Latest from Auldheid Re Res 12 - Merged
- Thread starter Winning Captains
- Start date
Shadow2
Well-known member
Reading through the Statement ( copyright Ibrokes DUP ! ) it basically says that THEY ( the SFA ) '' did not have jurisdiction to determine the matter ''.
It claims that such jurisdiction lies with the C.A.S.
Then they say that after LEGAL opinion because of '' the implications of such a referral '' the Board were not of a mind to refer the matter to the C.A.S.
So the reason that this matter is not being passed to the C.A.S. is NOT because it has NO merit - it is because of the ''implications '' of such a referral .
What are these ''implications'' ? What are they concerned about ? Why would any country's administration body fear the ''implications'' of passing on a perfectly reasonable request to an independent arbitration body ?
HH
It claims that such jurisdiction lies with the C.A.S.
Then they say that after LEGAL opinion because of '' the implications of such a referral '' the Board were not of a mind to refer the matter to the C.A.S.
So the reason that this matter is not being passed to the C.A.S. is NOT because it has NO merit - it is because of the ''implications '' of such a referral .
What are these ''implications'' ? What are they concerned about ? Why would any country's administration body fear the ''implications'' of passing on a perfectly reasonable request to an independent arbitration body ?
HH
michael duffy
Well-known member
What are these ''implications'' ? What are they concerned about ? Why would any country's administration body fear the ''implications'' of passing on a perfectly reasonable request to an independent arbitration body ?
And that is the $64,000 question Millsy!
And that is the $64,000 question Millsy!
Imatim
Well-known member
........................
I think perhaps we can break it down to a 5 way implication
K
kelly
Guest
So does that really mean Naw , cause now yer sayin it's fkn Naw , whit naw is it
K
kelly
Guest
a was here firstHow many threads do we need on this ??? asking for ma pal Kelly...
K
kelly
Guest
aye we heard ye the first time
boab1916
Well-known member
Was an answer given as to why it was not considered approriate to pursue the report, stakeholders are entitled to a reply.Celtic Shareholders Latest – Persistence Beaten by Resistance as SFA decide against taking ‘Res 12’ Complaint to CAS...
Celtic Shareholders Latest – Persistence Beaten by Resistance as SFA decide against taking 'Res 12' Complaint to CAS | The Celtic Star
PERSISTENCE BEATS RES12STANCE was the inspirational slogan created to support a group of Celtic shareholders who shone a light on the shady practices at the Scottish FA that allowed Rangers FC to gainthecelticstar.com
Shadow2
Well-known member
Shadow2
Well-known member
They say because of the 'implications' of such a referral Boab.
In other words they're up to their necks in this and referring it to CAS would not just be turkey's voting for Christmas but turkey's stuffing themselves then jumping into the fucking oven.
Self preservation!
K
kelly
Guest
Imatim
Well-known member
..................................
I will give consideration to which NAW is most applicable to the situation and get back to you in due course.....please hold your breath until I do
Imatim
Well-known member
...................................
I'm betting that some time in the future this will come back to bite the SFA.....what a precedent they have now set.....stating "implications" without stating what the implications are.....as their justifiable reason to dismiss a serious matter is simply outrageous...
It's up there with "On the balance of probability" being used to convict a person of an offence, isn't it?
Imatim
Well-known member
As folk have been asking about what's the latest on Resolution 12.....here is the latest c&p from him on CQN below.....I hope he doesn't mind and I hope WC can get him on here some time soon to further share his thoughts with us all...
AULDHEID on 20TH MAY 2020 1:00 AM
Res12.
The moving spotlight.
What is emerging is that Rangers successors in effect got a pardon for the crimes of their predecessors so both the LNS sham and Res12 were never going to be investigated to see justice done.
What is nigh unforgivable is that Celtic, having accepted the 5 Way Agreement containing among other things the CAS referral clause that in effect has provided a pardon, not only refused to put the UEFA Licence issue before UEFA TWICE, but insisted their shareholders follow the SFA Judicial Process, which they then refused to question after 2 AGMs, knowing all along that the 5 Way Agreement would prevent justice being served.
The SFA have now in effect turned the spotlight back on Peter Lawwell personally whose record of deception in terms of saying something to give the impression of being on shareholders side in the pursuit of justice and a reformed SFA, in fact did nothing to follow up when hard evidence was provided.
The SFA have put Celtic and the governance of Scottish football direct in the spotlight by their statement without an explanation for closing the matter.
