Questions for Auldheid

I said I would post a note of the feedback from the CST of the meeting they had with Celtic.
Peter Lawwell , The Company Secretary, The SLO and another attended for Celtic.
David Lowe and Jeanette Findlay for the CST. (There may have been more but didnt catch whom.

There was a lot of ground covered that I never noted but one of the contributors to Sentinel Celts provided this excellent report of the feedback provided at the Zoom meeting on Saturday and here is what she noted..

The main points to come out the meeting with the board were:

Peter Lawwell and the board think their communication with the fans is good. They meet with supporter organisations though this does not happen regularly. When asked about fans who are not part of affiliated association they said they have staged roadshows but these have stopped. They also pointed to JohnPaul Taylor speaking to fans and Peter Lawwell specifically said he also answers emails from fans. Jeanette Findlay openly encouraged supporters to email him with any issues they have.


Lawwell also said that communication can be difficult as there are things they can say and things they can’t say. Again the trust were clear to point out that as a support we are not thick and can decipher what is being said. PL said he’d made two statements. It was pointed out this was after the Ross county game and therefore possibly only because they had to. Lawwell also denied any knowledge of issues with the VST stream and thinks this is working well with no plans stated to improve this. As stated earlier, email him!! Incidentally JPT pointed out there had been issues and complaints varied from game to game.


PL described the club’s ambition as “limitless.” They feel they have achieved this in a domestic sense and have plans to do better in Europe but would not expand on this. A trust member at the meeting pointed out later that their ambition has only been to be slightly better than sevco. This supporter also questioned the £35m spend but there was no real breakdown to that though it may also include wages. What David Lowe did say was that Lawwell needs to talk less about what’s been spent and more about what’s been achieved and wrote a letter to him about that. The board see it differently. They think they are outspending everyone which gets back to DL questioning what they are achieving rather than what they are spending. Another supporter spoke about the strategy of buying cheap and trying to sell high. This is not a strategy that is working and it is actually holding back our own young players, pointing to the numerous youths that have left to make very good careers elsewhere but weren’t good enough for us. I have to say that when we examine some of the dross brought in from 2014 onwards you have to say he had a point.


They also said that DD had vehemently denied saying that Celtic fans are entitled. What was not denied was that he had said he would not be dictated to by mob rule. It was also said that the manager has KPI’s but didn’t say if he was meeting them. When asked about a contingency plan should improvement not be seen in the team PL talked about the difficulties – a soulless empty stadium (better get used to that Peter), players living in a pandemic and the effects on the younger players especially but they are still hopeful we will win the league this season. David Lowe said that Peter Lawwell thinks the club are doing a good job, Lennon is the right man and the players are the right players. He then made comparison with Mikel Arteta and ole Gunnar Solskjaer. A trust member pointed out that these clubs and ours are failing because of poor corporate governance. In my opinion, that Peter Lawwell made that comparison in the first place shows how deluded he is.

David Lowe also said that Peter Lawwell is very interested in the numbers the trust have. This is exactly why we have to increase these numbers. He is concerned enough to be asking. Let’s give him something to really think about. The membership is increasing rapidly and more members brings a larger skills base, including in modern communications and they are working on a plan to get the word out better going forward.

David Lowe also said that the board have been taken aback by the “collapse” and the momentum the trust have gathered asking what all this sack the board was about and if we wanted rid of the CEO. Jeanette Findlay said there was things she could say and things she couldn’t say and that gave me a good laugh!!


It was recognised that whilst everyone wants the ten it is not an end to the issues we have. Change is needed at boardroom level. David Lowe pointed out that there is no succession planning in the boardroom. 4 out of the 9 NEDs have been there for over 9 years. Votes against their reelection doubled this year. They are simply too old and not diverse enough. There needs to be a shake up. That there was no meeting of the nominations committee this year and they are the ones who are supposed to look at the make up of the board is a pointer to just how comfy theses guys are. Again another solid reason to join up with the trust!! It was felt questionable that the board are even asking questions of the CEO. They do have KPIs also but goodness knows what they are if they can’t even fulfil this basic task,

Jeanette Findlay felt that if the board were serious about valuing the fans they could make a start by gifting some of their shares to the trust as a thank you to the fans. I’ll not hold my breath their JF if you don’t mind.


