Celtic Board (Not to be confused with Celtic Forum) :-)

John Clark

Pro Youth
Joined
Dec 24, 2020
Messages
10

Albertz1

Pro Youth
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
81
He who laughs last etc.

Celtic have just claimed a quadruple treble, which I would imagine is rarer than 10 successive top division titles (but I haven't checked that, it's just intuitive). It is something which will be extraordinarily difficult to copy.

They also achieved 9 successive league titles whilst doing that, that achievement is not suddenly going to go away if they don't reach ten.

Rangers supporters, or any other supporter for that matter can laugh if they want, but it will not change either achievement, nothing will.

I think there are a lot of Celtic supporters who don't realise just how historic the cup final win was.

Did I mention the unbeaten season in amongst that. I suppose that's just cherry on the icing on the cake.
Yet despite all that Sam the Celtic support don't seem a happy lot at present.

Desmond out, Lawwell out, Lennon out, some of the players who achieved the quadruple treble getting chased from the stadium after what was only their second domestic defeat. Is that any way to treat your heroes?

I remember back in 98 when Rangers failed to win their 10th title in a row , followed by defeat to Hearts in the SCF a week later. The players were given a standing ovation at the end from a support who appreciated what they had achieved.
 

Sam Vimes

Pro Youth
Joined
Jan 5, 2021
Messages
16
Yet despite all that Sam the Celtic support don't seem a happy lot at present.

Desmond out, Lawwell out, Lennon out, some of the players who achieved the quadruple treble getting chased from the stadium after what was only their second domestic defeat. Is that any way to treat your heroes?

I remember back in 98 when Rangers failed to win their 10th title in a row , followed by defeat to Hearts in the SCF a week later. The players were given a standing ovation at the end from a support who appreciated what they had achieved.

Indeed, it must be a modern thing, the Rangers' support don't behave like that nowadays. Sack the board, sack the manager, sack the players etc etc.
 

Pepperami

Squad Player
Joined
Dec 27, 2020
Messages
135
Not arrogant at all Pepperami.

Your other points are irrelevant unless you can prove otherwise.

What "spending now pay later wonga type deals" are you referring tp in particular?
if its not arrogant then what is it ignorance?

didn't they have to mortgage off part of the Albion car park? or do some other deals regardling loans from dave king close brothers or whatever else they try to scrimp up to keep the wolves from the door?????
 

Albertz1

Pro Youth
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
81
if its not arrogant then what is it ignorance?

didn't they have to mortgage off part of the Albion car park? or do some other deals regardling loans from dave king close brothers or whatever else they try to scrimp up to keep the wolves from the door?????
No and No.
 

Sam Vimes

Pro Youth
Joined
Jan 5, 2021
Messages
16
if its not arrogant then what is it ignorance?

didn't they have to mortgage off part of the Albion car park? or do some other deals regardling loans from dave king close brothers or whatever else they try to scrimp up to keep the wolves from the door?????
I believe the current plan is to sell a large portion of the Car Park for houses to be built there.

Re loans, given that the club has posted substantial losses every year they must have been operating on loans, otherwise the business would not be able to pay bills as they fell due. The fact that a lot of those loans have subsequently been converted to equity is really not relevant, they were loans in the first place.

I think there are two types of trading whilst insolvent, one of them being when you cannot pay your bills as they fall due. I think the reality is that no-one really cares about that as long as you can raise the cash to do it one way or another. The football authorities should of course as it means the club is spending more than it is earning, but the reality is they don't either.
 

boab1916

Squad Player
Joined
Dec 24, 2020
Messages
78
Yet despite all that Sam the Celtic support don't seem a happy lot at present.

Desmond out, Lawwell out, Lennon out, some of the players who achieved the quadruple treble getting chased from the stadium after what was only their second domestic defeat. Is that any way to treat your heroes?