Closure will be obtained if an explanation that sets out whether the licence was processed within the rules in 2011 (and there is one about telling the truth) that there was no breach of two Articles one governing overdue payables, the other an Article requiring Rangers to notify the SFA of any change in circumstances since they granted the licence on 19th April 2011. A change which happened on 20th May six days before UEFA were notified of Scottish clubs to whom licence had been granted.
All else is avoidance.
Anything less is dereliction of duty by the SFA to carry out their responsibility to administer THEIR judicial protocol on which the credibility of Scottish football depends.
When supporters buy an ST for loyalty reasons what assurances can clubs give that the rules on which the game depends are being upheld without fear or favor when Petrie an architect of the 5 Way Agreement, can sit as Chairman on The SFA Board that have decided to stop investigating the basis of the decision by the Licensing Committee that Petrie chaired in 2011?
Celtic still are answerable to their shareholders at AGMs, which is where this will go next unless they make a statement either that no deception took place and support it or that it did, but in the long term interests of Scottish football they will not pursue the compensation that the evidence at https://www.res12.uk/ suggests they are entitled to seek.
It matters nought that any resolution gets voted down at an AGM, that is the place where CEOs and Directors are held accountable to shareholders and if it reveals beyond reasonable doubt that shareholders were lied to from 2013, then The Board may still remain in a job, they may be great business men (earning a few bob ) but their continuing presence will rob Celtic of any claim to be more than a club, the emotional tag that drew me back to Celtic after years of enjoying watch my kids play football.
AULDHEID on 20TH MAY 2020 1:00 AM
Res12.
The moving spotlight.
What is emerging is that Rangers successors in effect got a pardon for the crimes of their predecessors so both the LNS sham and Res12 were never going to be investigated to see justice done.
What is nigh unforgivable is that Celtic, having accepted the 5 Way Agreement containing among other things the CAS referral clause that in effect has provided a pardon, not only refused to put the UEFA Licence issue before UEFA TWICE, but insisted their shareholders follow the SFA Judicial Process, which they then refused to question after 2 AGMs, knowing all along that the 5 Way Agreement would prevent justice being served.
The SFA have now in effect turned the spotlight back on Peter Lawwell personally whose record of deception in terms of saying something to give the impression of being on shareholders side in the pursuit of justice and a reformed SFA, in fact did nothing to follow up when hard evidence was provided.
The SFA have put Celtic and the governance of Scottish football direct in the spotlight by their statement without an explanation for closing the matter.
Closure will be obtained if an explanation that sets out whether the licence was processed within the rules in 2011 (and there is one about telling the truth) that there was no breach of two Articles one governing overdue payables, the other an Article requiring Rangers to notify the SFA of any change in circumstances since they granted the licence on 19th April 2011. A change which happened on 20th May six days before UEFA were notified of Scottish clubs to whom licence had been granted.
All else is avoidance.
Anything less is dereliction of duty by the SFA to carry out their responsibility to administer THEIR judicial protocol on which the credibility of Scottish football depends.
When supporters buy an ST for loyalty reasons what assurances can clubs give that the rules on which the game depends are being upheld without fear or favor when Petrie an architect of the 5 Way Agreement, can sit as Chairman on The SFA Board that have decided to stop investigating the basis of the decision by the Licensing Committee that Petrie chaired in 2011?
Celtic still are answerable to their shareholders at AGMs, which is where this will go next unless they make a statement either that no deception took place and support it or that it did, but in the long term interests of Scottish football they will not pursue the compensation that the evidence at https://www.res12.uk/ suggests they are entitled to seek.
It matters nought that any resolution gets voted down at an AGM, that is the place where CEOs and Directors are held accountable to shareholders and if it reveals beyond reasonable doubt that shareholders were lied to from 2013, then The Board may still remain in a job, they may be great business men (earning a few bob ) but their continuing presence will rob Celtic of any claim to be more than a club, the emotional tag that drew me back to Celtic after years of enjoying watch my kids play football.
michael duffy
Well-known member
Mon the Auldheid
as fan's, can we take this any further? or as customers is it the price we pay!The sad thing about this is the complete lack of respect the board have for supporters and shareholders, to string the res 12 guys along knowing it would come to nothing, means as many of us feared that the board have gave that mob a get out of jail free card, shameful imo.
Big thanks to auldheid and the rest of the team who put up a helluva fight.
Big thanks to auldheid and the rest of the team who put up a helluva fight.