It was said again about the trust not seeking a seat on the board. Again the reason was that we would then not be able to hold them to account as we may wish as our main obligation of you are on the board is to the PLC and that defeats the purpose. The trust feel the way forward is to grow the membership to get a voice and also to build the shares. DL pointed out that 5% gives you the right to call for a general meeting.

Auldheid spoke of resolution 12 and gave it as an example of how we can never trust this board. After all he’s been through there will be no disagreement from anyone on that but JF could not give any further update as res 12 and 11 were not discussed.

His other points were:
  1. We had an untrustworthy board that made any meaningful dialogue impossible. That needs to change.
  2. There was an instance of poor, even misleading communication at the AGM by Bankier,
  3. A group of shareholders have pledged £20k to seek legal advice on shareholders rights and Directors responsibilities with reference to Board behaviour on Res12 that could only be taken forward under the auspices of the CST and
  4. Celtic had a moral responsibility to act as stated in their AGM response in engaging with relevant authorities before asking supporters to renew STs without having gained assurances rules will not be set set aside on a matter of footballing justice
  5. Jeanette Finlay’s response was that taking the pledge and above forward under the auspices of the CST was a matter the CST Board would have to consider (which I was well aware of as a long time CST member ).
  6. John Anderson from the CSA spoke but my broadband was a bit poor here but I think he said he had relayed the association concerns that Lennon is not the right man. Lawwell said there was no guarantee bringing anyone else would lead to a winning run. He asked about the coaching set up and Lawwell explained that. John is good at coaching, Lennon not as much but he is good at other things. This was not elaborated on. There was no discussion regarding the ins and outs of Gavin Strachan appointment.
    End of report.


 
Auldheid said:
I said I would post a note of the feedback from the CST of the meeting they had with Celtic.
Peter Lawwell , The Company Secretary, The SLO and another attended for Celtic.
David Lowe and Jeanette Findlay for the CST. (There may have been more but didnt catch whom.

There was a lot of ground covered that I never noted but one of the contributors to Sentinel Celts provided this excellent report of the feedback provided at the Zoom meeting on Saturday and here is what she noted..

The main points to come out the meeting with the board were:

Peter Lawwell and the board think their communication with the fans is good. They meet with supporter organisations though this does not happen regularly. When asked about fans who are not part of affiliated association they said they have staged roadshows but these have stopped. They also pointed to JohnPaul Taylor speaking to fans and Peter Lawwell specifically said he also answers emails from fans. Jeanette Findlay openly encouraged supporters to email him with any issues they have.


Lawwell also said that communication can be difficult as there are things they can say and things they can’t say. Again the trust were clear to point out that as a support we are not thick and can decipher what is being said. PL said he’d made two statements. It was pointed out this was after the Ross county game and therefore possibly only because they had to. Lawwell also denied any knowledge of issues with the VST stream and thinks this is working well with no plans stated to improve this. As stated earlier, email him!! Incidentally JPT pointed out there had been issues and complaints varied from game to game.


PL described the club’s ambition as “limitless.” They feel they have achieved this in a domestic sense and have plans to do better in Europe but would not expand on this. A trust member at the meeting pointed out later that their ambition has only been to be slightly better than sevco. This supporter also questioned the £35m spend but there was no real breakdown to that though it may also include wages. What David Lowe did say was that Lawwell needs to talk less about what’s been spent and more about what’s been achieved and wrote a letter to him about that. The board see it differently. They think they are outspending everyone which gets back to DL questioning what they are achieving rather than what they are spending. Another supporter spoke about the strategy of buying cheap and trying to sell high. This is not a strategy that is working and it is actually holding back our own young players, pointing to the numerous youths that have left to make very good careers elsewhere but weren’t good enough for us. I have to say that when we examine some of the dross brought in from 2014 onwards you have to say he had a point.


