Questions for Auldheid

[TET]

PL in place for 17 years=stagnation=managed decline

Change doesn't always come with a better plan

But I agree we need change, not on managed decline, though that may well be true, but without details of the better plan that could have worked within a sustainable model is still never been addressed.

I want change because transparency and accountability is lacking

And clarity is missing from all the options

Which doesn't bode well imo

Does the better plan involve doing the sevco trust shuffle?

is that the better less stuffy future?

 

[a]

People are frustrated Auldheid, not at you but at the decisions that have been taken to help the Rangers in every way possible. Allowing the same club myth for me personally has always been the biggest sin in all of this while others have been less troubled by it. For Celtic it was short term thinking cos at some point they’d win and gloat like crazy and the damage to our club would be huge. They need a Rangers snd the bigger picture might be that Celtic can’t keep winning all trophies esp the league. But if they ever win it we should have made sure in 2012 that their factual new club status was the position accepted before they were allowed to kick a ball against Brechin. That’s why I am proud of the Sunday Herald Statement from Celtic Supporters ad we worked on together that was published the week before first ever meeting in 2015 League Cup semi final.

I get that WC, it is the stuff I said others added to Res12 that was never its objective for me and I understand that frustration, but Celtic shareholders had no locus other than the UEFA Licence issue that Celtic could not refuse to add to the AGM agenda. Anything about say a new club would have been rejected as it was not an issue that Celtic had locus on that being the responsibility of the SFA and SPL.

If Res12 had been passed and UEFA found Rangers guilty of fraud to gain the licence and SFA if not complicit then lax, that would have provided reason for reform.

Even after the new club/company letter that would have been seen as a win as you know but we stuck to getting leverage for SFA reform.

What we didn't know of course in the early days was that Celtic in spite of the direction they gave in May 2013 had no intention of using what might emerge but wanted to keep what happened in 2011 from coming out. They still do.

I can see now where TET is coming from and the his view on the vagueness of Res12 but as I said it was a means to a particular end and that was never to challenge the same club myth.

However there was a separate attempt to have LNS ,which legitimised the titles won using ebt players, made from The Scottish Football Monitor blog that Celtic also resisted and that needs brought out more.

 

[TET]

I get that WC, it is the stuff I said others added to Res12 that was never its objective for me and I understand that frustration, but Celtic shareholders had no locus other than the UEFA Licence issue that Celtic could not refuse to add to the AGM agenda. Anything about say a new club would have been rejected as it was not an issue that Celtic had locus on that being the responsibility of the SFA and SPL.

If Res12 had been passed and UEFA found Rangers guilty of fraud to gain the licence and SFA if not complicit then lax, that would have provided reason for reform.

Even after the new club/company letter that would have been seen as a win as you know but we stuck to getting leverage for SFA reform.

What we didn't know of course in the early days was that Celtic in spite of the direction they gave in May 2013 had no intention of using what might emerge but wanted to keep what happened in 2011 from coming out. They still do.

I can see now where TET is coming from and the his view on the vagueness of Res12 but as I said it was a means to a particular end and that was never to challenge the same club myth.

However there was a separate attempt to have LNS ,which legitimised the titles won using ebt players, made from The Scottish Football Monitor blog that Celtic also resisted and that needs brought out more.

I have a feeling the board at celtic want something sinister kept secret and that may well have involved complying with secret agreements directly or indirectly

I am all for res 12 and everything it involves

If I come across as being stupid or at it then I apologise

it was not my intension

I probably am stupid because id rather have a clean game even if it meant the club declined financially as other wee clubs got a bit more hope at the sport

But I am odd for sure

 

[michael duffy]

Change doesn't always come with a better plan

But I agree we need change, not on managed decline, though that may well be true, but without details of the better plan that could have worked within a sustainable model is still never been addressed.

I want change because transparency and accountability is lacking

And clarity is missing from all the options

Which doesn't bode well imo

Does the better plan involve doing the sevco trust shuffle?

is that the better less stuffy future?

Who remains in power for 17 years ?banana republic dictators! if the 'new guy' puts forward a plan,with new ideas on how we move forward in the 21st century, by all means let us hear them,we have been parochial for to long,winning the European cup in 1967 was when we became a potential European powerhouse, what happened, managed decline,to such an extent it almost killed us.
If someone with the nous and vision can step forward,tell us like it is and what the plan is,i'm all for it,it seems we've been brainwashed into the belief that rubbing the hun's noses in it is the be all and end all,Europe is where we should be,things are changing as we know,regarding technology,Amazon ,live streaming etc,competition for the Sky monster,might not happen in my lifetime, but change will come HH TET.

