Questions for Auldheid

[a]

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?

Res12 was paid for by one crowd funding effort led by Winning Captains on CQN. The remainder by a small number of individual funders. The bill was £11,266 in total and was paid directly to the law firm, by the funders.

That was to cover drafting and delivery of letters to SFA and UEFA done at a cheaper rate via connections. The funds were raised after each session with the law firm. Hairy stuff, but on the basis Celtic were behind using the fruits of the investigation the funds appeared when needed.

The area of funding now would be into establishing shareholder rights and Director responsibilities and presenting areas where advice could be sought on whether both rights and responsibilities had been properly observed.

Only a properly constituted organisation like the CST could represent the support at large (and the larger the better) and have the locus to ask the questions, but the Res12 shareholders pledged a significant sum to that end, but lack the capacity and authority to take it forward in an accountable manner.

The lesson from Res12 is legal backing on tap is needed to prevent one year becoming seven.

 

[Lubos left peg]

Res12 was paid for by one crowd funding effort led by Winning Captains on CQN. The remainder by a small number of individual funders. The bill was £11,266 in total and was paid directly to the law firm, by the funders.

That was to cover drafting and delivery of letters to SFA and UEFA done at a cheaper rate via connections. The funds were raised after each session with the law firm. Hairy stuff, but on the basis Celtic were behind using the fruits of the investigation the funds appeared when needed.

The area of funding now would be into establishing shareholder rights and Director responsibilities and presenting areas where advice could be sought on whether both rights and responsibilities had been properly observed.

Only a properly constituted organisation like the CST could represent the support at large (and the larger the better) and have the locus to ask the questions, but the Res12 shareholders pledged a significant sum to that end, but lack the capacity and authority to take it forward in an accountable manner.

The lesson from Res12 is legal backing on tap is needed to prevent one year becoming seven.

I read on the noise, from one of our posters, that even if the CST managed to bring most of the shareholders on board and give them their vote on main issues, i.e res11/12, it still wouldn't be enough to defeat DD, Lawwell and their allies. Do you believe the trust would ever be able to force change at board level by just holding talks with the main shareholders? Or is it going to take hitting them in the pocket before there is any change?

 

[a]

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.

The shenanigans where Sevco were transferred the FULL SFA Membership under the 5 Way Agreement that UEFA refused to recognise as conferring continuing leading to the 3 year wait before the NEW club (Rangers FC Ltd) a could apply for a UEFA Licence under Rangers International Football Club a NEW company (neither of which existed before 2012) are covered in this post from CQN.

If this all comes out in the wash about the 5WA and the stitch up of Scottish football to benefit one club then I hope fans of other clubs are as angry as some Celtic supporters, they would probably have more leverage with their club to demand restructuring of and the removal from the game of those responsible, you cannot have one set of rules for one club and rules for the rest.



As for 55 not a chance a new club came into existence in 2012 Traverso from UEFA said so even though he wasnt asked that, why would he say that?
==================
He (Traverso) was speaking the language of Article 12 of UEFA FFP.

He was saying that there was no point pursuing the tax overdue non compliance charges relating to the monitoring periods in June and September 2011 because even though it was clear there had been non compliance with monitoring rules any sanctions relating to that period would have fallen into season 2012/2013 and by then the club who had failed to comply no longer existed and were replaced by a new club/company.

Now a lot has been made about the use of the word company in support of the idea Rangers always were a club separate from a company pre 2012 and not enough attention paid to the word “new”.

Traverso’s words in 2016 reflected exactly the position of the applicant for a UEFA Licence from 2015 when the club had served three years as a new club/company before being eligible to apply.

Before 2012 the applicant for a UEFA licence was Rangers Football Club. No other entity. Rangers Football Club was the name on the template used by applicant clubs.

After 2012 it was Rangers International Football Club i.e. a new company that applied for a UEFA Licence on behalf of Rangers Football Club Ltd a new club and although the accounts supporting the application were under the name of RIFC , the contents of those accounts came from the finances of Rangers Football Club Ltd. I’ve seen them on Companies House.

