The Celtic Trust

Imatim

Imatim

Well-known member
I know not everyone is amenable to the Celtic Trust, but I’m of the view that we, the Support, need to speak with one voice in the weeks and months to come.

Could the Celtic Trust become that voice if enough of us get on board?

Also, if the Trust can pull enough shareholders together, it’s not beyond the realms of reality that they could demand a seat on the Celtic Board.

We the Support, need a voice imo, a concentrated and passionate voice that will demand to be heard in the Celtic Boardroom.

What do you think?
 
Imatim said:
I know not everyone is amenable to the Celtic Trust, but I’m of the view that we, the Support, need to speak with one voice in the weeks and months to come.

Could the Celtic Trust become that voice if enough of us get on board?

Also, if the Trust can pull enough shareholders together, it’s not beyond the realms of reality that they could demand a seat on the Celtic Board.

We the Support, need a voice imo, a concentrated and passionate voice that will demand to be heard in the Celtic Boardroom.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Signed up earlier Imatim,the more the merrier! HH
 
Imatim said:
...........................

simplywall.st

What Percentage Of Celtic plc (LON:CCP) Shares Do Insiders Own?

If you want to know who really controls Celtic plc (LON:CCP), then you'll have to look at the makeup of its share...
simplywall.st simplywall.st
Click to expand...
Thanks NJ. So insiders have over 50% of the shares and the general public (fans?) holding is 19%. This will make it practically impossible for the Trust to force anything even if every single one of the fan shares is given to them as a proxy vote. The board will simply vote en masse against them and block them at every turn.
 
Since they were published on 20 November there has been little or no commentary on yet another questionable audit opinion expressed on RIFC’s financial statements. This might seem irrelevant but bear with me. Auditing is often not very well understood but it can have a vital impact on a company’s continuing ability to trade and a football club’s ability to compete.

International Accounting Standards require a company’s management to make an assessment of an entity's ability to continue as a going concern. If management have significant concerns about the company's ability to continue as a going concern, the uncertainties must be disclosed in the financial statements.

The audited financial statements of RIFC for 2019-20 disclose a funding shortfall of £23.2m for the forecast period (seasons 2020-21 and 2021-22). The shortfall is based on a number of assumptions, which are also disclosed.

As a first step an auditor has to be satisfied the assumptions are reasonable and the cash forecasts realistic and achievable. The auditor’s assessments are based on professional judgement and experience. Clearly, none of us know the future so the forecasts are highly subjective, although it is disclosed that they have been subject to a sensitivity analysis. However, the results of the sensitivity analysis are not disclosed. In other words, we do not know how much margin for error was allowed for in the sensitivity analysis (e.g., failure to achieve the assumed successes in various football competitions and the timing of when spectators will be allowed access to stadia again; growth in projected revenues and expenses, transfer fees paid and received etc.)

The overriding imperative is the auditor must obtain “sufficient appropriate audit evidence” to be satisfied that the company will be able to pay its liabilities “as and when they fall due” for at least 12 months from the date of signing the audit opinion (which for 2019-20 was 17 November 2020). We know from the disclosures in RIFC’s financial statements they are unable to do this of their own accord. They are £23.2m short according to their own highly subjective cash flow forecasts.

In the current economic climate in the midst of a global pandemic it is highly problematic, to say the least, for a company whose balance sheet shows it owes £30m more in current liabilities payable within 12 months than it has in current assets available, to be able to pay its liabilities “as and when they fall due”. Significantly for UEFA Financial Fair Play Requirements, the current liabilities as of 30 June 2020 included £9.7m payable to HMRC for social security and other taxes.

This brings us to the second step the auditor must take in gathering “sufficient appropriate audit evidence”.

If the company has insufficient funds of its own, the auditor must be satisfied that funds will be available from external sources at all times when the company’s liabilities are due to be paid. The RIFC financial statements disclose “the uncertainty over the level of additional funds that will be required and a lack of a binding debt facility...”

