Jimbo On the other hand TRFC will be unseeded,  the DR …

Comment on Time to Make Things Happen by Auldheid.

Jimbo
On the other hand TRFC will be unseeded,  the DR says it’s because this is their first time in Europe in 6 years, but it could also be because it is their first time in Europe EVER!  Heaven knows how they will do, they are such an unknown quantity now.
===============
As far as UEFA are concerned The Rangers Football Club only became eligible to apply for a UEFA licence in Aug 2015 having satisfied the Article 12 requirement to be members of the SFA for three consecutive years from Aug 2012.
TRFC would never argue otherwise with UEFA as UEFA’s acceptance would mean paying tax in millions overdue since Sept 2011 and earlier.
The SFA also understand this as they were informed of same by UEFA (Traverso) in June 2016 and it would be so easy for the media to confirm what Traverso said.
Additionally had they not ceased to be the same club/company in UEFA’s eyes then UEFA would have pursued the dishonesty at play to be granted and retain the licence in 2011.

Auldheid Also Commented

Time to Make Things Happen
Cluster One

The Requisitioners drove it from securing an adjournment as opposed to Celtic sticking by their Res12 unecessary stance.
They drove it all the way to UEFA resulting in Traverso letter and went back again. At that point UEFA said they would only deal with a member club of the national association so it was handed over to Celtic in Dec 2016 where it lies waiting for court cases to end.
Celtic shareholders who signed the Res were updated in full just before the last AGM.
Another is in draft.
I think Chill Ultra does not understand Barcas question because he believes that Res12 was about much more than the UEFA licence and there was more as background in the Res document but focus was placed on the latter because it was the one area that directly affected Celtic and so had locus.
Without it the rest would have been dismissed as a matter for the SFA or SPFL.
Nothing conspiratorial or sinister just pragmatism.


Time to Make Things Happen
Chill Ultra
Let me know the next time you are in Scotland and I’ll try and arrange a meeting with him.
I know that I and the person whose motives you question are shareholders. I am not sure of status of other two at time Res was being formed.
Your  thinking  that there is a formally constituted body around Res12 is wrong, only a group who actually acted on  questions being asked on CQN that needed answers and used the  AGM process as shareholders to try and get them and had Res12 been passed by Celtic instead of opposed there would have been no need for funding or reporting back etc. 
With regard to your charge of lack of accountability etc can I ask that you make it on CQN to establish how many signatories share that view  as that is the more appropriate forum to pursue the matter?
You can always put the answers back here.


Time to Make Things Happen
Ally Jambo

I understand the point you are making, made it myself actually in conversations,  but these guys have been spending  a bit of time getting the necessary high level support for change on board and the politics at play may have influenced that approach
However by joining up you now have the opportunity to encourage them to be more bold, I’m sure you will rise to the challenge.


Recent Comments by Auldheid

The Vice Closes
If the adverts do not get in the way this is an excellent read from James Forrest on why an enquiry into 5 separate issues is essential. 
https://thecelticblog.com/2017/09/blogs/here-are-just-some-of-the-reasons-an-inquiry-into-the-sfa-is-needed/amp/ 
On the UEFA licence aspect RFC signed a Declaration that allowed SFA to obtain info from HMRC during 2011 and on the matter of preplanning for Rangers demise, Gary Withey had a chat with Rod McKenzie on the issues and hurdles, subsequently shared with Doncaster, in early October 2011.
It is no wonder an enquiry is being resisted. 


The Vice Closes
John Clark
One of the Res12 boys has long held this view that the Serious Fraud Office should be involved but we had to go through the gears but if the CompOff investigation concludes that a) RFC lied to obtain a licence and b) the SFA were complicit in a fraud (although they will be arguing the were negligent if a fraud charge were brought) then the SFOwould be the way to go but it’s not just small shareholders who would claim to be defrauded although they led the charge.
In such circumstances of fraud being proved I would hope Dermott Desmond, who has had to fork out a good few bob since 2000 and accept much criticism from 2004 , might decide the SFO is the way to go.
Now that would attract attention.