So before 2012 just a club existed as UEFA define one under a) of Article 12, after 2012 a new club/company under b) of Article 12 appeared and here is what it says:

” Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence
Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant

1 A licence applicant may ONLY BE A FOOTBALL CLUB, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible
for a football team participating in national and international competitions which

either:

a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated
league (hereinafter: registered member); (Rangers before 2012)

or

b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football
company). (RIFC who are party to the contract – that has to be written- and Rangers Football Club Ltd who are the registered member of the SFA,NOT RIFC)

2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at
the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any
alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example,
changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings
between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on
sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a
competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual
relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision. ”

In Rangers case the interruption as far as UEFA are concerned was permanent and they did not recognise the Transfer of the SFA Membership from Rangers Football Club PLC (oldco) to Sevco under the 5 Way Agreement to become Rangers Football Club Ltd , as conferring continuity.

They couldn’t without destroying the aim of Article 12 which was to protect the integrity of UEFA completions (something the 5 Way failed to do btw and I wonder if UEFA were ever consulted) and of course if the post 2012 applicant was the same as the pre 2012 applicant then any application in 2015 would have to have used the accounts of the club undergoing liquidation. Absurdistan thinking.

I hope that is clear and it is a reasons why the 5 Way should never have been signed as it sacrificed the integrity of our game for commercial reasons and has angered Celtic supporters since because it allowed a club guilty of cheating the rest of Scottish football to keep its ill gotten gains as a result of a flawed LNS Commission flowing from the 5 Way that again Celtic failed to challenge with evidence provided in 2014 and 2018.

 

[a]

I read on the noise, from one of our posters, that even if the CST managed to bring most of the shareholders on board and give them their vote on main issues, i.e res11/12, it still wouldn't be enough to defeat DD, Lawwell and their allies. Do you believe the trust would ever be able to force change at board level by just holding talks with the main shareholders? Or is it going to take hitting them in the pocket before there is any change?

Has to be hitting them in the pocket and that is a decision every Celtic supporter who pays anything to support Celtic will have to make.

Stay in Platos Cave or get out and support something real and not a shadow.

Alternative is the legal route I mentioned. On reflection more likely to scare the shit out of evey Board member in Scottish football never mind Celtic.

Its an idea at the moment being let loose but good ideas survive by their very nature.

 

[boab1916]

HH

 

[a]

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.

See my post on transfer of SFA Membership from Rangers to Sevco.

It was a Jedi mind trick that did not fool UEFA. I sometimes wonder if the 5 Way Agreement was ever passed to UEFA for approval.

Keeping it away from prying eyes might be why SFA abandoned their JPDT (Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal on UEFA licence breaches) the very thing Celtic said in AGM notice they would engage with relevant authorities about - but we don't know where and we don't know when......

 

[BarrowfieldBhoy]

I read on the noise, from one of our posters, that even if the CST managed to bring most of the shareholders on board and give them their vote on main issues, i.e res11/12, it still wouldn't be enough to defeat DD, Lawwell and their allies. Do you believe the trust would ever be able to force change at board level by just holding talks with the main shareholders? Or is it going to take hitting them in the pocket before there is any change?

I believe Lubo that Demond, Lawell and other insiders have slightly more than 50% of the vote but if CST could gain control of the remaining shares they would be hard to ignore. Desmond has 35% I think and nobody ignores him.

 

[BarrowfieldBhoy]

Res12 was paid for by one crowd funding effort led by Winning Captains on CQN. The remainder by a small number of individual funders. The bill was £11,266 in total and was paid directly to the law firm, by the funders.

That was to cover drafting and delivery of letters to SFA and UEFA done at a cheaper rate via connections. The funds were raised after each session with the law firm. Hairy stuff, but on the basis Celtic were behind using the fruits of the investigation the funds appeared when needed.

The area of funding now would be into establishing shareholder rights and Director responsibilities and presenting areas where advice could be sought on whether both rights and responsibilities had been properly observed.