The “sufficient appropriate audit evidence” on which the auditor of RIFC appears to have relied is that the club (sic) has reached an agreement with two directors for unspecified amounts to cover cash flow shortfalls “as necessary” and the same two directors have agreed to provide a “formal facility with funds being made immediately available ... to draw down as required”. The implication is that the two directors have agreed to underwrite unlimited losses into the future and provide cash to pay bills whenever it is needed. It is stretching credulity how any auditor could obtain “sufficient appropriate audit evidence” to be satisfied that these individuals can guarantee to meet unlimited, unspecified and non-binding commitments, when in the very next paragraph the RIFC board acknowledge explicitly there is a lack of any binding debt facility.

Without legally binding guarantees, supported by documentary audited evidence that the individuals can meet them, it is arguable at the very least that the company should not have been treated as a going concern, meaning the audit opinion should have been qualified and an adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion issued. Either of these has serious financial implications.

Even though the current auditor has not expressed an adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion, the next worst audit opinion is an emphasis of matter paragraph drawing the attention of readers of the financial statements of the material uncertainty regarding RIFC’s ability to continue as a going concern.

No director of any company accepts lightly an audit report that even mentions a material uncertainty of going concern far less an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion. You can be sure the auditor of RIFC would have been placed under extreme pressure not to include the material uncertainty paragraph in the audit report and even more pressure not to express an adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion.

We know for a fact that a previous RIFC auditor, Deloitte, one of the biggest global audit firms, resigned due to threats made against partners and staff of its Glasgow office.

As mentioned above, an adverse audit opinion or a disclaimer of opinion has wider implications.

UEFA Financial Fair Play Requirements stipulate a licence to play in Europe must be refused if the auditor’s report contains an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion.

Of course, at the SFA they appear to prefer FTP to FFP.
 
contra mundum said:
Since they were published on 20 November there has been little or no commentary on yet another questionable audit opinion expressed on RIFC’s financial statements. This might seem irrelevant but bear with me. Auditing is often not very well understood but it can have a vital impact on a company’s continuing ability to trade and a football club’s ability to compete.

International Accounting Standards require a company’s management to make an assessment of an entity's ability to continue as a going concern. If management have significant concerns about the company's ability to continue as a going concern, the uncertainties must be disclosed in the financial statements.

The audited financial statements of RIFC for 2019-20 disclose a funding shortfall of £23.2m for the forecast period (seasons 2020-21 and 2021-22). The shortfall is based on a number of assumptions, which are also disclosed.

As a first step an auditor has to be satisfied the assumptions are reasonable and the cash forecasts realistic and achievable. The auditor’s assessments are based on professional judgement and experience. Clearly, none of us know the future so the forecasts are highly subjective, although it is disclosed that they have been subject to a sensitivity analysis. However, the results of the sensitivity analysis are not disclosed. In other words, we do not know how much margin for error was allowed for in the sensitivity analysis (e.g., failure to achieve the assumed successes in various football competitions and the timing of when spectators will be allowed access to stadia again; growth in projected revenues and expenses, transfer fees paid and received etc.)

The overriding imperative is the auditor must obtain “sufficient appropriate audit evidence” to be satisfied that the company will be able to pay its liabilities “as and when they fall due” for at least 12 months from the date of signing the audit opinion (which for 2019-20 was 17 November 2020). We know from the disclosures in RIFC’s financial statements they are unable to do this of their own accord. They are £23.2m short according to their own highly subjective cash flow forecasts.

In the current economic climate in the midst of a global pandemic it is highly problematic, to say the least, for a company whose balance sheet shows it owes £30m more in current liabilities payable within 12 months than it has in current assets available, to be able to pay its liabilities “as and when they fall due”. Significantly for UEFA Financial Fair Play Requirements, the current liabilities as of 30 June 2020 included £9.7m payable to HMRC for social security and other taxes.

