Questions for Auldheid

[green sprig]

Is there the slightest possibility that Lawwell involved C.F.C. in this scam and the reason he does not want RES12 investigated is to stop the shit hitting the fan..
What other reasonable explanation can he possibly give for not pusuing £20m,,he and Desmond definitely know a lot more than they are saying..

HH.

 

[TET]

Which judges are part of the craft?

Which police investigators are part of the craft?

Which club is built as a giant masonic temple in Glashow?

Which secret agreements prevent you investigating secret agreements?

Which referees are members of the craft?

Which club benefits most from secret agreements?

Which of our board members are part of the craft?

Which members of parliament are members of the craft?

Which members of MSM are members of the craft?

Which organisation claims you can trust its secrets?

Yes the answers to all of these questions is They know, they all do. But what about investigating our hearsay first.

Do they all have trust funds?

 

[TET]

Is there the slightest possibility that Lawwell involved C.F.C. in this scam and the reason he does not want RES12 investigated is to stop the shit hitting the fan..
What other reasonable explanation can he possibly give for not pusuing £20m,,he and Desmond definitely know a lot more than they are saying..

HH.

that 20 million for cheating will bring game down since it seems they entire game in scotland is built on similar clandestine networks off books

it all comes down

Perhaps ending game completely brings in no revenue?

It also involves huge jail sentences if found guilty across board

And perhaps by allowing sevco a secret agreement it was assumed that they would stop cheating financially

And perhaps the 20 million offset was more than paid back from season ticket purchases once sevco reached the premier under secret agreement.

No sevco

celtic crowds would unlikely be above 25k most matches just like it was when sevco was in division 4 getting 40K

The money involved is peanuts

its the principle of allowing a scam to take place for business benefits that should be pursued

But thats not criminal thats unethical

and law doesn't usually get involved with unethical financial stuff when its protected by their bosses

 

[michael duffy]

Im pretty certain the distress signal overrules the law.

case closed move along

It's like asking the RUC to investigate the DUP!

 

[Smelltheg-love]

Which judges are part of the craft?

Which police investigators are part of the craft?

Which club is built as a giant masonic temple in Glashow?

Which secret agreements prevent you investigating secret agreements?

Which referees are members of the craft?

Which club benefits most from secret agreements?

Which of our board members are part of the craft?

Which members of parliament are members of the craft?

Which members of MSM are members of the craft?

Which organisation claims you can trust its secrets?

Yes the answers to all of these questions is They know, they all do. But what about investigating our hearsay first.

Do they all have trust funds?

TET
Are you hoping for an answer to all these questions from Auldheid P.I.

 

[Lubos left peg]

TET
Are you hoping for an answer to all these questions from Auldheid P.I.

TETS being very greedy...are we allowed more than 1 question???

 

[Hoopy427]

Who would win in a fight between a great white shark and a salt water crocodile?

I like to be different

 

[Shadow2]

I am almost 100% sure Shadow that if this was presented to Police Scotland as a fraudulent act with some information or even better some proof of what happened especially with Ogilvie then they are Lawfully obliged to open an investigation into the allegation set before them..

HH.

I reckon you're probably spot on mate but given the history of Scotland's finest, their well known and long established ties to certain organisations and their previous behaviour directly related to the whole Rangers/Sevco scandal I wouldnae trust that mob tae deliver anything close to justice.

 

[Smelltheg-love]

I reckon you're probably spot on mate but given the history of Scotland's finest, their well known and long established ties to certain organisations and their previous behaviour directly related to the whole Rangers/Sevco scandal I wouldnae trust that mob tae deliver anything close to justice.

The Police would arrest the complainant first in this country

 

[Shadow2]

the police have a chequered flooring type band round their temples on their hat with a big star similar to masonic star or emblem of their purpose on front of head

think it might symbolise who they work for and who might be exempt from prosecution since you cant investigate the system you work for???

It's called the Sillitoe Tartan. Named after English copper Percy Sillitoe who was recruited to be Glasgow's top piggy in the 1930's with the aim of smashing the old Glasgow gangs and organised crime in the city.