Only a properly constituted organisation like the CST could represent the support at large (and the larger the better) and have the locus to ask the questions, but the Res12 shareholders pledged a significant sum to that end, but lack the capacity and authority to take it forward in an accountable manner.

The lesson from Res12 is legal backing on tap is needed to prevent one year becoming seven.

I don’t enough about corporate law to opine really but I did think that individual shareholders had some rights. I for sure would contribute to a legal fund to investigate. I would give proxy right to the CST for my shares.

 

[BarrowfieldBhoy]

The shenanigans where Sevco were transferred the FULL SFA Membership under the 5 Way Agreement that UEFA refused to recognise as conferring continuing leading to the 3 year wait before the NEW club (Rangers FC Ltd) a could apply for a UEFA Licence under Rangers International Football Club a NEW company (neither of which existed before 2012) are covered in this post from CQN.

If this all comes out in the wash about the 5WA and the stitch up of Scottish football to benefit one club then I hope fans of other clubs are as angry as some Celtic supporters, they would probably have more leverage with their club to demand restructuring of and the removal from the game of those responsible, you cannot have one set of rules for one club and rules for the rest.



As for 55 not a chance a new club came into existence in 2012 Traverso from UEFA said so even though he wasnt asked that, why would he say that?
==================
He (Traverso) was speaking the language of Article 12 of UEFA FFP.

He was saying that there was no point pursuing the tax overdue non compliance charges relating to the monitoring periods in June and September 2011 because even though it was clear there had been non compliance with monitoring rules any sanctions relating to that period would have fallen into season 2012/2013 and by then the club who had failed to comply no longer existed and were replaced by a new club/company.

Now a lot has been made about the use of the word company in support of the idea Rangers always were a club separate from a company pre 2012 and not enough attention paid to the word “new”.

Traverso’s words in 2016 reflected exactly the position of the applicant for a UEFA Licence from 2015 when the club had served three years as a new club/company before being eligible to apply.

Before 2012 the applicant for a UEFA licence was Rangers Football Club. No other entity. Rangers Football Club was the name on the template used by applicant clubs.

After 2012 it was Rangers International Football Club i.e. a new company that applied for a UEFA Licence on behalf of Rangers Football Club Ltd a new club and although the accounts supporting the application were under the name of RIFC , the contents of those accounts came from the finances of Rangers Football Club Ltd. I’ve seen them on Companies House.

So before 2012 just a club existed as UEFA define one under a) of Article 12, after 2012 a new club/company under b) of Article 12 appeared and here is what it says:

” Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence
Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant

1 A licence applicant may ONLY BE A FOOTBALL CLUB, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible
for a football team participating in national and international competitions which

either:

a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated
league (hereinafter: registered member); (Rangers before 2012)

or

b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football
company). (RIFC who are party to the contract – that has to be written- and Rangers Football Club Ltd who are the registered member of the SFA,NOT RIFC)

2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at
the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any
alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example,
changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings
between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on
sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a
competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual
relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision. ”

In Rangers case the interruption as far as UEFA are concerned was permanent and they did not recognise the Transfer of the SFA Membership from Rangers Football Club PLC (oldco) to Sevco under the 5 Way Agreement to become Rangers Football Club Ltd , as conferring continuity.

They couldn’t without destroying the aim of Article 12 which was to protect the integrity of UEFA completions (something the 5 Way failed to do btw and I wonder if UEFA were ever consulted) and of course if the post 2012 applicant was the same as the pre 2012 applicant then any application in 2015 would have to have used the accounts of the club undergoing liquidation. Absurdistan thinking.

I hope that is clear and it is a reasons why the 5 Way should never have been signed as it sacrificed the integrity of our game for commercial reasons and has angered Celtic supporters since because it allowed a club guilty of cheating the rest of Scottish football to keep its ill gotten gains as a result of a flawed LNS Commission flowing from the 5 Way that again Celtic failed to challenge with evidence provided in 2014 and 2018.

I read what Traverso said at the time about not pursuing it further because Oldco had been liquidated and Sevco were a new club. But does that mean that if they won the title UEFA would not acknowledge this as 55, only the SFA?