K
kelly
Guest
This can't be left to die on the vine ,the boards obstruction from the very begining was telling they are up to there necks in something and Lawwells comment that he had never seen the 5 way agreement was also an indication that they had something to hide
Hope we can get Auldheid back on to see what's the next move if any
Hope we can get Auldheid back on to see what's the next move if any
The more they hide the facts the more we are convinced that this can of worms will come back to haunt some on the Celtic Board .
I share Auldheid's growing disillusion with the Board .
If we claim to be a ''Club like no other '' why are we party to a cover up of wilful wrongdoing which has tainted our country's football administration since 2012 ?
HH
I share Auldheid's growing disillusion with the Board .
If we claim to be a ''Club like no other '' why are we party to a cover up of wilful wrongdoing which has tainted our country's football administration since 2012 ?
HH
Last edited:
K
kelly
Guest
From sentinal celts
True this stunk when lawwell wouldn't send it to uefa
Morning,all.
It didn’t take very long for those conniving basterts at the SFA to wipe the NINE IN A ROW smiles from the faces of the Celtic support. Roughly 24 hours,in fact. They have proudly announced that they will not be sending to the Court of Administration of Sport the matter of the awarding to Rangers of a European licence for 2011/12.
The excuses that they have offered include such gems as being advised of costs to do so exceeding six figures while the punishments available are only of £5000 and £10,000. That the terms of the 5WA mean that they can’t deal with the problem themselves. That legal advice suggests little chance of victory.
Etc,etc
Well,excuse me butting in here. The questions raised by Resolution 12-the famous recollection of events as compiled by a group of shareholder-backed Celtic supporters-were specifically aimed at holding the SFA to account,not Rangers. It had nothing to do with Rangers as you cannot punish the dead. It was to find out how the SFA managed to facilitate the granting of a European licence to a club which was in breach of the entry conditions regarding tax liabilities,as stipulated by UEFA.
UEFA’s regulations on this are NOT optional. They are mandatory. They MUST be adhered to,but the SFA Licencing Committee decided to ignore them,despite clear evidence of the breach.
In fact,it had been reported in January 2011-over two months before the first cut off date-that Craig Whyte had discovered while doing due diligence on the Ibrox books that there was an undeclared tax liability,and the asking price for the club suddenly dropped from £6m to a quid.
Clear evidence that there was not a disputed bill,but an outstanding one. Yet the licensing committee ignored it. TWICE. And subsequently since. And yesterday the SFA,whose current president is Rod Petrie,declined to investigate its own Licencing Committee’s fraud or failure,that Licencing Committee having been chaired at the time by-Rod Petrie!
This is an obstruction of justice,disguised by the obfuscation and conflation of the Rangers angle and possible punishments. But what of Celtic’s role in all this,for I’m afraid that our club don’t come out of too well either?
Peter Lawwell was well aware that the Rangers application had been wrongly approved. That’s not to suggest that he knew at the time,and it would be wrong to assume without proof. But proof is what he wanted. Proof is what he demanded of the fans behind Res 12. He wanted a silver bullet,and he promised to fire it. The four lads worked diligently to provide him with this,every t crossed and every i dotted.
It did not come cheap,neither in financial terms nor in time consumed. At almost every juncture,they were asked for more. That little higher level of proof,of culpability. That more costly legal opinion,lawyer’s letters,you name it. They were being send down blind alleys,cul de sacs and dead ends. But they stuck to their task,and finally PL had to thank them for their efforts,for the proof provided was irrefutable. The lads had long pleaded with him to send the evidence to UEFA,as such a claim could only be made by a member club or association,but our CEO insisted that it be dealt with by the SFA. Yes,you read that right. He wanted the organisation which had wrongly granted a licence-at the expense of Celtic FC-to investigate itself! And yesterday we saw why that was not the correct decision to make if you really wanted to see justice done.
That is either naive or stupid. Because I wouldn’t like to think it was anything else. But for all my questioning of Peter Lawwell over the last fifteen years or so,I can’t ever remember thinking that he was stupid. So it’s a puzzle,innit? Either way,it is a silver bullet provided and wasted. It would be unbecoming to suggest that he deliberately sent the four lads off on a wild goose chase,at great cost to themselves as I said,knowing that they had no chance of success because he would simply refuse to hand the evidence to UEFA,and would simply allow the SFA to bin the matter. Unbecoming,because there surely can’t be any truth in such a suggestion.