 

[a]

Change doesn't always come with a better plan

But I agree we need change, not on managed decline, though that may well be true, but without details of the better plan that could have worked within a sustainable model is still never been addressed.

I want change because transparency and accountability is lacking

And clarity is missing from all the options

Which doesn't bode well imo

Does the better plan involve doing the sevco trust shuffle?

is that the better less stuffy future?

I have to answer this.

The very first resolution to come from an Open Meeting hosted by CST /CSA in 2010 at St Mary's Calton sought transparency and accountability from the SFA and I drafted it.

THE only avenue to get transparency and accountability is the AGM process but that depends on the integrity of the Board.

Res12 kept asking the questions, The Board had to answer if more than 100 shareholders supported tabled a resolution.

The flaw was the answers given did not stand scrutiny so on the process rolled for 7 years.

We need something better and the CST can build the capacity to get accountability if many supporters join , and in joining can influence the direction the CST take.

 

[TET]

And I will add I would like every member of every club including Celtic to be jailed if they were involved in criminal cover ups of any kind.

But I doubt that will ever happen unless a nuclear option unveiling the entire corruption and crimes is exposed

but too many powerful people might get burned

and it might well have civil revolt and government issues if any of the allegations being bandied around as fact have any credence.

imo they won their titles fair but it killed their club

they started again with a boost to help keep football flowing for the horde

But the new club is a new club

Just like rangers ladies dont start with 54 titles

new rangers fc dont start as a club with 54 titles coz they didn't pay the bills that won many of those titles they bought with a death plan

 

[a]

I have a feeling the board at celtic want something sinister kept secret and that may well have involved complying with secret agreements directly or indirectly

I am all for res 12 and everything it involves

If I come across as being stupid or at it then I apologise

it was not my intension

I probably am stupid because id rather have a clean game even if it meant the club declined financially as other wee clubs got a bit more hope at the sport

But I am odd for sure

TET. I get where you are coming from now. Not knowing something is not being stupid otherwise everybody would be stupid. Apologies.

 

[a]

I'll sign off with this post from Sentinel Celts about the LNS Commission. based on the Scottish Football Monitor initiative.

On the LNS Commission: Not only was the Commission itself a sham to keep some form of Rangers playing in Scottish football , Celtic’s apparent unhappiness was a sham too.

The Judicial Review that CQN took the lead on that excluded the UEFA licence 2011 from its remit was imo a sham. It gave the appearance given the close links between CQN and Celtic, that Celtic were opposed but behind the scenes when the push came to a shove , they went into reverse (which also happened in May 2018 re REs12 – remember CQN stopped highlighting it around then- which reminds me of a point to make about whatever David Lowe did for Rangers that I’ll come back to later ).

The narrative if I can keep it short but it is fact based is that

1, Eric Riley absented himself from the follow up meeting when SPL were deciding to appeal LNS or not. Not all SPL Board members were happy when Decision published, the Aberdeen man was incredulous, so the SPL Board asked some questions of their lawyer and met by tele conference a week later to decide. Riley was incommunicado when decision not to appeal was taken which gives him plausible deniability.
2. Starting in Feb 2014 Scottish Football Monitor contributors sent the SPL Board including Riley evidence that could not have been provided to the SPL lawyers who commissioned LNS. That evidence included the De Boer indemnity of Aug 2000 which immediately asked questions why 23 Nov not July 1999 was the start date for investigating but of greater significance was the failure to provide HMRC letters of Feb and May 2011 that justified collecting the tax due because

a) the DOS ebts were already unlawful as result of an FTT Decision in Oct 2010 yet LNS treated them as lawful like the BTC ebts were at that time in 2013.
b) the HMRC correspondence accused Rangers of fraudulent or negligent behaviour and provided evidence of dishonesty as in concealing existence of side letters for Flo and De Boer in 2005 when HMRC asked for them. At that time Rangers had 29 side letters in their files relating to the BTC ebts.

The LNS decision was based on a) all clubs being able to use ebts as they were lawful , but the DOS type that were used from Aug 2000 weren’t and he had no power to overrule the FTT and b) “there was no question of dishonesty, corporate or individual” , which the HMRC correspondence refutes.

Riley received the documents because it was mentioned during one of the REs12 meetings that he had.

The SPL eventually passed the correspondence to the SFA but you know the rest. The SFA QC found a way to justify ignoring the Supreme Court decision BTC ebts were unlawful that you refer to but I do wonder if he ever saw the documentation SPL had in 2014. I think there might be a dismissive reference to it in his statement.