He decided the best way to go about that was by recruiting hundreds of big Highlanders built like brick shithooses, giving them aw polis uniforms and sending them in to the schemes to set about the gang members......the black and white chequered tartan used on copper hats was inspired by the traditional highland tartan worn by the Highlanders he recruited.

 

[a]

Has a Celtic Board representative taken the time to meet face to face with the requisitioners at any stage, and if so, could you tell during/after that meeting that there was no appetite for Res 12 and the quest for an answer to the shenanigans at Deidco & SFA in relation to the UEFA Competition License

I had a good idea before the 2013 AGM that there was no appetite. PL and I met to go over a a membership scheme idea I had been engaging with Celtic on in May 2013 not long after the LNS Decision was made public. I brought up the topic of SFA being unprofessional and he agreed and said he needed a Dougie Dougie moment which I took as being leverage for change. So in a way PL was genesis of Res12. In June the Charlotte Fakes stuff surfaced and I alerted PL it was out and he asked to be kept informed. I did so obviously thinking it would be leverage material. That feed with interpretation of what it might mean stopped end July when he went on holiday.

In parallel the creator of Res12 on CQN had floated a draft which drew in myself and BRTH to give it locus around UEFA licence. Getting 100 shareholders to sign was a task in itself especially as I was out of the country but the 4th musketeer Morrisey123 (M) turned up to do the leg work, get forms signed and eventually get them delivered after a bit of a stooshie with the doorman buts that is M all over .

I watched to see The Boards response which totally ignored the information supplied to PL and I though hmmmm.

There was a meeting before AGM 2013 with PL, the Comp Sec M and BRTH at which Celtic requested the Res be withdrawn on basis of an SFA response to a letter from Celtic in early 2011 which on reading was not supported by the CF stuff so that request was refused.

I remember the point being made that if Celtic voted down Res12 and the CF material surfaced that would raise eyebrows but cannot be sure who made the point. The meeting ended with no decision.

The following day whilst on a conference call with M and another whom M had sought advice from before the Celtic meeting, BRTH joined to say he had spoken to the Company Secretary and the suggestion of an adjournment came up from Comp Sec.
It was a way out of the impasse, kept Res12 alive and on every AGM agenda and at the time created time to understand UEFA FFP rules and HMRC procedures better so it was agreed. Otherwise Celtic would have voted it down which might have caused a stushie at the AGM but it would have died quite quickly thereafter without the authority to probe the adjournment offered.
It was agreed at Celtic's insistence requsitioners would ask questions of SFA but not of UEFA and since SFA were the licensing authority it was best place to start.

From there on in there were meetings mainly with the Company Secretary, in fact I don't recall PL being at any. I think he thought job done and with the benefit of the passage of time, if he was aware of the CAS clause in the 5 Way agreement (which we don't know for sure although we know he and Eric Riley had the 5 Way delivered to them at end July 2012) then he probably thought game over but in effect it had only begun (but had I know it would take 7 years to play, I think I would have bailed out as I almost did twice.

What I do recall of a meeting with Comp Sec was losing the rag when told PL was doing everything possible to help the cause. I almost walked out at the start when I saw same game of delay being played, but did before the end on hearing how much PL was doing. SFA effective was my reply. In truth I was happy not to be in PL's Company the longer the game went on.

PL spoke to me once on the phone in May 2016 to say Celtic/he had agreed the shareholders could go to UEFA with our concerns articulated by our lawyer who was brought in start of 2015. That produced the Traverso new club/company response in early June that answered a question never asked and totally threw us off balance. We should maybe have got out then , one of the times I was ready to bail out.

The Traverso reply surprised Celtic and the SFA who were both copied in so much that Broadfoot at the SFA worked with STV Grant to put out a response from UEFA media dept (not Traverso) that left out the new club/company reference.

Given SFA made a big show of UEFA being approached at their June AGM in an announcement that took Celtic's Company Sec by surprise it was great to see them get bit on the arse. You have no idea how devious they were and probably still are..

