Questions for Auldheid

[a]

I had intended returning to answer questions I hadn't addressed but got caught up on another blog - answering questions. I'll try and pick up again Thursday evening.

 

[michael duffy]

I had intended returning to answer questions I hadn't addressed but got caught up on another blog - answering questions. I'll try and pick up again Thursday evening.

Take your time Auldheid,we all appreciate what you've done on our behalf HH

 

[TheVerdict88]

Could you ask Peter if he is really 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?

Is the Craft in the Craft? Crafty bastards, I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[TET]

Could you ask Peter if he is really TET?
Is the Craft in the Craft? Crafty bastards, I wouldn't put it past them.

You must have some evidense to base your rational observations on?

Or is this more unsubstantiated feelings spread as hearsay?

You like making outrageous claims.

But provide very little forensic evidense to back them up.

I dont like Peter.

I can assure you, he is not on my hero list.

But I dont attack the man on things that are hearsay.

You do.

So do the peepo.

Weird that.

You dont take hard evidense as your baseline. You like to add 2 and 2 and insist that its really 7

And if anyone tries to show you that 2 and 2 are not 7 then they are falsely tarred with your hearsay.

conclusion

you detest the church
you detest rational thoughts
you spread gossip as fact
you tar people with your hearsay

Why do you think I like Peter?
Why do you think I am Peter?

is it because I point out the glaring errors in your irrational hearsay?

 

[TheVerdict88]

You must have some evidense to base your rational observations on?

Or is this more unsubstantiated feelings spread as hearsay?

You like making outrageous claims.

But provide very little forensic evidense to back them up.

I dont like Peter.

I can assure you, he is not on my hero list.

But I dont attack the man on things that are hearsay.

You do.

So do the peepo.

Weird that.

You dont take hard evidense as your baseline. You like to add 2 and 2 and insist that its really 7

And if anyone tries to show you that 2 and 2 are not 7 then they are falsely tarred with your hearsay.

conclusion

you detest the church
you detest rational thoughts
you spread gossip as fact
you tar people with your hearsay

Why do you think I like Peter?
Why do you think I am Peter?

is it because I point out the glaring errors in your irrational hearsay?

Fuck sake calm doon it was a joke. Obviously I know you're not Lawell. And irrational, from the guy who believes in demons? Depends how you define it. We obviously don't see the same reality. Thank fuck.

 

[TET]

Fuck sake calm doon it was a joke. Obviously I know you're not Lawell. And irrational, from the guy who believes in demons? Depends how you define it. We obviously don't see the same reality. Thank fuck.

Still no evidense to back up your theory?

Weird that

So can I assume all your verdicts are just jokes?

Coz i would agree with that



There is only 1 reality

And its you, not me, that likes to portray subjective ramblings based on feelings as verdicts.

You have no connection with reality

its either neurotic or psychotic, extreme up or extreme down, bipolar but never based on reality

that may seem like a great way to base your verdicts

But its irrational

And your weird avoidance of reality and evidense or any methodology whatsoever other than your feelings based on unsubstantiated evidense passed as factual, suggests you may well be split in your mind

the very definition of diabolical is split asunder, torn in many directions

your verdicts are diabolical

not just in word play but in reality

diabolical verdicts in they are not very good
diabolical verdicts in they are usually untempered with prudence or justice
diabolical verdicts in they are without grace or humility
diabolical because they may well be malicious without benignity or meekness

The verdict is your moniker could be Deludemol

 

[TheVerdict88]

Still no evidense to back up your theory?

Weird that

So can I assume all your verdicts are just jokes?

Coz i would agree with that



There is only 1 reality

And its you, not me, that likes to portray subjective ramblings based on feelings as verdicts.