This brings us to the second step the auditor must take in gathering “sufficient appropriate audit evidence”.

If the company has insufficient funds of its own, the auditor must be satisfied that funds will be available from external sources at all times when the company’s liabilities are due to be paid. The RIFC financial statements disclose “the uncertainty over the level of additional funds that will be required and a lack of a binding debt facility...”

The “sufficient appropriate audit evidence” on which the auditor of RIFC appears to have relied is that the club (sic) has reached an agreement with two directors for unspecified amounts to cover cash flow shortfalls “as necessary” and the same two directors have agreed to provide a “formal facility with funds being made immediately available ... to draw down as required”. The implication is that the two directors have agreed to underwrite unlimited losses into the future and provide cash to pay bills whenever it is needed. It is stretching credulity how any auditor could obtain “sufficient appropriate audit evidence” to be satisfied that these individuals can guarantee to meet unlimited, unspecified and non-binding commitments, when in the very next paragraph the RIFC board acknowledge explicitly there is a lack of any binding debt facility.

Without legally binding guarantees, supported by documentary audited evidence that the individuals can meet them, it is arguable at the very least that the company should not have been treated as a going concern, meaning the audit opinion should have been qualified and an adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion issued. Either of these has serious financial implications.

Even though the current auditor has not expressed an adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion, the next worst audit opinion is an emphasis of matter paragraph drawing the attention of readers of the financial statements of the material uncertainty regarding RIFC’s ability to continue as a going concern.

No director of any company accepts lightly an audit report that even mentions a material uncertainty of going concern far less an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion. You can be sure the auditor of RIFC would have been placed under extreme pressure not to include the material uncertainty paragraph in the audit report and even more pressure not to express an adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion.

We know for a fact that a previous RIFC auditor, Deloitte, one of the biggest global audit firms, resigned due to threats made against partners and staff of its Glasgow office.

As mentioned above, an adverse audit opinion or a disclaimer of opinion has wider implications.

UEFA Financial Fair Play Requirements stipulate a licence to play in Europe must be refused if the auditor’s report contains an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion.

Of course, at the SFA they appear to prefer FTP to FFP.
Click to expand...
Of course they do. They knew what was happening last time and they chose to do nothing. Do you think the RSFA will behave any differently this time?
 
contra mundum said:
Since they were published on 20 November there has been little or no commentary on yet another questionable audit opinion expressed on RIFC’s financial statements. This might seem irrelevant but bear with me. Auditing is often not very well understood but it can have a vital impact on a company’s continuing ability to trade and a football club’s ability to compete.

International Accounting Standards require a company’s management to make an assessment of an entity's ability to continue as a going concern. If management have significant concerns about the company's ability to continue as a going concern, the uncertainties must be disclosed in the financial statements.

The audited financial statements of RIFC for 2019-20 disclose a funding shortfall of £23.2m for the forecast period (seasons 2020-21 and 2021-22). The shortfall is based on a number of assumptions, which are also disclosed.

As a first step an auditor has to be satisfied the assumptions are reasonable and the cash forecasts realistic and achievable. The auditor’s assessments are based on professional judgement and experience. Clearly, none of us know the future so the forecasts are highly subjective, although it is disclosed that they have been subject to a sensitivity analysis. However, the results of the sensitivity analysis are not disclosed. In other words, we do not know how much margin for error was allowed for in the sensitivity analysis (e.g., failure to achieve the assumed successes in various football competitions and the timing of when spectators will be allowed access to stadia again; growth in projected revenues and expenses, transfer fees paid and received etc.)

The overriding imperative is the auditor must obtain “sufficient appropriate audit evidence” to be satisfied that the company will be able to pay its liabilities “as and when they fall due” for at least 12 months from the date of signing the audit opinion (which for 2019-20 was 17 November 2020). We know from the disclosures in RIFC’s financial statements they are unable to do this of their own accord. They are £23.2m short according to their own highly subjective cash flow forecasts.