They also said that DD had vehemently denied saying that Celtic fans are entitled. What was not denied was that he had said he would not be dictated to by mob rule. It was also said that the manager has KPI’s but didn’t say if he was meeting them. When asked about a contingency plan should improvement not be seen in the team PL talked about the difficulties – a soulless empty stadium (better get used to that Peter), players living in a pandemic and the effects on the younger players especially but they are still hopeful we will win the league this season. David Lowe said that Peter Lawwell thinks the club are doing a good job, Lennon is the right man and the players are the right players. He then made comparison with Mikel Arteta and ole Gunnar Solskjaer. A trust member pointed out that these clubs and ours are failing because of poor corporate governance. In my opinion, that Peter Lawwell made that comparison in the first place shows how deluded he is.

David Lowe also said that Peter Lawwell is very interested in the numbers the trust have. This is exactly why we have to increase these numbers. He is concerned enough to be asking. Let’s give him something to really think about. The membership is increasing rapidly and more members brings a larger skills base, including in modern communications and they are working on a plan to get the word out better going forward.

David Lowe also said that the board have been taken aback by the “collapse” and the momentum the trust have gathered asking what all this sack the board was about and if we wanted rid of the CEO. Jeanette Findlay said there was things she could say and things she couldn’t say and that gave me a good laugh!!


It was recognised that whilst everyone wants the ten it is not an end to the issues we have. Change is needed at boardroom level. David Lowe pointed out that there is no succession planning in the boardroom. 4 out of the 9 NEDs have been there for over 9 years. Votes against their reelection doubled this year. They are simply too old and not diverse enough. There needs to be a shake up. That there was no meeting of the nominations committee this year and they are the ones who are supposed to look at the make up of the board is a pointer to just how comfy theses guys are. Again another solid reason to join up with the trust!! It was felt questionable that the board are even asking questions of the CEO. They do have KPIs also but goodness knows what they are if they can’t even fulfil this basic task,

Jeanette Findlay felt that if the board were serious about valuing the fans they could make a start by gifting some of their shares to the trust as a thank you to the fans. I’ll not hold my breath their JF if you don’t mind.


It was said again about the trust not seeking a seat on the board. Again the reason was that we would then not be able to hold them to account as we may wish as our main obligation of you are on the board is to the PLC and that defeats the purpose. The trust feel the way forward is to grow the membership to get a voice and also to build the shares. DL pointed out that 5% gives you the right to call for a general meeting.

Auldheid spoke of resolution 12 and gave it as an example of how we can never trust this board. After all he’s been through there will be no disagreement from anyone on that but JF could not give any further update as res 12 and 11 were not discussed.

His other points were:
  1. We had an untrustworthy board that made any meaningful dialogue impossible. That needs to change.
  2. There was an instance of poor, even misleading communication at the AGM by Bankier,
  3. A group of shareholders have pledged £20k to seek legal advice on shareholders rights and Directors responsibilities with reference to Board behaviour on Res12 that could only be taken forward under the auspices of the CST and
  4. Celtic had a moral responsibility to act as stated in their AGM response in engaging with relevant authorities before asking supporters to renew STs without having gained assurances rules will not be set set aside on a matter of footballing justice
  5. Jeanette Finlay’s response was that taking the pledge and above forward under the auspices of the CST was a matter the CST Board would have to consider (which I was well aware of as a long time CST member ).
  6. John Anderson from the CSA spoke but my broadband was a bit poor here but I think he said he had relayed the association concerns that Lennon is not the right man. Lawwell said there was no guarantee bringing anyone else would lead to a winning run. He asked about the coaching set up and Lawwell explained that. John is good at coaching, Lennon not as much but he is good at other things. This was not elaborated on. There was no discussion regarding the ins and outs of Gavin Strachan appointment.
    End of report.

Click to expand...
Can the 6 points at the bottom be also levelled at CST

Are they trustworthy?
Do they have poor communications about their plans and ambitions and its financing?
Will a group need to take legal action against misleading rhetoric from CST
Do CST have a moral responsibility to engage in sustainable accountable viable structures and if so are they providing that right now?
Point 5 is meaningless to Celtic fans
Point 6 who do CST want as manager and what's gonna be his budget for 1 his staff 2 his players 3 limits to wages to be imposed for sustainability


Now I thank you kindly for sharing your thoughts Auldheid

Are you the head of CST?