You have no connection with reality

its either neurotic or psychotic, extreme up or extreme down, bipolar but never based on reality

that may seem like a great way to base your verdicts

But its irrational

And your weird avoidance of reality and evidense or any methodology whatsoever other than your feelings based on unsubstantiated evidense passed as factual, suggests you may well be split in your mind

the very definition of diabolical is split asunder, torn in many directions

your verdicts are diabolical

not just in word play but in reality

diabolical verdicts in they are not very good
diabolical verdicts in they are usually untempered with prudence or justice
diabolical verdicts in they are without grace or humility
diabolical because they may well be malicious without benignity or meekness

The verdict is your moniker could be Deludemol

Ok. You win.

 

[a]

I see a couple of questions about going to the police.

This was debated off and on over the years but who was going to take the complaint to them? If our lawyer, then on whose behalf and it was not until 2018 the evidence hardened and that was thought would be a game changer. Instead Celtic doubled down.

It was hardly going to be pursued with any vigour by the police and we were plugged into the only route open - the AGM process where Board's are brought to account which does not necessarily mean getting truthful answers but does mean getting answers that if dodgy (and they were) kept the door open to ask more..

Think of it like peeling an onion with tears after every AGM.

Taking the issue to the police was resisted by Celtic and I think I have already guessed at why.

1. No way could a club guilty of cheating a fellow club been admitted into Scottish football which also explains the sham that was the LNS Commission.
2. Compensation: In relation to LNS more than Res12. It would not just be Celtic seeking it. In some ways the early exit from Europe, whilst it hastened insolvency ,also stopped European clubs seeking it after the truth came out..

 

[a]

On the way ahead I'll repeat what I posted on another blog. It is long because it contains extracts from the AGM Notice but in short it says Celtic have a moral duty to assure supporters that when they buy an ST they can be assured the game will be subject to the governing rules with no exception before renewal requests issue. It is not acceptable to say " providing an update when possible " that is a licence to do sfa about the SFA.

This point can only come with any chance of success from the CST whose growing membership contains more and more ST holders and the CSA who help organise the buses that take supporters to the games.

If readers are members of one or other or both please persuade them to seek the assurances for our supporters Res12 shareholders asked for on their behalf.

From other forum.
" If the CST want take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them (hey you don’t get Shakespeare quoted on many blogs) I’d be happy to do the arming.

Making Celtic keep their word to shareholders given in the AGM notice would be a very valid starting point if you look at what shareholders asked. The Boards statement re engagement was also their justification for saying Res11/12 was unnecessary. They said:

Board Response
” As stated in 2013, the Board is committed to protecting and promoting the interests of the Company, having regard to, among other things, the principles of fairness and sporting integrity. Having first raised these matters with the Scottish FA in 2011, prior to the 2013 Resolution being presented, and having continued to engage with the football authorities over the following years, Celtic continues to have regard to those interests and principles. Celtic has consistently called upon the football authorities to ensure that fairness and sporting integrity are at the heart of
football governance.
The Board of Celtic will continue to seek to ensure that these principles are safeguarded and shall continue in constructive engagement with the Scottish FA, the SPFL and UEFA to that end. The Board has taken, and will continue to take, appropriate steps to protect and promote the interests of the Company. The football governance environment has developed substantially over the past 10 years and the Company will continue to monitor the application and effectiveness of these systems of governance.
The Company was disappointed when the Scottish FA declined to investigate the issues referred to and was surprised when the Scottish FA determined not to continue with proceedings, which it had itself opened. In respect of the particular issues now raised, the Board has engaged with the requisitioning shareholders and will engage with the relevant authorities as appropriate in the interests of the Company, providing an update when possible. In the circumstances, therefore, the Board considers the resolution to be unnecessary and recommends that you vote
against it.
RECOMMENDATION ON RESOLUTION 11
In the circumstances the Board considers the resolution to be unnecessary and recommends that you vote against it.”

The relevant part of the shareholders statement from the AGM Notice was this:

” The shareholders concerned therefore request that Celtic PLC and its board raise these matters with UEFA as requested in Resolution 12 from the 2013 AGM, and in so doing:

1. take all reasonable measures to engage with both the Scottish Football Association, UEFA and any other relevant authorities with a view to ensuring that in future all football rules are administered and openly and evenly complied with and processed without fear or favour and in a proper legal manner, and

2. take all reasonable steps to reassure shareholders in Celtic PLC that their financial and emotional investment in Celtic PLC will not be further undermined or devalued by continued compliance and Governance failures on the part of the Scottish Football Association.”