In the current economic climate in the midst of a global pandemic it is highly problematic, to say the least, for a company whose balance sheet shows it owes £30m more in current liabilities payable within 12 months than it has in current assets available, to be able to pay its liabilities “as and when they fall due”. Significantly for UEFA Financial Fair Play Requirements, the current liabilities as of 30 June 2020 included £9.7m payable to HMRC for social security and other taxes.

This brings us to the second step the auditor must take in gathering “sufficient appropriate audit evidence”.

If the company has insufficient funds of its own, the auditor must be satisfied that funds will be available from external sources at all times when the company’s liabilities are due to be paid. The RIFC financial statements disclose “the uncertainty over the level of additional funds that will be required and a lack of a binding debt facility...”

The “sufficient appropriate audit evidence” on which the auditor of RIFC appears to have relied is that the club (sic) has reached an agreement with two directors for unspecified amounts to cover cash flow shortfalls “as necessary” and the same two directors have agreed to provide a “formal facility with funds being made immediately available ... to draw down as required”. The implication is that the two directors have agreed to underwrite unlimited losses into the future and provide cash to pay bills whenever it is needed. It is stretching credulity how any auditor could obtain “sufficient appropriate audit evidence” to be satisfied that these individuals can guarantee to meet unlimited, unspecified and non-binding commitments, when in the very next paragraph the RIFC board acknowledge explicitly there is a lack of any binding debt facility.

Without legally binding guarantees, supported by documentary audited evidence that the individuals can meet them, it is arguable at the very least that the company should not have been treated as a going concern, meaning the audit opinion should have been qualified and an adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion issued. Either of these has serious financial implications.

Even though the current auditor has not expressed an adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion, the next worst audit opinion is an emphasis of matter paragraph drawing the attention of readers of the financial statements of the material uncertainty regarding RIFC’s ability to continue as a going concern.

No director of any company accepts lightly an audit report that even mentions a material uncertainty of going concern far less an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion. You can be sure the auditor of RIFC would have been placed under extreme pressure not to include the material uncertainty paragraph in the audit report and even more pressure not to express an adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion.

We know for a fact that a previous RIFC auditor, Deloitte, one of the biggest global audit firms, resigned due to threats made against partners and staff of its Glasgow office.

As mentioned above, an adverse audit opinion or a disclaimer of opinion has wider implications.

UEFA Financial Fair Play Requirements stipulate a licence to play in Europe must be refused if the auditor’s report contains an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion.

Of course, at the SFA they appear to prefer FTP to FFP.
Click to expand...
Im not sure of FFP rules, but pandemic times, so they may have been relaxed if they are even applicable/adopted in Scotland

The auditors must have had view of their cash-flow forecasts for the next two years, and subsequently written guarantee's from Park/Bennett to cover shortfall
 
Imatim said:
I know not everyone is amenable to the Celtic Trust, but I’m of the view that we, the Support, need to speak with one voice in the weeks and months to come.

Could the Celtic Trust become that voice if enough of us get on board?

Also, if the Trust can pull enough shareholders together, it’s not beyond the realms of reality that they could demand a seat on the Celtic Board.

We the Support, need a voice imo, a concentrated and passionate voice that will demand to be heard in the Celtic Boardroom.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
trust

need to know more about them but fact they picked trust makes me suspicious of them already
 
BarrowfieldBhoy said:
So you have an irrational mistrust of trusts mate?
Click to expand...
no sure its irrational

I dont like masonic secrets

and anybody who mentions phrase trust us in general worth a close eye on em at all times.


read their constitution

dont like it

not for me

sounds very masonic to me, hidden in plain sight

contradictory masonic mantra imo

equality equity mutual self help

sounds like the same notion passed by masonic French anarchists before they created emperor of French empire

sounds awfully like the masonic mantra of the bolsheviks before they assassinated all their political opponents and removed all equity equality and mutual self help and then created the emperor of the soviet union


fact they chose the masonic template as their calling card gives me Boak even more than the misnomer of trust


sounds just like club 1872 bollocks to me.

