Comment on In Whose Interests by Auldheid.

    Cluster One 4th November 2019 at 18:50 


    Auldheid 4th November 2019 at 16:56
    I hope when this is concluded the Res 12 guys get back every penny spent.



    It is a thought……

    Auldheid Also Commented

    In Whose Interests
    It's all so obvious now looking back  so why is a sham being allowed to continue to stigmatise Scottish football?

    Whose interests is it really in to sustain  a myth at the expense of whatever future Scottish has?




    In Whose Interests

    The Res12 Archive has been updated to cover Celtic’s response to the most recent Resolution to bring Res12 of 2013 AGM to a conclusion. If you are not a shareholder it explains what was proposed & why and what Celtic actually oppose. All at 25th October date.




    In Whose Interests

    More for Celtic shareholders but perhaps of wider interest to others  regarding the rear guard action to protect the status quo and in doing so keep moral hazard alive.

    One of the key points with regards to whether a UEFA Licence was awarded correctly in 2011 lost over time is that neither Celtic (nor the SFA ) have ever once voiced an opinion themselves in public in spite of opportunities to do so at every AGM since 2013 as to whether an overdue payable existed or not at 31 March 2011.

    It has always been about the process of uncovering, never any opinion aired on the strength of the case and the prima facie conclusion.

    The argument for silence before charges were made over 2 years ago in May 2018 was that of not wanting to prejudice proceedings and one that had to be accepted for fear of doing just that.

    However after 2 years of supposed investigation is it not time Celtic aired an opinion rather than hide behind a process that has been demonstrated carries no authority to investigate of itself hence the stall in proceedings?

    The Res12 Archive at https://www.res12.uk carries some interesting information, one such, possibly overlooked as it refers to the 2012 Licensing Cycle and the application for a UEFA Licence by RFC just weeks before entering administration is in a letter dated 1st February 2012 from the SFA to Rangers.

    It addresses the still unpaid wee tax bill from 2011 and it can be read at


    The relevant part comes under Article 50 about the overdue tax disclosed at 31 December 2011 (which was the £2.8M owed from March 21st in 2011) where it says such tax had now to be paid by 31st March 2012 or be viewed as an overdue payable if there was no agreement to postpone or was in dispute.

    Significantly it says the Licensing Committee would need sight of any relevant correspondence to be satisfied the amount is a genuine legal dispute.( presumably meaning subject to one)

    The significance is that in the 2011 process the Lic Committee were not told it was a payable at 31 Dec 2010 but a potential liability where there were ongoing discussions giving impression of dispute ( the actual words used to satisfy the Lic Comm in a letter from Grant Thornton RFC Auditors were repeated in more or less the same form in the Interim Accounts) .

    However did the 2011 Lic Comm ask for relevant correspondence that did exist to substantiate the proof RFC offered the SFA to obtain a licence? They did in 2012 so was the difference that RFC disclosed there was a payable in 2012 but not in 2011.(RFC could hardly do otherwise after Sherriff Officers turned up at Ibrox in August 2011)

    That is the detail but as this information is in SFA records where comparisons can be made and conclusions drawn then it cannot be that after 2 years there is no case to answer but it is the fear of facing the consequences that is the reason to stall and stall.

    Seven years have passed, there is still a club playing football at Ibrox and the events in question precedes the liquidation of the club who committed the offence.

    So why not admit what is now clear to the world and THEN explain why its not in Celtic’s interests to push the SFA as well as not going to UEFA and let the SFA then explain themselves?

    Stop treating Celtic shareholders/ supporters like idiots.

    Recent Comments by Auldheid

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    macfurgly 2nd December 2019 at 14:18

    Auldheid 1st December 2019 at 20:44


    From the VC article:

    "Why Lawwell doesn’t want UEFA to take a look and give their verdict can lead to only one conclusion- Celtic have something to hide in this, there is something that they’d rather keep quiet about".

    That sense has been growing with me for some time, but what could it be?

    On the basis of no evidence whatsoever, is it possible that Celtic fronted up the SFA in late 2011 or early 2012, they held their hands up, and a deal was done behind the scenes, possibly with UEFA involved, which all parties want to remain undiscovered?


    Such are the efforts to hide what took place in March and April 2011 from scrutiny you find yourself in tinfoil on the head thinking, not to stop thoughts going out but to stop them taking hold for fear of where they might lead.

    You can take it as a matter of corporate responsibility a certainty Celtic were involved in the 5 Way Deal in 2012  and in time, if the tease on Video Celts has a basis, a fact.

    As regards 2011: had Malmo not turfed RFC out of Europe on 3 August requiring Sherriff Officers acting on the instructions of HMRC, whose negotiations allowed time for the qualifying game to pass , to turn up at Ibrox on 10 August, chances are a loan secured against guaranteed CL income would have stopped the alarm going off.

    When it did however Celtic were pressed to get answers from the SFA which they did early December 2011 and got assurances of no jiggery pokery. 

    The content of that letter was thrown into doubt in the summer of 2013 when Charlotte Fakeovers made e mails etc available.

    Although Res12 2013 was opposed by the Board on basis of SFA assurances that ignored the CF material provided to Celtic months  before the AGM, it scared Celtic enough, who had it before Res12 was a twinkle in a CQN eye but ignored it, to suggest an adjournment that took us down the SFA yellow brick judicial  road to run into the CAS cul de sac clause contained in the 5 Way 

    So there is nothing based on letters exchanged to suggest any deal in 2011, in fact any correspondence made or becoming public since shows Celtic very active on paper in pursuit of the truth.

    With tin foil hat on, imagine RFC had beaten Malmo and all that flowed from a flawed business plan would not have happened, saving all the grief since Feb 2012 when RFC entered administration. It sounds like nonsense to think so but it does suggest motivation for a deal in 2011 and avoidance of scrutiny of that period since.


    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond

    The idea that Celtic were not involved was supported with what looked  like activity that gave the impression they were on the outside, including adjourning Res12  that allowed uncovering not possible had it been killed at 2013 AGM.

    There was also factor that 5 Way was not signed by individual clubs but SPL on behalf of member clubs also SFA and SFL.


    Plausible deniability has been the result but is no longer so according to the VC article referring to a date of an inbox item.

    That is the first bit of concrete evidence that will make denial impossible.

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    Correction follows.

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    A follow up from the AGM  of interest possibly.



    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    easyJambo27th November 2019 at 13:39

    Petrie and Dickson still have executive positions at the SFA – does that concern you?


    it’s difficult for me to comment individuals. where we can we will hold people to account.

    Lawwell insists he has never seen the ‘five-way agreement’. Says he and Celtic have never had any involvement.



    Res12 to 2019 was always going to be outvoted and its primary purpose was to bring events since 2013 into the open and establish Celtic's position by having a record posted in AGM history that all could see. No need for behind door meetings with folk no longer trusted.

    In that respect the response to the question on the 5 Way will make that untrustworthiness  open to all.

    The chap who posed the question has a blog called Video Celts and that response by Lawwell will raise doubts about the honesty of the motives for not only not taking the matter out of SFA hands but finding reason not to interfere in the SFA stalled JPDT, a process that itself is untrustworthy as will be made clear in due course.

    To clean up Scottish football the band of brothers that are Petrie, Dickson,Lawwell and Eric Riley need to be removed from their unaccountable positions.