It gets worse: In 2017 after CW trial SPFL (fronting for Celtic) asked SFA to review LNS and UEFA Licence 2011. The latter became the as yet unfinished and incomplete non compliance charge (incomplete in that it made no reference to the grant period, something Celtic were alerted immediately when charges were made and there is a strong possibility the structure of the 5 Way prevented anything bar the ebts usage being investigated as the Agreement only address acts by Craig Whyte from May 2011.
f my interpretation is correct then knowingly or unknowingly the 5 Way provided a pardon for the 2011 fraud before CW took over – and we know which club accepted it.

It gets worser

In refusing to revisit LNS in Sept 2017 Regan suggest to SPFL (fronting for Celtic) that they should approach LNS with the testimony of SDM at the CW trial were SDM spoke of the competitive advantage ebts offered when attracting players.

It was a bite your hands off offer if Celtic/SPFL were not playing a game of shams.

In Jan 2018 PL received an e mail pointing to the Regan offer and enclosing the HMRC correspondence to take to LNS as well as the SDM CW testimony and had SPFL/Celtic not been playing a game of shams they could have added SDM’s testimony to the FTT in 2010/11.

The above looks like tin foil stuff from that Q Mob that set fake news running but there is enough documentation to support the narrative.

The role Scottish Football Monitor played in 2014 can be read from

https://docs.google.com/document/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9dnVHSl9OU3RoWm8/edit

One contributor was a lawyer who saw the implications of concealment without being led to them and was very helpful in challenging the SPL responses.

The full role Celtic played in the game of shams – in the Company’s interest of course – is in the oven.

 

[TET]

I have to answer this.

The very first resolution to come from an Open Meeting hosted by CST /CSA in 2010 at St Mary's Calton sought transparency and accountability from the SFA and I drafted it.

THE only avenue to get transparency and accountability is the AGM process but that depends on the integrity of the Board.

Res12 kept asking the questions, The Board had to answer if more than 100 shareholders supported tabled a resolution.

The flaw was the answers given did not stand scrutiny so on the process rolled for 7 years.

We need something better and the CST can build the capacity to get accountability if many supporters join , and in joining can influence the direction the CST take.

fair play

I won't be joining the trust

I hope they can deliver what game needs

But I dont trust them though. not yet anyway

 

[michael duffy]

fair play

I won't be joining the trust

I hope they can deliver what game needs

But I dont trust them though. not yet anyway

 

[Bridie Bhoy]

What vague stuff? I did not suggest we all do what Roger Mitchel suggested. I explained Res12. Not candid?

You seem either to want to deliberately misrepresent what I say or are stupid.

I'm going for both so no more wasting my time on you.

Thanks Auldheid. We really appreciate your efforts on this matter. It must have been very tough at many times throughout this fraught process but you have done a wonderful job at battling against our own frustrating board. HH

 

[Lubos left peg]

Auldheid and the rest of the requisitioners have done a great job. But this thread has depressed me. We are basically watching WWE. Everything we are seeing seems to be exciting and well choreographed. But in the end we know its all fake. Rangers need to win for their very existence in 2010, low and behold they do!! Then they are saved from the jaws of death (not) and the "journey" begins. While they back to where they belong their big bad rivals are on the march. They need to get back to where they belong and will and can do anything to get there. Which TV company won't buy into that??
Now we are where we are. And it seems to me the biggest orchestrators of this production are the celtic board. Like TET, I'm almost ready to give up on football. Ill always love celtic....well the idea of them. But at the moment it feels like the people at the helm have sucked the soul from the club.

 

[a]

fair play

I won't be joining the trust

I hope they can deliver what game needs

But I dont trust them though. not yet anyway

Fair enough. By their deeds shall ye know them.

 

[a]

Auldheid and the rest of the requisitioners have done a great job. But this thread has depressed me. We are basically watching WWE. Everything we are seeing seems to be exciting and well choreographed. But in the end we know its all fake. Rangers need to win for their very existence in 2010, low and behold they do!! Then they are saved from the jaws of death (not) and the "journey" begins. While they back to where they belong their big bad rivals are on the march. They need to get back to where they belong and will and can do anything to get there. Which TV company won't buy into that??
Now we are where we are. And it seems to me the biggest orchestrators of this production are the celtic board. Like TET, I'm almost ready to give up on football. Ill always love celtic....well the idea of them. But at the moment it feels like the people at the helm have sucked the soul from the club.

This was why I mentioned Plato's Cave#. In some ways I wish I'd never left it, however although it is natural to think of chuckling it, it is also an opportunity to change how it currently is.