I remember back in 98 when Rangers failed to win their 10th title in a row , followed by defeat to Hearts in the SCF a week later. The players were given a standing ovation at the end from a support who appreciated what they had achieved.
Do you not mean some of the support, i mean imagine waking up to a protest at Ibrox over something you are not comfortable with and feel its not right to go baying for a sacking for example, that would not be fair to say al the support would it. Sean was merely highlighting the succes of a quadruple treble v a ten titles, in fact my avator is that achievement, very proud of what the team achieved, dissapointed they may not get a ten but grateful for 9 out 10, i mean you have to be honset 9 out of ten aint bad.;) 🍾
 

Pepperami

Squad Player
Joined
Dec 27, 2020
Messages
135
I believe the current plan is to sell a large portion of the Car Park for houses to be built there.

Re loans, given that the club has posted substantial losses every year they must have been operating on loans, otherwise the business would not be able to pay bills as they fell due. The fact that a lot of those loans have subsequently been converted to equity is really not relevant, they were loans in the first place.

I think there are two types of trading whilst insolvent, one of them being when you cannot pay your bills as they fall due. I think the reality is that no-one really cares about that as long as you can raise the cash to do it one way or another. The football authorities should of course as it means the club is spending more than it is earning, but the reality is they don't either.
thank you for confirming defo ignorance who owns the albion car park then?
 

Sam Vimes

Pro Youth
Joined
Jan 5, 2021
Messages
16
thank you for confirming defo ignorance who owns the albion car park then?
I believe that is one of the few assets owned by the club, but I could be wrong. The others being the stadium, Edminston House (sorry it the spelling is wrong) and Murray Park, but I think Scottish Sport (or something like that )may hold some sort of security over that.

Sorry that's not very helpful.
 

vernallen

Pro Youth
Joined
Jan 6, 2021
Messages
5
The fact is that there isn't a group of shareholders with the capacity to take on The Board. The nearest there is is The Celtic Supporters Trust but they have a single string to their bow strategy, i.e. acquisition of shares or proxy votes which lacks immediacy and whilst their numbers have grown as result of poor football performances that will slow as supporters realise the CST are as powerless as the single supporter is to effect meaningful change at Celtic.

The CST had an opportunity which they rebuffed to at least show a willingness to confront Celtic by picking up the baton where Res12 left off, but that might change because there is the possibility that they are realising that not doing so does not match the mood of the support and that they may have misinterpreted what the actual outcome of the 2020 AGM was in respect of Res 12 under Res11.

They shouldn't because it was raised with them, but the issue was a complicated one so a bit of slack is worth allowing, particularly if they do change their mind and pick up the baton.

What is meant by that? I said it was complicated but here goes.

Before the AGM as result of tardiness on Celtic's part in not responding to a new Res condemning Celtic, not just on the UEFA License 2011 issue but also failure to challenge the LNS Decision when provided with documentation to do so in 2014 and 2019 and because that condemnation was deemed defamatory because the rejected Res named names and so under Company law it could not be tabled on the agenda, an agreement was reached with the group of over 100 shareholders acting independently who presented the rejected Resolution that they would make a statement of their concerns to which Celtic would respond.

The Res12 Group provided a statement and Celtic responded in the 2029 AGM notice. Pages 8 and 9 at
Celticplc_AGM_Notice_2020_061120.pdf (celticfc.net)

The shareholder statement took the form of a follow up to the 2019 AGM which asked Celtic take the investigation into the 2011 UEFA Licence case from the SFA to UEFA as at that time the SFA Judicial process had stalled as the SFA were considering taking the matter to CAS under a clause in the 5 Way Agreement. The Resolution to do that in 2019 also numbered 12 and was voted against and Celtic were content to leave the unfinished judicial process with the SFA.

In May 2020 The SFA confirmed they would not take the case to CAS (I speculate that CAS would have judged the 5 Way Agreement itself as damaging to sporting integrity as I think has been proved since 2012).