In effect the Board are saying they will take all reasonable steps to reassure shareholders (and supporters) that governance failures by the SFA which led to the suspension of the SFA’s own judicial process are or have been remedied, but with no timeframe set how will supporters know without being told in good time, what the remedies are before they commit to purchase and if there is no remedy how can Celtic offer tickets for sale?

If they do not keep to their word and demonstrate that they have by say end March 2021 I don’t see how they can justify offering ST’s for sale

This approach puts the onus on Celtic to do what they said in the AGM notice but in a timeframe (which Bankier refused at the AGM whilst also going off script from the AGM Notice response) which assures supporters the SFA will do their job and apply their own rules .

Without some evidence the SFA have been approached as a most relevant authority by end of March, CST would be justified asking shareholders and supporters alike to seriously consider not only what they are they buying into but also are they enabling the continuation of an issue of poor governance that angers them almost every game they watch.

If supporters take a tough line that of itself will make it in the interests of the Company to honour their word.

In short CST tell Celtic if you do not keep your word in AGM notice before ST renewal, we would have to alert supporters to consider at least delaying renewing until Celtic can provide credible assurances of applied governance including reopening the aborted judicial process to covering all of events in 2011, setting aside the 5 Way Agreement if necessary and also oppose offering STs to those on any waiting list before assurance’s of remedies have been sought.

Then its over to the support to decide exactly what they are prepared to accept. I think even having an open debate about assurances will focus the minds of the football authorities.

 

[TET]

I see a couple of questions about going to the police.

This was debated off and on over the years but who was going to take the complaint to them? If our lawyer, then on whose behalf and it was not until 2018 the evidence hardened and that was thought would be a game changer. Instead Celtic doubled down.

It was hardly going to be pursued with any vigour by the police and we were plugged into the only route open - the AGM process where Board's are brought to account which does not necessarily mean getting truthful answers but does mean getting answers that if dodgy (and they were) kept the door open to ask more..

Think of it like peeling an onion with tears after every AGM.

Taking the issue to the police was resisted by Celtic and I think I have already guessed at why.

1. No way could a club guilty of cheating a fellow club been admitted into Scottish football which also explains the sham that was the LNS Commission.
2. Compensation: In relation to LNS more than Res12. It would not just be Celtic seeking it. In some ways the early exit from Europe, whilst it hastened insolvency ,also stopped European clubs seeking it after the truth came out..

If you dont think the police will do anything then what can the board do to change that?

And what is the ultimate objective of RES 12?

Does it have any purpose other than asking board to refer it to Another body who may not be interested?

And if the police and authorities of game are not interested in the RES 12

What does that mean about football?

Why is no-one interested in fraud? Is it possible football is actually a vehicle used across world to transfer huge sums and no-one really cares where or how it was created?

So what is the ultimate objective of RES 12 that would satisfy the RES 12 team?

 

[a]

Have the board got a contingency plan for next season if the unthinkable happens ie:lost 10,will they fill the empty seats with advertising or do you think season books will be discounted??

There are so many variables at play I couldn't begin to guess but what I hope for is Celtic and supporters listen to what Roger Mitchell as saying on Twitter and in an interview with Graham Speirs about allowing ourselves be defined by Rangers comes to an end.

Apart from it freeing Celtic from a tie that binds it would need a whole new Board including CEO to bring about the change.

 

[TET]

On the way ahead I'll repeat what I posted on another blog. It is long because it contains extracts from the AGM Notice but in short it says Celtic have a moral duty to assure supporters that when they buy an ST they can be assured the game will be subject to the governing rules with no exception before renewal requests issue. It is not acceptable to say " providing an update when possible " that is a licence to do sfa about the SFA.

This point can only come with any chance of success from the CST whose growing membership contains more and more ST holders and the CSA who help organise the buses that take supporters to the games.