 

[TET]

I had a good idea before the 2013 AGM that there was no appetite. PL and I met to go over a a membership scheme idea I had been engaging with Celtic on in May 2013 not long after the LNS Decision was made public. I brought up the topic of SFA being unprofessional and he agreed and said he needed a Dougie Dougie moment which I took as being leverage for change. So in a way PL was genesis of Res12. In June the Charlotte Fakes stuff surfaced and I alerted PL it was out and he asked to be kept informed. I did so obviously thinking it would be leverage material. That feed with interpretation of what it might mean stopped end July when he went on holiday.

In parallel the creator of Res12 on CQN had floated a draft which drew in myself and BRTH to give it locus around UEFA licence. Getting 100 shareholders to sign was a task in itself especially as I was out of the country but the 4th musketeer Morrisey123 (M) turned up to do the leg work, get forms signed and eventually get them delivered after a bit of a stooshie with the doorman buts that is M all over .

I watched to see The Boards response which totally ignored the information supplied to PL and I though hmmmm.

There was a meeting before AGM 2013 with PL, the Comp Sec M and BRTH at which Celtic requested the Res be withdrawn on basis of an SFA response to a letter from Celtic in early 2011 which on reading was not supported by the CF stuff so that request was refused.

I remember the point being made that if Celtic voted down Res12 and the CF material surfaced that would raise eyebrows but cannot be sure who made the point. The meeting ended with no decision.

The following day whilst on a conference call with M and another whom M had sought advice from before the Celtic meeting, BRTH joined to say he had spoken to the Company Secretary and the suggestion of an adjournment came up from Comp Sec.
It was a way out of the impasse, kept Res12 alive and on every AGM agenda and at the time created time to understand UEFA FFP rules and HMRC procedures better so it was agreed. Otherwise Celtic would have voted it down which might have caused a stushie at the AGM but it would have died quite quickly thereafter without the authority to probe the adjournment offered.
It was agreed at Celtic's insistence requsitioners would ask questions of SFA but not of UEFA and since SFA were the licensing authority it was best place to start.

From there on in there were meetings mainly with the Company Secretary, in fact I don't recall PL being at any. I think he thought job done and with the benefit of the passage of time, if he was aware of the CAS clause in the 5 Way agreement (which we don't know for sure although we know he and Eric Riley had the 5 Way delivered to them at end July 2012) then he probably thought game over but in effect it had only begun (but had I know it would take 7 years to play, I think I would have bailed out as I almost did twice.

What I do recall of a meeting with Comp Sec was losing the rag when told PL was doing everything possible to help the cause. I almost walked out at the start when I saw same game of delay being played, but did before the end on hearing how much PL was doing. SFA effective was my reply. In truth I was happy not to be in PL's Company the longer the game went on.

PL spoke to me once on the phone in May 2016 to say Celtic/he had agreed the shareholders could go to UEFA with our concerns articulated by our lawyer who was brought in start of 2015. That produced the Traverso new club/company response in early June that answered a question never asked and totally threw us off balance. We should maybe have got out then , one of the times I was ready to bail out.

The Traverso reply surprised Celtic and the SFA who were both copied in so much that Broadfoot at the SFA worked with STV Grant to put out a response from UEFA media dept (not Traverso) that left out the new club/company reference.

Given SFA made a big show of UEFA being approached at their June AGM in an announcement that took Celtic's Company Sec by surprise it was great to see them get bit on the arse. You have no idea how devious they were and probably still are..

What are the ramifications to Scottish football if RES 12 is taken to court?
What is the ultimate objective?

Would Scottish football be suspended until fraud was dealt with?

Are any other club/s running similar financially dubious schemes?

Do Celtic have stuff that is part of the agreement?

Now tbh I am probably gonna need to find a less scam worthy pastime either way.

But I would like game cleaned up even if it means Collapse of Scottish football for indefinite period, however im aware that I probably aint sin the majority.

It seems all football is corrupt with tax fiddling across fifa?

And its not really being addressed by governing bodies?

