Imatim
Well-known member
The plot thickens Re Res 12.....From CQN...
CANAMALAR IT LOOKS LIKE OCD OBSESSION on 25TH MAY 2020 11:12 AM
Auldheid,
I can only conclude they used the information we provided, to assist the SFA in developing their strategy against us and that the company secretary was not as he claimed, playing devils advocate but actively working against us to frustrate, in the hope we would give up.
As company secretary he was apparently misleading us as shareholders every time he raised the issue of provenance especially when we reminded him on many occasions that provenance was not an issue for the CFCB who had the power to investigate all sources of information.
The most telling sign was when he became aggressive with me, when I raised the issue of misinformation we had received at previous meetings, when I asked if we could rely on anything we had been told. This was a guy who told us we were all on the same side.
And, in our final meeting with him and PL, when asked by PL what else can we do? I told him follow through with the resolution and ask the CFCB to investigate. PL balked, and the company secretary came in with his usual drivel about provenance and how “HE” needed to be convinced of the provenance. Note, not the SFA and not UEFA but the company secretary. It was only the company secretary who liased with the SFA on all res12 business. It was the company secretary who was the only party to the meetings who failed to complete agreed actions. And it was the company secretary who failed to meet agreed time constraints.
So while the discussion regarding a legal challenge against the SFA is all well and good, we need to remember the Celtic company secretary and the executive will be supporting the SFA as they have against Res 12 and this is where our main problem will be. They will be actively working to silence any debate again as they successfully done against the resolution.
I suggest BRTHs initial idea of getting the opinion of Queens Council to evaluate is any such course of action feasible and as we were warned, that is a very costly exercise.
As he said, it may be that a favorable queens council opinion is enough to tip the SFA and all football executives opinions on the importance of small shareholders, when we might gain the power to upset their gravy train. However, I suspect to be assured of change the opinion would have to be tested in court since executives are expert as we have seen, in duplicity therefore most likely portray all the signs of change while nothing actually changes.
So if we look at it using his words then maybe PL was not the final decision maker, maybe it was MN the company secretary ?
CANAMALAR IT LOOKS LIKE OCD OBSESSION on 25TH MAY 2020 11:12 AM
Auldheid,
I can only conclude they used the information we provided, to assist the SFA in developing their strategy against us and that the company secretary was not as he claimed, playing devils advocate but actively working against us to frustrate, in the hope we would give up.
As company secretary he was apparently misleading us as shareholders every time he raised the issue of provenance especially when we reminded him on many occasions that provenance was not an issue for the CFCB who had the power to investigate all sources of information.
The most telling sign was when he became aggressive with me, when I raised the issue of misinformation we had received at previous meetings, when I asked if we could rely on anything we had been told. This was a guy who told us we were all on the same side.
And, in our final meeting with him and PL, when asked by PL what else can we do? I told him follow through with the resolution and ask the CFCB to investigate. PL balked, and the company secretary came in with his usual drivel about provenance and how “HE” needed to be convinced of the provenance. Note, not the SFA and not UEFA but the company secretary. It was only the company secretary who liased with the SFA on all res12 business. It was the company secretary who was the only party to the meetings who failed to complete agreed actions. And it was the company secretary who failed to meet agreed time constraints.
So while the discussion regarding a legal challenge against the SFA is all well and good, we need to remember the Celtic company secretary and the executive will be supporting the SFA as they have against Res 12 and this is where our main problem will be. They will be actively working to silence any debate again as they successfully done against the resolution.
I suggest BRTHs initial idea of getting the opinion of Queens Council to evaluate is any such course of action feasible and as we were warned, that is a very costly exercise.
As he said, it may be that a favorable queens council opinion is enough to tip the SFA and all football executives opinions on the importance of small shareholders, when we might gain the power to upset their gravy train. However, I suspect to be assured of change the opinion would have to be tested in court since executives are expert as we have seen, in duplicity therefore most likely portray all the signs of change while nothing actually changes.
So if we look at it using his words then maybe PL was not the final decision maker, maybe it was MN the company secretary ?