If readers are members of one or other or both please persuade them to seek the assurances for our supporters Res12 shareholders asked for on their behalf.

From other forum.
" If the CST want take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them (hey you don’t get Shakespeare quoted on many blogs) I’d be happy to do the arming.

Making Celtic keep their word to shareholders given in the AGM notice would be a very valid starting point if you look at what shareholders asked. The Boards statement re engagement was also their justification for saying Res11/12 was unnecessary. They said:

Board Response
” As stated in 2013, the Board is committed to protecting and promoting the interests of the Company, having regard to, among other things, the principles of fairness and sporting integrity. Having first raised these matters with the Scottish FA in 2011, prior to the 2013 Resolution being presented, and having continued to engage with the football authorities over the following years, Celtic continues to have regard to those interests and principles. Celtic has consistently called upon the football authorities to ensure that fairness and sporting integrity are at the heart of
football governance.
The Board of Celtic will continue to seek to ensure that these principles are safeguarded and shall continue in constructive engagement with the Scottish FA, the SPFL and UEFA to that end. The Board has taken, and will continue to take, appropriate steps to protect and promote the interests of the Company. The football governance environment has developed substantially over the past 10 years and the Company will continue to monitor the application and effectiveness of these systems of governance.
The Company was disappointed when the Scottish FA declined to investigate the issues referred to and was surprised when the Scottish FA determined not to continue with proceedings, which it had itself opened. In respect of the particular issues now raised, the Board has engaged with the requisitioning shareholders and will engage with the relevant authorities as appropriate in the interests of the Company, providing an update when possible. In the circumstances, therefore, the Board considers the resolution to be unnecessary and recommends that you vote
against it.
RECOMMENDATION ON RESOLUTION 11
In the circumstances the Board considers the resolution to be unnecessary and recommends that you vote against it.”

The relevant part of the shareholders statement from the AGM Notice was this:

” The shareholders concerned therefore request that Celtic PLC and its board raise these matters with UEFA as requested in Resolution 12 from the 2013 AGM, and in so doing:

1. take all reasonable measures to engage with both the Scottish Football Association, UEFA and any other relevant authorities with a view to ensuring that in future all football rules are administered and openly and evenly complied with and processed without fear or favour and in a proper legal manner, and

2. take all reasonable steps to reassure shareholders in Celtic PLC that their financial and emotional investment in Celtic PLC will not be further undermined or devalued by continued compliance and Governance failures on the part of the Scottish Football Association.”

In effect the Board are saying they will take all reasonable steps to reassure shareholders (and supporters) that governance failures by the SFA which led to the suspension of the SFA’s own judicial process are or have been remedied, but with no timeframe set how will supporters know without being told in good time, what the remedies are before they commit to purchase and if there is no remedy how can Celtic offer tickets for sale?

If they do not keep to their word and demonstrate that they have by say end March 2021 I don’t see how they can justify offering ST’s for sale

This approach puts the onus on Celtic to do what they said in the AGM notice but in a timeframe (which Bankier refused at the AGM whilst also going off script from the AGM Notice response) which assures supporters the SFA will do their job and apply their own rules .

Without some evidence the SFA have been approached as a most relevant authority by end of March, CST would be justified asking shareholders and supporters alike to seriously consider not only what they are they buying into but also are they enabling the continuation of an issue of poor governance that angers them almost every game they watch.

If supporters take a tough line that of itself will make it in the interests of the Company to honour their word.

In short CST tell Celtic if you do not keep your word in AGM notice before ST renewal, we would have to alert supporters to consider at least delaying renewing until Celtic can provide credible assurances of applied governance including reopening the aborted judicial process to covering all of events in 2011, setting aside the 5 Way Agreement if necessary and also oppose offering STs to those on any waiting list before assurance’s of remedies have been sought.

Then its over to the support to decide exactly what they are prepared to accept. I think even having an open debate about assurances will focus the minds of the football authorities.

In 1 and 2 its very vague objectives?

What makes you think a new board can deliver better results if you dont specify the remedy you require?