 

[Smelltheg-love]

I had a good idea before the 2013 AGM that there was no appetite. PL and I met to go over a a membership scheme idea I had been engaging with Celtic on in May 2013 not long after the LNS Decision was made public. I brought up the topic of SFA being unprofessional and he agreed and said he needed a Dougie Dougie moment which I took as being leverage for change. So in a way PL was genesis of Res12. In June the Charlotte Fakes stuff surfaced and I alerted PL it was out and he asked to be kept informed. I did so obviously thinking it would be leverage material. That feed with interpretation of what it might mean stopped end July when he went on holiday.

In parallel the creator of Res12 on CQN had floated a draft which drew in myself and BRTH to give it locus around UEFA licence. Getting 100 shareholders to sign was a task in itself especially as I was out of the country but the 4th musketeer Morrisey123 (M) turned up to do the leg work, get forms signed and eventually get them delivered after a bit of a stooshie with the doorman buts that is M all over .

I watched to see The Boards response which totally ignored the information supplied to PL and I though hmmmm.

There was a meeting before AGM 2013 with PL, the Comp Sec M and BRTH at which Celtic requested the Res be withdrawn on basis of an SFA response to a letter from Celtic in early 2011 which on reading was not supported by the CF stuff so that request was refused.

I remember the point being made that if Celtic voted down Res12 and the CF material surfaced that would raise eyebrows but cannot be sure who made the point. The meeting ended with no decision.

The following day whilst on a conference call with M and another whom M had sought advice from before the Celtic meeting, BRTH joined to say he had spoken to the Company Secretary and the suggestion of an adjournment came up from Comp Sec.
It was a way out of the impasse, kept Res12 alive and on every AGM agenda and at the time created time to understand UEFA FFP rules and HMRC procedures better so it was agreed. Otherwise Celtic would have voted it down which might have caused a stushie at the AGM but it would have died quite quickly thereafter without the authority to probe the adjournment offered.
It was agreed at Celtic's insistence requsitioners would ask questions of SFA but not of UEFA and since SFA were the licensing authority it was best place to start.

From there on in there were meetings mainly with the Company Secretary, in fact I don't recall PL being at any. I think he thought job done and with the benefit of the passage of time, if he was aware of the CAS clause in the 5 Way agreement (which we don't know for sure although we know he and Eric Riley had the 5 Way delivered to them at end July 2012) then he probably thought game over but in effect it had only begun (but had I know it would take 7 years to play, I think I would have bailed out as I almost did twice.

What I do recall of a meeting with Comp Sec was losing the rag when told PL was doing everything possible to help the cause. I almost walked out at the start when I saw same game of delay being played, but did before the end on hearing how much PL was doing. SFA effective was my reply. In truth I was happy not to be in PL's Company the longer the game went on.

PL spoke to me once on the phone in May 2016 to say Celtic/he had agreed the shareholders could go to UEFA with our concerns articulated by our lawyer who was brought in start of 2015. That produced the Traverso new club/company response in early June that answered a question never asked and totally threw us off balance. We should maybe have got out then , one of the times I was ready to bail out.

The Traverso reply surprised Celtic and the SFA who were both copied in so much that Broadfoot at the SFA worked with STV Grant to put out a response from UEFA media dept (not Traverso) that left out the new club/company reference.

Given SFA made a big show of UEFA being approached at their June AGM in an announcement that took Celtic's Company Sec by surprise it was great to see them get bit on the arse. You have no idea how devious they were and probably still are..

Thanks for such a detailed response sir
If u may it leads to a simple question
Are the office bearers of our club, in your opinion in dealings with them, an integral part of the cabal that seems to be prepared to do anything to sweep this under the carpet at any cost ?
Thanks

 

[michael duffy]

So basically,we've been sold down the river,the game we love is rigged,as it has been for years,which we all knew,but when you find out our custodians were complicit,it kinda sours things,tae put it mildly!,you and the rest of they bhoys deserve a medal Auldheid,but to be betrayed by your own is gutwrenching.
I've been watching Celtic since 1962,supported them before that,and for this to come to a head (again!),this season of all seasons,is a disgrace.
Well board,wait for the reaction of 'the customers' next season!