 

[Hoopy427]

I appreciate that you have other things to think about Auldheid but have you given any thought to the salt water crocodile great white shark conundrum?
Personally if it was pound for pound I'd go with the croc....

 

[BarrowfieldBhoy]

I appreciate that you have other things to think about Auldheid but have you given any thought to the salt water crocodile great white shark conundrum?
Personally if it was pound for pound I'd go with the croc....

Let me check with my lawyer on that one mate. He’s a real expert in this field..err pond.

 

[a]

What you mean "these days" ?

There was a rule change in Scottish football around 2005 when the concept of a company owning/operating a club was introduced. Romanov at Hearts was a reason. He was the company and out of reach as such.

Doncaster used that in the 5 Way Agreement when he defined the parties to it but even if the concept was only created in 2005 it did not suddenly change the constitution of Scottish football clubs.

An application for a UEFA licence is based on a template with the name of the club applying under Article 12 a0) was Rangers Football Club.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9VnptRTJBR01RTEE/view?usp=sharing

That is the last application in 2012 the club made under definition a) of Article 12 .

All subsequent applications from 2014 were made by Rangers International Football Club whose accounts reflected the business dealings of Rangers FC Ltd conforming to b) in Article 12.

In short Rangers were a club and company in one corporate body before 2012 with one Company Number and Rangers are a new club with their Company Number SC 425159 registered on 29 May 2012 operated by a new company RIFC SC437060 Company number registered 16 Nov 2012.
Both are new
Rangers in liquidation now called RFC 2012 P.L.C had SC Number SC004276

 

[a]

I appreciate that you have other things to think about Auldheid but have you given any thought to the salt water crocodile great white shark conundrum?
Personally if it was pound for pound I'd go with the croc....

Is it a fish eating croc or a croc eating shark?

Would the degree of hunger experienced by either on any given day not be a determining factor?

Is a draw out of the question?

I take it a koala bear sticking in eithers throat would not be discounted as an act of God?

If not I'd go for the koala bear in the circumstances.

 

[a]

I read what Traverso said at the time about not pursuing it further because Oldco had been liquidated and Sevco were a new club. But does that mean that if they won the title UEFA would not acknowledge this as 55, only the SFA?

I think UEFA would say it was a matter for the SFA.

 

[a]

I believe Lubo that Demond, Lawell and other insiders have slightly more than 50% of the vote but if CST could gain control of the remaining shares they would be hard to ignore. Desmond has 35% I think and nobody ignores him.

The strategy is sound but I'm not sure how long it would take to gain the ascendency in votes.

I'm not saying its not a worthwhile objective but to have more immediate effect using supporter buying power (or going legal) might get more immediate attention. This is a Board prepared to play kick the can for 7 years before saying they will take over.

 

[a]

If I've missed answering a point flag it up again.

Gnight

 

[Hoopy427]

Is it a fish eating croc or a croc eating shark?

Would the degree of hunger experienced by either on any given day not be a determining factor?

Is a draw out of the question?

I take it a koala bear sticking in eithers throat would not be discounted as an act of God?

If not I'd go for the koala bear in the circumstances.

Fair play big man!

 

[Lubos left peg]

Has to be hitting them in the pocket and that is a decision every Celtic supporter who pays anything to support Celtic will have to make.

Stay in Platos Cave or get out and support something real and not a shadow.

Alternative is the legal route I mentioned. On reflection more likely to scare the shit out of evey Board member in Scottish football never mind Celtic.

Its an idea at the moment being let loose but good ideas survive by their very nature.

Have the Trust caused any tremors with the board that you are aware of?? Or is it to early to tell?

 

[Ally]

Excellent answers from Auldheid tonight. Just goes to show the board there are no illetares among the celtic support. A hugethank you to Auldheid for taking the time to answer our questions. YNWA H H.

 

[BarrowfieldBhoy]

I think UEFA would say it was a matter for the SFA.

Yeah...that’s what I’m afraid of.