Auldheid pulling no punches in responses on CQN…
AULDHEID on
21ST FEBRUARY 2024 3:17 AM
AT
David Low,i would guess his would be similar to mine-r12 is deid exc i dont think he would be as patient as me,he knows his stuff.
==============
Particularly as David was co Director in a Company with the Rangers official in the room in March 2011 when Rangers accepted on 21st March they had a payable before 31st March, which became overdue on 1st April meaning no UEFA licence – not a potential liability as they declared in their accounts subject to ongoing talks that enabled the SFA to grant the licence.
He knows his stuff ok. Ironically it was he that asked if there was legal advice to support a resolution, that would have benefitted from it had the funds for such advice been available. He had a point, but in the absence of funding what shareholders sent to Celtic brought them to negotiate a statement of engagement with SFA/UEFA.
++++++++++++++
AT – maybe take it as a learning,try a different route to attain your goal,but the goal of r12 has ended.
————-
Do you know what the goal of Res12 actually was? SFA reform and that is still being pursued on a wider front via the SFSA with the SG getting involved.
Res12 was just to give Celtic the leverage to change the SFA but it was conceived in the naïve days before it became obvious Celtic were part of what needs reform.
Chris misrepresented a request for CST support from small shareholders willing to fund legal costs saying it they wanted the CST to back it not just in principal, but also with finances. It was agreed overwhelmingly (at a CST meeting) that this would be a futile and pointless exercise.
This was a total misrepresentation of what small shareholders were seeking. It was a request for the CST to to help find out what the responsibilities of Directors were to small shareholders based on the so called “long grass ” treatment of shareholders in the pursuit of Res12 . He was put straight on that misrepresentation.
All the CST had to do was in effect front the (Res12 ) shareholder group if they saw merit in using Celtic’s treatment of shareholders during Res12 including lying to them at the 2019 AGM, as a means if identifying if shareholders rights and Director’s responsibilities had been met during the Res12 years.
Get it, not to take DD to court which is a misrepresentation on your part, but to establish if Celtic small shareholders , whom the CST ignored had been treated correctly under Company Law. If that legal advice was Directors had acted in a fair manner the matter would rests although it would mean it is OK to lie to small shareholders at AGMs or if Directors did not comply with Company Law, then then anyone who does not comply can be asked by those shareholders to resign for breaches of that law.
I wonder how many of the Celtic support at large would be prepared to fund such advice. £20k was spurned by CST on a false premise.
I thought Chris himself had been played by Low (who had personal reasons for Res12 to fall) and I bear Chris no ill will although he had to be corrected by another requisitioner about accusations levelled at me on a private forum a few months ago.
I think he got me wrong from the outset and I would love to know what caused it.
On lesson learning how long will it be before the CST learn any lessons and try a different approach and gather enough proxies to force an EGM that the all powerful DD can vote against anyway? Or is that day so far ahead it will never happen in our lifetime?
Sure there is a risk in going legal for advice on Celtic Directors responsibilities under Company Law, but as long as that is made clear from outset at the very least small shareholders will have a better idea of their rights under the law.
Its not about taking on DD in court as you are representing it, it is about knowing what rights shareholders have if being lied to at an AGM or misled by statements of compliance with the ACIM QUAC code.
The request put to the CST on behalf of Celtic small shareholders was a perfectly legitimate one in my opinion but I’m open to being convinced otherwise just as I’m open to being persuaded the CST will achieve Board accountability from the proxy route alone or are prepared to recognise the limitations that places in representing the support as a whole in sufficient numbers to make the all powerful Board pay attention.
The long grass argument is one that essentially discredits Res12, resists recognising it got answers (even if they were dishonest) but worse for the CST, it discredits the small shareholders who supported Res12 and were misled by The Board and who wanted the CST’s help to find out what rights they had and Directors responsibilities to them under Company Law.
At least seeking legal advice on such matters based on evidence, would let Celtic know that what is in the Company’s interests, is just as applicable to the small shareholders to a degree as it is to the major ones which would encourage answers to shareholders at AGM’s to be honest and accurate.
..based on trusting he’s telling truth?..if we’ve went for players he’s sourced and the players in question want to come but there teams won’t allow there’s no much you can do,he’s stating the scouting team tryed to get a few players but there clubs weren’t havin it…you’ve got to give the guy the benefit,,well you don’t?but a will,,,,3pts against dons and a wee surprise draw at the crumble dome..