 

[According to Saul]

Much the same as everyone else,are there any avenues available to take this forward ? or, is it just carte blanch for sevco to give 2 fingers to scottish football?
because our pursuit is, 'not in the interest of the company'?
and a big thank you to Auldheid and everyone involved,for not letting this scandal wither on the vine Hail Hail

Carte Blanch, is that wit yer drinking noo

 

[a]

What is the end game regarding res 11/12. Im assuming the guys who have took up the fight know that the current board are going to vote it down. Is it part of a process they have to take to get to their final goal?

I explained what was going on in the Interview with Larry Cafiero which is on Celtic Star blog list but in short Res11 was a vehicle to end Res12 and take it off the AGM agenda on the basis that UEFA Integrity Unit were approached in May and July 2020 after SFA called a halt to applying their own judicial process.
The case was passed to relevant party in UEFA to look at in May but no feed back since then which suggest the case has merit but might also mean the consequences are so big it is in the interests of Scottish football it is best buried. The case to UEFA was that SFA were dodgy and fertile territory for the kind of behaviour the UEFA Integrity Unit was trying to stamp out.

The original Res12 on the proxy voting form simply said Celtic ask UEFA to investigate the SFA in respect of club licencing practice (or near as damn, I think it is the interview with Larry ) so you can see why with events and uncoverings since 2013 it was indeed unnecessary in pure logic terms to continue with Res12.

However and this is important, the official Board response in the AGM Notice in spite of the fog Bankier blew over it at the AGM, said Celtic WILL engage with the relevant authorities (on the issue of the aborted Judicial process) which was raised by the Res12 shareholders in the same AGM notice and the basis of Celtic's response.

Have a look.

Now such is the level of mistrust shareholders asked for clarity on what was a fuzzy statement but did not get it and indeed Bankier at AGM said no time frame, which was asked for, would be applied. Now this totally undermines a reason for stating Res12 unnecessary because it was on the very basis Celtic would take over that they said Res12 was unnecessary. Wit ur they like?

Obviously it looks like another kick the can effort but it does open a door to make that AGM Notice response a hostage to fortune if for example supporters making immediate ST renewal conditional on Celtic engaging with relevant authorities starting early new year with a progress report being published by end March 2021.

If and only if enough supporters use this opportunity to put pressure on the Board to do what they said, then that is accountability in action and will change the Board/supporter dynamic for ever. There will never be a better opportunity to legitimately call the shots. Hoist The Board with their own petard.

At the end of the day the principles of honesty and fair play either matter more than watching a game where they are absent, or they don't and that decision lies with the support as in what am I supporting and why?

It is in "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" territory.

Sorry about that.

 

[TET]

TET
Are you hoping for an answer to all these questions from Auldheid P.I.

naw I think im blocked

 

[a]

Do you honestly think that the Celtic Board would have pursued ANY criminal activity perpetrated by Rangers if that threatened the 'Company's' cosy relationship ( Old Firm ! ) with our Govan rivals ?

HH

The one thing Celtic and the SFA have avoided like the plague is investigating what took place in March 2011 when licence was granted.

The charges of non compliance referred to the monitoring period only. One reason is that non compliance in that period is not sanctioned until the following season and that removes the locus for shareholders to claim loss as a CL qualifying place would not have been lost, Rangers would not have been ejected under UEFA jurisprudence in 2011.

The other I think is the nature of the 5 Way Agreement that concentrated on Craig Whyte's acts from 6 May 2011 (leaving March 2011 beyond scrutiny) although the use of ebts and side letters pre CW was not excluded and that became the LNS Commission that Celtic pretended to be surprised at and opposed, using CQN as a proxy to set in motion the idea of a Judicial Review, privately funded by someone, that just faded away.

So when drawing up the non compliance charges in May 2018 the most serious one was omitted even though the SFA had the evidence of fraud delivered to them by requistioners on the eve of the first Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal in June 2018.

Evidence btw Celtic refused to act on having been alerted of its importance in late May 2018 when it surfaced out of the blue and later in August 2018 (that I've just remembered PL attended with Comp Sec in presence of a CSA official and a popular blogger. A refusal repeated at a later meeting in Jan 2019. At this point I apologise for forgetting those meetings, in my earlier response. I was concentrating on the earlier years.

Why?