but most damning is the contradiction running through their mission

despite fact they must know its exactly the kind of constitution that the sevco system proclaims

Constitution – Celtic Trust

celtictrust.net celtictrust.net
 
Last edited:
Ima
As you know I'm one of the cynics.
Out of the blue(?) they produce a statement on current Celtic affairs. Go to their web site and they wish to become a supporters composite voting vehicle.
Smoke and mirrors I would say.
Anyway I said they could have a relevance. Why not approach DD and discuss his plans for the future of his shareholding? Then come up with a funded proposal to acquire them. Ambitious? Of course it is but at least it is better than cheap chat!
Again just my opinion.
HH
 
TET said:
no sure its irrational

I dont like masonic secrets

and anybody who mentions phrase trust us in general worth a close eye on em at all times.


read their constitution

dont like it

not for me

sounds very masonic to me, hidden in plain sight

contradictory masonic mantra imo

equality equity mutual self help

sounds like the same notion passed by masonic French anarchists before they created emperor of French empire

sounds awfully like the masonic mantra of the bolsheviks before they assassinated all their political opponents and removed all equity equality and mutual self help and then created the emperor of the soviet union


fact they chose the masonic template as their calling card gives me Boak even more than the misnomer of trust


sounds just like club 1872 bollocks to me.

but most damning is the contradiction running through their mission

despite fact they must know its exactly the kind of constitution that the sevco system proclaims

Constitution – Celtic Trust

celtictrust.net celtictrust.net
Click to expand...
I have to agree on first view,
But we need something to shift the balance preferably without boycotting
But the 1872 example is fair to make, these groups often tend to end up taking the more hard line stance over time,
getting a collective view is hard enough (although Lenny/Board is a first) on a forum with 2.5k members never mind a trust that would represent tens of thouands.
So the rational people become disenfranchised and it ends up the ones that shout loudest that remain engaged.
 
Last edited:
coincidence, maybe?

but another strange thing imo

2000: Rangers begin making payments through an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT), which was set up by major shareholder Murray International Holdings (MIH).

nov 13 celtic trust formed 2000

never heard of celtic trust till this week

weird
 
TET said:
coincidence, maybe?

but another strange thing imo

2000: Rangers begin making payments through an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT), which was set up by major shareholder Murray International Holdings (MIH).

nov 13 celtic trust formed 2000

never heard of celtic trust till this week

weird
Click to expand...
I was a member for a few early years but honestly of no consequence. Can't see anything to change my mind
HH
 
Don't see the Celtic Trust being influencing the board in any way. Board have the shares and power to disregard the Trusts involment in the club. What we need is another Fergus to come in for five years. Sort it out top to bottom then leave us with a board much better than we have at this moment in time. If Fergus was still here then now of the shambles of the last few years wouldn't have happened.
 
St Roch said:
Don't see the Celtic Trust being influencing the board in any way. Board have the shares and power to disregard the Trusts involment in the club. What we need is another Fergus to come in for five years. Sort it out top to bottom then leave us with a board much better than we have at this moment in time. If Fergus was still here then now of the shambles of the last few years wouldn't have happened.
Click to expand...
Just discussing the merits of Fergus with a few folk last night.

Didn't like the man very much and thought he was a bit of an old so-and-so, but he minded the shop and didn't let anyone ride slipshod over us.

He might have been a bit of a c**t, but he was a c**t to everybody and at least he was consistent.

He wasn't there to win friends and influence people - he was there to save a football club and chart a progress for it's ongoing development.

Might not want to share a pint with the guy, but I would happily raise a glass in his name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 123 (members: 6, guests: 117)

Latest posts

Share this page

Back
Top