Perhaps our readers might help me out with some ideas,some suggestions for his motivations in all of this. Because the three I’ve mentioned can’t be right. Well,they can’t ALL be right. Actually,none of them can be right,and that is why I have already discounted them. Because that would be an appalling vista. And those words should send a wee shudder through the spines of anyone who knows their history about justice denied.
******
Above article by BMCUWP. remember folks,that we are always happy to receive your contributions for Article of the Day. Mail it to MAHE
sentinelcelts@gmail.co
True this stunk when lawwell wouldn't send it to uefa
Morning,all.
It didn’t take very long for those conniving basterts at the SFA to wipe the NINE IN A ROW smiles from the faces of the Celtic support. Roughly 24 hours,in fact. They have proudly announced that they will not be sending to the Court of Administration of Sport the matter of the awarding to Rangers of a European licence for 2011/12.
The excuses that they have offered include such gems as being advised of costs to do so exceeding six figures while the punishments available are only of £5000 and £10,000. That the terms of the 5WA mean that they can’t deal with the problem themselves. That legal advice suggests little chance of victory.
Etc,etc
Well,excuse me butting in here. The questions raised by Resolution 12-the famous recollection of events as compiled by a group of shareholder-backed Celtic supporters-were specifically aimed at holding the SFA to account,not Rangers. It had nothing to do with Rangers as you cannot punish the dead. It was to find out how the SFA managed to facilitate the granting of a European licence to a club which was in breach of the entry conditions regarding tax liabilities,as stipulated by UEFA.
UEFA’s regulations on this are NOT optional. They are mandatory. They MUST be adhered to,but the SFA Licencing Committee decided to ignore them,despite clear evidence of the breach.
In fact,it had been reported in January 2011-over two months before the first cut off date-that Craig Whyte had discovered while doing due diligence on the Ibrox books that there was an undeclared tax liability,and the asking price for the club suddenly dropped from £6m to a quid.
Clear evidence that there was not a disputed bill,but an outstanding one. Yet the licensing committee ignored it. TWICE. And subsequently since. And yesterday the SFA,whose current president is Rod Petrie,declined to investigate its own Licencing Committee’s fraud or failure,that Licencing Committee having been chaired at the time by-Rod Petrie!
This is an obstruction of justice,disguised by the obfuscation and conflation of the Rangers angle and possible punishments. But what of Celtic’s role in all this,for I’m afraid that our club don’t come out of too well either?
Peter Lawwell was well aware that the Rangers application had been wrongly approved. That’s not to suggest that he knew at the time,and it would be wrong to assume without proof. But proof is what he wanted. Proof is what he demanded of the fans behind Res 12. He wanted a silver bullet,and he promised to fire it. The four lads worked diligently to provide him with this,every t crossed and every i dotted.
It did not come cheap,neither in financial terms nor in time consumed. At almost every juncture,they were asked for more. That little higher level of proof,of culpability. That more costly legal opinion,lawyer’s letters,you name it. They were being send down blind alleys,cul de sacs and dead ends. But they stuck to their task,and finally PL had to thank them for their efforts,for the proof provided was irrefutable. The lads had long pleaded with him to send the evidence to UEFA,as such a claim could only be made by a member club or association,but our CEO insisted that it be dealt with by the SFA. Yes,you read that right. He wanted the organisation which had wrongly granted a licence-at the expense of Celtic FC-to investigate itself! And yesterday we saw why that was not the correct decision to make if you really wanted to see justice done.
That is either naive or stupid. Because I wouldn’t like to think it was anything else. But for all my questioning of Peter Lawwell over the last fifteen years or so,I can’t ever remember thinking that he was stupid. So it’s a puzzle,innit? Either way,it is a silver bullet provided and wasted. It would be unbecoming to suggest that he deliberately sent the four lads off on a wild goose chase,at great cost to themselves as I said,knowing that they had no chance of success because he would simply refuse to hand the evidence to UEFA,and would simply allow the SFA to bin the matter. Unbecoming,because there surely can’t be any truth in such a suggestion.
Perhaps our readers might help me out with some ideas,some suggestions for his motivations in all of this. Because the three I’ve mentioned can’t be right. Well,they can’t ALL be right. Actually,none of them can be right,and that is why I have already discounted them. Because that would be an appalling vista. And those words should send a wee shudder through the spines of anyone who knows their history about justice denied.
******
Above article by BMCUWP. remember folks,that we are always happy to receive your contributions for Article of the Day. Mail it to MAHE
sentinelcelts@gmail.co