My theory is that if the true nature of Rangers dishonest behaviour since 2000 was officially recognised they could not be allowed to continue to play a part in Scottish football. To use an analogy if it were a card school and you found one player was a cheat, would you invite him to next game?

Thus it becomes in Celtic/Company's interest or indeed the rest of Scottish football and the media who feed off it, to reduce the seriousness of the crime from worse than match fixing to 10 years of administration error on LNS and just don't investigate hard evidence of fraud in 2011.

I get why it would have damaged the commercial value of Scottish football had Rangers not continued in some form and I have no problem whatsoever Rangers fans having a team to support, we would do the same, but in failing to set conditions to get entry, like no financial doping, win on your merits with income earned from the game, Celtic are responsible for the current situation where we are 13 points behind to a club whose wage bill rose by £6m and with tax arrears of £9m that has an instalment agreement because of Covid, but should the tax not have been paid first?

Its back to the future stuff and a failure by the authorities in 2012 to ignore long term effects of loss of integrity for short term commercial reasons.

I will log off now but look in at some point tomorrow.

 

[a]

Before I go and having looked at "what happens next/" questions I can give an answer it is really over to the support at large but fortunately the CST are growing numbers to cover all Celtic supporters be they shareholders or not and can be a coalescing factor in uniting the support.

Whilst I have some reservations about the long time scale to have enough shares to make a difference they are the best bet because of numbers for picking up the baton. Look them over and if persuasive and you want to join CST make sure you mention why.

I sent this to their President David Lowe before the Open Meeting by Zoom on 5th December..


The Future of the CST. Thoughts.

The following are some thoughts for CST to consider to help make Celtic more accountable to their support based on experience of pursuing Resolution 12.

• Suggest CST change name from CST to the Registered Name: Celtic Supporters’ Society Limited Company Number: IP29147R so that it is clear CST is open to supporters and shareholders alike.
• Give supporters without shares a reason to join more than buying shares to enable CST to speak for them . Make use of technology and harness social media to identify representational issues, seeks views and act on them after gaining consensus.
• Revisit the CST Constitution to see if it needs changing to reflect what in effect would be a re branding and whatever aims , objectives and roles the rebranded organisation take on.
• Expand the new organisation to cover many thousands of Celtic supporters, ST Holders, Celtic TV subscribers, etc to give them added authority when raising issues with The Board.
• Give each member a membership card with a membership number.
• Be prepared to use the financial investment supporters make in Celtic to challenge what is in the Company’s interest where resistance is being met by The Board with no good reason.
• Make the Celtic Board more accountable and transparent as a result.
• Use subscriptions to fund share purchases, set up legal cost fund (you need lawyers to argue your case with Celtic/SPFL/SFA Lawyers) and pay someone to administer /manage the expanded membership.
• Reshape web site to capture emerging issues, keep track of them and keep membership up to date on issues
• Invite contributions from Celtic supporters that align with organisations aims for publishing on the web site.
• Allow for a much expanded AGM and look at how it might be set up, perhaps using same technology as the Open Meeting on Zoom.
• Encourage volunteers with specific expertise to join sub committees to cover separate issues where particular knowledge is needed.
• Set agendas and invite Celtic to attend rather than be invited to meetings in small groups and encourage two way dialogue with Celtic as a prerequisite for restoring trust.
• Disabuse The Celtic Board of any notion the Celtic support are not capable of rational engagement.

Res 12 Lessons.

• Much bigger support baseline needed.
• Celtic use the lack of such to ignore pursuing issues
• Legal fund absolute necessary to establish shareholder rights and Director responsibilities and challenge legal reasons used to obstruct progress.
• Media are under Celtic’s thumb, many journalists briefed on Res12 evidence, none followed up because it is not in their interests, so a respected presence on Social Media required to get any message out.
• Make a connection between business issues being pursued and results on the park so that there is a greater understanding of the importance of having a Board that is accountable as symptoms of poor business practice manifest themselves on the field of play.
• A lot of hard work involved but easier if spread over a larger organisation with a wider resource base to call on..

 

[michael duffy]

Auldheid,your an honourable man Hail Hail.
Pity we can'say the same about our current custodians.