Which seems to me the reason board can time kick it again and again with spin.

Its not a specific request, therefore it can be claimed they are doing exactly the requirements in 1 and 2

They all claim they do do 1 and 2 already

its clear to ordinary punters this is spin

But it can only be spun because the actual requirements of res 12 are very vague.

In your opinion

Does pursuing res 12 end the football completely until resolved?

Since it would require a forensic style fraud investigation that may or may not result in powerful people being caught in a conspiracy to defraud people?

 

[TET]

There are so many variables at play I couldn't begin to guess but what I hope for is Celtic and supporters listen to what Roger Mitchell as saying on Twitter and in an interview with Graham Speirs about allowing ourselves be defined by Rangers comes to an end.

Apart from it freeing Celtic from a tie that binds it would need a whole new Board including CEO to bring about the change.

Who is Roger Mitchell?
And why would it be good to take his advice?

And what exactly is the advice he making that you concur with?

 

[a]

First off I'd like to thank Auldheid and his fellow requisitioners for the time and effort they've put into shining a light on the corruption that's still taking place within our game and for their dogged determination in seeking justice for all Celtic fans.

Nobody could've blamed them if they'd given up after the way this disgrace of a Celtic board have put up roadblock after roadblock to stop them getting to the truth of this scandal.

My question is......Is there ANY way to completely bypass both the SFA and the Celtic board to take this either to UEFA, the Court of Arbitration for Sport or even raise a criminal court action?

UEFA Integrity Unit were sent details of events in 2011 in May which they acknowledged and passed to relevant individual. They got more in July when provided with legal opinion fraud may have occurred but no feed back since. They are one of the relevant authorities Celtic should talk to but if UEFA are doing their job, they should be talking to Celtic and investigating the SFA.

There might be more than that but no more can be done by the Res12 guys. One of the Reasons Res12 is not necessary is because it asked Celtic to ask UEFA to look at SFA investigate the handling of the licensing process in 2011 but events since 2013 no longer require that. The investigation has been done for them.

What they do or do not do will be decided by what they see as in the interests of Scottish football but if that means looking at Scottish football unsustainable business model and proposing changes - job done.

 

[a]

In 1 and 2 its very vague objectives?

What makes you think a new board can deliver better results if you dont specify the remedy you require?

Which seems to me the reason board can time kick it again and again with spin.

Its not a specific request, therefore it can be claimed they are doing exactly the requirements in 1 and 2

They all claim they do do 1 and 2 already

its clear to ordinary punters this is spin

But it can only be spun because the actual requirements of res 12 are very vague.

In your opinion

Does pursuing res 12 end the football completely until resolved?

Since it would require a forensic style fraud investigation that may or may not result in powerful people being caught in a conspiracy to defraud people?

Why should we? It was the Board who said they would engage with relevant authorities. Just think what would reassure you rules would be applied fairly and there is the remedy. Completing the abandoned judicial process would be a start.

Res12 vague? It asked UEFA investigate the process under which a licence was granted in 2011. Nothing more nothing less. All the other stuff folk added didn't come from the requisitioners.
What happened when the truth was established was always beyond the powers of shareholders to do.

Of course it looks like a kick the can exercise, that is why shareholders sought clarification and a timeframe which was not forthcoming.

So imposing one is the way to stop that game and that is not down to the Res12 shareholders. Why should they do the fighting for a fairly governed game if the majority of supporters cgaf?

 

[michael duffy]

On the way ahead I'll repeat what I posted on another blog. It is long because it contains extracts from the AGM Notice but in short it says Celtic have a moral duty to assure supporters that when they buy an ST they can be assured the game will be subject to the governing rules with no exception before renewal requests issue. It is not acceptable to say " providing an update when possible " that is a licence to do sfa about the SFA.

This point can only come with any chance of success from the CST whose growing membership contains more and more ST holders and the CSA who help organise the buses that take supporters to the games.

If readers are members of one or other or both please persuade them to seek the assurances for our supporters Res12 shareholders asked for on their behalf.