The Vice Closes
Ryan Gosling.
If such an event were to happen that is where motivation would come into play.
Few would reckon it was not to offend given no connection whatsover to the history of either club.
Granted ascribing motivation can be difficult but in the instance you suggest few would think it wasnt to offend.
My point stands. In the absence of criteria how can any judgement be made?
It’s time folk took personal responsibility for what offends them and looked into why. That should  include the possibility that no offense is intended whether it be the singing of The Sash or Soldiers are We.
There is a word for that and it’s called tolerance. 
Not enough of it around.


The Vice Closes
Zilch

My last word on the subject of songs was in Feb 2009. I think the approach advocated remains valid.

How To Tell If a Song Is Sectarian  
Written by Auldyin   
Saturday, 21 February 2009
Every now and then a songs debate flares up in Celtic Cyberspace and the one thing you can be sure of is no agreement will emerge. This will always be so unless there is a set of criteria to go by.
Examining The Billy Boys offers one set of criteria for a sectarian song in that the words “up to our knees in fenian blood” offers violence to a person of an identifiable religious faith either directly or in this case by inference, fenian = Catholic.
If you take the Soldiers Song or The Fields that are deemed acceptable by Celtic if I understand it correctly. The thing about these songs is that they are “inward aimed” or “centred on self” celebrating that sense of self.
 
Sectarianism is defined as ” bigotry, discrimination, prejudice or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion or the factions of a political movement.
The key words are sub divisions WITHIN a group. The group involved with The Fields or Soldiers is a single group where no sub division exists.
For a song to be sectarian it has to project OUTWARD from that group ideas or beliefs that the group wish to impose on others or to express distaste or hatred for those OUTSIDE the group.
The key words are inward celebration and outward projection. The first cannot by definition be sectarian but the latter depending on the words can.
So why not use those criteria to at least draw a line?
Now on what is objectionable to others: songs that are inward celebrating might cause offence to others but they are the ones taking offence, it is not being offered to or aimed at them. It is something intolerant in them that sparks the offence taken.
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, why not offence? We as Celtic supporters are not responsible if others take offence at our songs of inward celebration. It is only when outward projection as in say add ons occurs that sectarianism might apply. These criteria would apply to Rangers songs as well as our own. This debate has been going on for ever. You would think someone would have penned official criteria from usage by now to give guidance to the support. Note criteria is NOT a song list. Folk can use the criteria to look at what they sing and maybe think about why they are singing what they are. Inward celebration of belief/faith/culture/tradition or outward projection of those things on to others. Question the motivation, using the criteria, not the words of the song.


The Vice Closes
nawliteSeptember 21, 2017 at 22:17

Tom English is one of 13 journalists sent hard copy by SFM contributors in 2014 of evidence that could not have been presented to LNS for him to be able  say there was ” no question of dishonesty corporate or individual” regarding ebts and side letters. The evidence screamed the opposite.
If Tom never received it he can maybe clear himself by saying so, but I think he has read the Tax Justice Network report on the matter, but if it has flaws has not pointed them out. Now is his chance.
More significant though is the simple question that the SFA/SPFL and SMSM are avoiding and that is
Does Tom (and fellow journos) think RFC acted dishonestly since 2000 and have the enquiries based on all evidence now available made that clear, or have they simply been an attempt at avoiding that uncomfortable truth?
If so, why the desperate need to avoid admitting RFC broke the rules and with it the trust in Scottish football in order to gain financial and sporting advantage?
What is the worst that could happen after a few resignations?  
Who is so unsure of their own place in the grand scheme of things that they depend on “trophies won” in dubious circumstances to reinforce their sense of worth?
Perhaps too deep for Tom although Graeme Speirs might want to think about it; so for Tom the simple question is.
Do you think RFC have acted honestly and in good faith towards the rest of Scottish football from 2000 and if not how did they get away with it?


SSL Certificates