If not are you accountable to them in a hierarchy?

How do you get your shares back from CST if it turns out you dont like their set up, since it could turn out to be a sevco style scam to rip off fans for the power trip of the inner sanctum of CST


Now I fully agree change needs to be addressed by the celtic board

And its communications are shit

But I also think the people who are driving change are very misleading without accountability and have no real viable sustainable plans to conquer europe

And to date I haven't even heard a peep on the better model the club should be trying to create and how it works in theory.


And just out of curiosity what do you think CST actually gives individual shareholders a voice if it doesn't agree with the capricious and volatile nature of emotions driving the bus?
 
"Peter Lawwell and the board think their communication with the fans is good. They meet with supporter organisations though this does not happen regularly."
Think PL just want's us to shut up and go away,
Is Nick Train aware of what's going on?
 
TET said:
Can the 6 points at the bottom be also levelled at CST

Are they trustworthy?
Do they have poor communications about their plans and ambitions and its financing?
Will a group need to take legal action against misleading rhetoric from CST
Do CST have a moral responsibility to engage in sustainable accountable viable structures and if so are they providing that right now?
Point 5 is meaningless to Celtic fans
Point 6 who do CST want as manager and what's gonna be his budget for 1 his staff 2 his players 3 limits to wages to be imposed for sustainability


Now I thank you kindly for sharing your thoughts Auldheid

Are you the head of CST?

If not are you accountable to them in a hierarchy?

How do you get your shares back from CST if it turns out you dont like their set up, since it could turn out to be a sevco style scam to rip off fans for the power trip of the inner sanctum of CST


Now I fully agree change needs to be addressed by the celtic board

And its communications are shit

But I also think the people who are driving change are very misleading without accountability and have no real viable sustainable plans to conquer europe

And to date I haven't even heard a peep on the better model the club should be trying to create and how it works in theory.


And just out of curiosity what do you think CST actually gives individual shareholders a voice if it doesn't agree with the capricious and volatile nature of emotions driving the bus?
Click to expand...
You will need to ask the CST those questions. I've been busy on Res12.

The CST have a constitution, are a registered charity and have a web site The Celtic Trust – A Celtic Supporters' Society that you can check out.

You can ask your last question to them also. I'm just reporting the feedback from their meeting with Celtic.
 
Auldheid said:
You will need to ask the CST those questions. I've been busy on Res12.

The CST have a constitution, are a registered charity and have a web site The Celtic Trust – A Celtic Supporters' Society that you can check out.

You can ask your last question to them also. I'm just reporting the feedback from their meeting with Celtic.
Click to expand...
He said
She said
They said

Dont ask questions, trust the trust, its what they do. Now give us your cash and fall into line. Dont be stupid. Back the people who want change. Even if they avoid specifics and use vague rhetoric with emotional framing.

Sounds just like a masonic group, even has a masonic constitution when you read through it.

Freedom by following our trust

Obey the trust, you can find all the answers you ever needed if you look into it yourself, but give us your cash in the meantime.

And your vote. We dont do accountability sustainability or transparency, we dont have a hierarchy that you can hold accountable, we dont care about sustainability and ask somebody else. But give us your vote because we can read between the lines and we can send moonbeams as communications effectively.

And the current board are too frugal but waste too many millions more than next club in our economy.

The current hierarchy dont answers specific questions but neither do we answer those same questions.

We want ambition that requires capital investment and solid plan for sustainability, current board have track record in that field but our unspecified theory is better.

Do be stupid, just give us your votes and your cash and we can make it happen.

I said maybe...

Sounds like an oasis song lyrics

Rolex is a charity btw, no really its a masonic charity, it doesn't fall under certain tax jurisdictions as a result.

Worth a closer look at the trust structures

they all have a way of avoiding the tax.




Trust the celtic trust though,

they dont answer your questions they just want your vote and your cash for their charity


Much more sustainable and accountable than the most sustainable and accountable Celtic Board in history

oh and they aren't really achieving much according to some trustees quad trebles dont count.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 255 (members: 1, guests: 254)

Latest posts

Share this page

Back
Top