From other forum.
" If the CST want take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them (hey you don’t get Shakespeare quoted on many blogs) I’d be happy to do the arming.

Making Celtic keep their word to shareholders given in the AGM notice would be a very valid starting point if you look at what shareholders asked. The Boards statement re engagement was also their justification for saying Res11/12 was unnecessary. They said:

Board Response
” As stated in 2013, the Board is committed to protecting and promoting the interests of the Company, having regard to, among other things, the principles of fairness and sporting integrity. Having first raised these matters with the Scottish FA in 2011, prior to the 2013 Resolution being presented, and having continued to engage with the football authorities over the following years, Celtic continues to have regard to those interests and principles. Celtic has consistently called upon the football authorities to ensure that fairness and sporting integrity are at the heart of
football governance.
The Board of Celtic will continue to seek to ensure that these principles are safeguarded and shall continue in constructive engagement with the Scottish FA, the SPFL and UEFA to that end. The Board has taken, and will continue to take, appropriate steps to protect and promote the interests of the Company. The football governance environment has developed substantially over the past 10 years and the Company will continue to monitor the application and effectiveness of these systems of governance.
The Company was disappointed when the Scottish FA declined to investigate the issues referred to and was surprised when the Scottish FA determined not to continue with proceedings, which it had itself opened. In respect of the particular issues now raised, the Board has engaged with the requisitioning shareholders and will engage with the relevant authorities as appropriate in the interests of the Company, providing an update when possible. In the circumstances, therefore, the Board considers the resolution to be unnecessary and recommends that you vote
against it.
RECOMMENDATION ON RESOLUTION 11
In the circumstances the Board considers the resolution to be unnecessary and recommends that you vote against it.”

The relevant part of the shareholders statement from the AGM Notice was this:

” The shareholders concerned therefore request that Celtic PLC and its board raise these matters with UEFA as requested in Resolution 12 from the 2013 AGM, and in so doing:

1. take all reasonable measures to engage with both the Scottish Football Association, UEFA and any other relevant authorities with a view to ensuring that in future all football rules are administered and openly and evenly complied with and processed without fear or favour and in a proper legal manner, and

2. take all reasonable steps to reassure shareholders in Celtic PLC that their financial and emotional investment in Celtic PLC will not be further undermined or devalued by continued compliance and Governance failures on the part of the Scottish Football Association.”

In effect the Board are saying they will take all reasonable steps to reassure shareholders (and supporters) that governance failures by the SFA which led to the suspension of the SFA’s own judicial process are or have been remedied, but with no timeframe set how will supporters know without being told in good time, what the remedies are before they commit to purchase and if there is no remedy how can Celtic offer tickets for sale?

If they do not keep to their word and demonstrate that they have by say end March 2021 I don’t see how they can justify offering ST’s for sale

This approach puts the onus on Celtic to do what they said in the AGM notice but in a timeframe (which Bankier refused at the AGM whilst also going off script from the AGM Notice response) which assures supporters the SFA will do their job and apply their own rules .

Without some evidence the SFA have been approached as a most relevant authority by end of March, CST would be justified asking shareholders and supporters alike to seriously consider not only what they are they buying into but also are they enabling the continuation of an issue of poor governance that angers them almost every game they watch.

If supporters take a tough line that of itself will make it in the interests of the Company to honour their word.

In short CST tell Celtic if you do not keep your word in AGM notice before ST renewal, we would have to alert supporters to consider at least delaying renewing until Celtic can provide credible assurances of applied governance including reopening the aborted judicial process to covering all of events in 2011, setting aside the 5 Way Agreement if necessary and also oppose offering STs to those on any waiting list before assurance’s of remedies have been sought.

Then its over to the support to decide exactly what they are prepared to accept. I think even having an open debate about assurances will focus the minds of the football authorities.

Excuse me Auldheid, ah'm no too bright at the best of times,but my reading of your excellent piece is, come ST renewal time pressure the board,maybe an extraordinary general meeting,and the board comes clean,telling 'supporters'/'customers' of their intentions on the way ahead, and by purchasing an ST what exactly are you getting for your money?

