after getting some legal advice in respect of what is held.

    =================================

    Thank the Lord it is the City of London Police who are being considered. I will say no more. 

    View Comment
1 2 3 9
 

Comments are closed.