I see there is a CST Open Meeting via Zoom tomorrow to report back on a meeting with Celtic. I'll give feedback if I join it.

#

 

[BarrowfieldBhoy]

I haven’t had time to read through all the responses but I note that Auldheid mentioned a legal fund being required. Has anybody enquired as to the magnitude of this fund?

 

[Lubos left peg]

This was why I mentioned Plato's Cave#. In some ways I wish I'd never left it, however although it is natural to think of chuckling it, it is also an opportunity to change how it currently is.

I see there is a CST Open Meeting via Zoom tomorrow to report back on a meeting with Celtic. I'll give feedback if I join it.

#

Aaaahhhhhh so the escaped prisoner is Thai Tim then

 

[BarrowfieldBhoy]

People are frustrated Auldheid, not at you but at the decisions that have been taken to help the Rangers in every way possible. Allowing the same club myth for me personally has always been the biggest sin in all of this while others have been less troubled by it. For Celtic it was short term thinking cos at some point they’d win and gloat like crazy and the damage to our club would be huge. They need a Rangers snd the bigger picture might be that Celtic can’t keep winning all trophies esp the league. But if they ever win it we should have made sure in 2012 that their factual new club status was the position accepted before they were allowed to kick a ball against Brechin. That’s why I am proud of the Sunday Herald Statement from Celtic Supporters ad we worked on together that was published the week before first ever meeting in 2015 League Cup semi final.

Agree. The same club story has always infuriated me. Now as I seem to recall there was a legal ruling that the holding company and the club were NOT two separate entities with the ‘club’ just floating out there in the ether. If the holding company was liquidated then so was the club.
That being the case can’t this same club myth be challenged under company law? The SFA can think what they like but they cannot overrule company law.

 

[Bridie Bhoy]

Agree. The same club story has always infuriated me. Now as I seem to recall there was a legal ruling that the holding company and the club were NOT two separate entities with the ‘club’ just floating out there in the ether. If the holding company was liquidated then so was the club.
That being the case can’t this same club myth be challenged under company law? The SFA can think what they like but they cannot overrule company law.

I might be wrong (I usually am these days) but I seem to remember reading that UEFA changed the rules around 2006 to allow Holding Companies to own Football Clubs. One of the main criteria for this is that the relevant certs had to be ludged with that country's association at the start of each season to prove this was all being done above board and within the rules.

Therefore, as Oldco were using a holding company (stop sniggering) then rhis should have been cleared up in a matter of minutes as the SFA produced the relevant documentation.

As this MUST have been done to ensure compliance with UEFA's rules then I'm still confused as to why the SFA never follow followed through on this simple step to put a stop to any more discussions about there being a holding company!!!

 

[Hoopy427]

I might be wrong (I usually am these days) but I seem to remember reading that UEFA changed the rules around 2006 to allow Holding Companies to own Football Clubs. One of the main criteria for this is that the relevant certs had to be ludged with that country's association at the start of each season to prove this was all being done above board and within the rules.

Therefore, as Oldco were using a holding company (stop sniggering) then rhis should have been cleared up in a matter of minutes as the SFA produced the relevant documentation.

As this MUST have been done to ensure compliance with UEFA's rules then I'm still confused as to why the SFA never follow followed through on this simple step to put a stop to any more discussions about there being a holding company!!!

What you mean "these days" ?

 

[BarrowfieldBhoy]

I might be wrong (I usually am these days) but I seem to remember reading that UEFA changed the rules around 2006 to allow Holding Companies to own Football Clubs. One of the main criteria for this is that the relevant certs had to be ludged with that country's association at the start of each season to prove this was all being done above board and within the rules.

Therefore, as Oldco were using a holding company (stop sniggering) then rhis should have been cleared up in a matter of minutes as the SFA produced the relevant documentation.

As this MUST have been done to ensure compliance with UEFA's rules then I'm still confused as to why the SFA never follow followed through on this simple step to put a stop to any more discussions about there being a holding company!!!

Don’t know about that EUFA rule but I would have thought that the club involved would have to be able to show solvency in the event that the holding company went bust. The huns clearly could not. It’s one thing owning/selling a club when you are solvent but another in the case of liquidation.
Even if UEFA has such a rule, it’s the same situation as the SFA. They cannot dictate Scottish Company law. I don’t care (well actually I do) that Ibrox and facilities were sold to another company it’s the SFA transfer of history to the new company that rankles. It doesn't help that the court ruling stated BOTH were liquidated and the SFA maneuver seems to be in direct conflict with that ruling.