 

[a]

Who is Roger Mitchell?
And why would it be good to take his advice?

And what exactly is the advice he making that you concur with?

Ex CEO of the SPL and a Celtic fan. He speaks from experience of how things worked in his day and I doubt it has changed much. If I had the link to the interview with Speirs I'd paste it but try Google or if on Twitter check Speirs account.

 

[TET]

Why should we? It was the Board who said they would engage with relevant authorities. Just think what would reassure you rules would be applied fairly and there is the remedy. Completing the abandoned judicial process would be a start.

Res12 vague? It asked UEFA investigate the process under which a licence was granted in 2011. Nothing more nothing less. All the other stuff folk added didn't come from the requisitioners.
What happened when the truth was established was always beyond the powers of shareholders to do.

Of course it looks like a kick the can exercise, that is why shareholders sought clarification and a timeframe which was not forthcoming.

So imposing one is the way to stop that game and that is not down to the Res12 shareholders. Why should they do the fighting for a fairly governed game if the majority of supporters cgaf?

But the reason it can be kicked by them is it has no specific requirements that they claim have not been fulfilled?

I want you to win

btw

And if you cant be clear and candid when asked specific questions then why would a new board solve your dilemma.

I want a new board btw

But I haven't heard a peep from any new gang as to what their plan of action is other than vagueness

And your right if most celtic shareholders dont care about fraud

how can a new board solve that

I personally am pretty certain im out of football because it looks like a scam when I thought it was sport

And your suppose to be the guy in the know but keep referring to vague stuff and I hope you all do what Roger Mitchell suggests

not what you suggest

And still its unclear what res 12 requires if you claim its defunct because of 2013 which again is truly vague

Are you telling fans to not buy season tickets until sevco are called sevco

Thats the gist of what I think res 12 are wanting?

is that correct?

 

[a]

Excuse me Auldheid, ah'm no too bright at the best of times,but my reading of your excellent piece is, come ST renewal time pressure the board,maybe an extraordinary general meeting,and the board comes clean,telling 'supporters'/'customers' of their intentions on the way ahead, and by purchasing an ST what exactly are you getting for your money?

I would say that would be an excellent way out. Confession being good for the soul etc and a suggestion made to Celtic in lead up to the AGM notice.

Calling an EGM is not as straight forward as lodging a resolution at an AGM but David Lowe President of the CST has that kind of experience. It came up at the Open meeting on 5th December.

Everything depends on the support being better informed and then acting based on what they believe to be true and how that makes them feel. Much can be read on the Res12 Archive and although further updating covering events this year needs added., have a look at events from 15 May 2018 at Timeline Two Part Three – After The Trial was Over – June 2017 to date. (res12.uk)

 

[a]

But the reason it can be kicked by them is it has no specific requirements that they claim have not been fulfilled?

I want you to win

btw

And if you cant be clear and candid when asked specific questions then why would a new board solve your dilemma.

I want a new board btw

But I haven't heard a peep from any new gang as to what their plan of action is other than vagueness

And your right if most celtic shareholders dont care about fraud

how can a new board solve that

I personally am pretty certain im out of football because it looks like a scam when I thought it was sport

And your suppose to be the guy in the know but keep referring to vague stuff and I hope you all do what Roger Mitchell suggests

not what you suggest

And still its unclear what res 12 requires if you claim its defunct because of 2013 which again is truly vague

Are you telling fans to not buy season tickets until sevco are called sevco

Thats the gist of what I think res 12 are wanting?

is that correct?

I could not have made myself clear . I did not mean new Board to tackle the governance issue, I meant a new Board with the skills to execute a new business model . Mitchell described the current one as "Managed Decline" and all the evidence since 2012 supports that description. A by product would be removing the people who would be exposed because of their role in the 5 Way agreement who have a personal interest in that exposure not happening although Bankier himself said PL had acted in the Company's interest. The question is what is that and in what way? Ground Zero.
There is an elephant eating task here which means eating it a bit at a time.