As a result the shareholders statement picked up where the 2019 left off pointing out in essence that you cannot have a game without rules that will not be applied.

Here is where the complication comes in.

The technical expertise to take Res12 (2013) out of adjournment lay with Celtic's Company secretary and in line with the language first used in response to Res12 2013 the words "unnecessary " were used. Quite understandable in the circumstances as those words related directly to Res12 2013 via Res11 (as a statement ) at the 2020 AGM.

What Celtic undertook in writing on the AGM 2020 Notice was to engage with relevant authorities but with fuzziness added in terms of in the Company's interest and no timetable and who would they report to?

By making this "commitment" Celtic were justifying not acting on Res12 2013 because they said they would take over from the Res12 group the task of bringing the SFA to account because that is what engagement would be (and the ultimate aim of Res12 2013)

Not too complicated.

That comes in on the voting form itself because it left small shareholders with two options, trust Celtic and vote AGAINST Res12 2013 or FOR Res12 2013 because the Board were not to be trusted and their response did nothing to allay suspicions.

In the circumstances of mistrust given Celtic had kicked the Res12 (2013) can down the road for 7 years, the Res12 group voted FOR Res12 2013 (that asked UEFA to investigate) as did the CST in support.

Of course the block vote AGAINST Res12 2013 was passed overwhelmingly.

What was then put to the CST was in effect to make sure Celtic carried out their undertaking in the AGM notice but for reasons of possible misunderstanding of the opportunity created by the Res12 Group in the form of the Resolution Celtic objected to (but brought Celtic to the negotiating table and agreement to takeover) the CST Committee for reasons that suggest a misunderstanding of what they were voting for in support of Res12 at the AGM then voted against taking any further action in relation to Res12 2013 because it was futile to do so, as in Celtic would not engage, more pressing issues which is true but not a reason to abandon the principle that the rules have to be applied or the game of Scottish football is lost .

Well the futility might be true, but if pressed for a progress report on engagement every time the CST met Celtic, the underlying question what are you doing to ensure Celtic do what they can to see that the rules are applied and not surrendered under an agreement Celtic were aware of and accepted (and there are 2 bits of evidence that support that) that is undo a mistake.

However possibly as a result of negativity to joining the CST as a result of their decision not to hold Celtic to account and the illogicality of having supported the Res12 2013 then walk away from it, there are signs that a better appreciation of what did take place was not the end of the Res12 2013 road but the entry to a new stage that would be all the more powerful if it was seen to be coming from more than the 100 plus shareholders in the Res12 Group.

If you are a CST member you will have had an invite to a Zoom meeting on 26th January where there will be an opportunity to perhaps reach a different decision to simply hold Celtic to their word to shareholders as expressed in the AGM notice of 2020. If you aren't a member join them to get an invite.

The CST are a democratic organisation and have procedures to follow so if enough members want them to keep tabs on the progress Celtic are making with engaging with the relevant authorities that can become policy.

Note: The biggest barrier to meaningful action is Peter Lawwell but I cannot see him being in charge for much longer, his mishandling of Res12 2013 is becoming an issue with a growing number of supporters along with Celtic's managed decline and Dubai that is bad for the bottom line and the brand, which is important to DD. (See Phil Mc G's latest). Only the amount of severance pay will be an impediment but then there is a cost to Celtic if PL remains and support shrinks as a result.
Almost like a benevolent dictatorship then. It will be interesting to see how some the much trumpeted sponsorship deals are viewed by the company writing the cheques as their names are not spread across Europe. Also, do you think Lawell and his reluctance on the resolution 12 question was afraid of losing Rangers/Sevco/ as a gate attraction and had visions of operating in a league no more competitive than what Ireland has.
 

Pepperami

Squad Player
Joined
Dec 27, 2020
Messages
135
I believe that is one of the few assets owned by the club, but I could be wrong. The others being the stadium, Edminston House (sorry it the spelling is wrong) and Murray Park, but I think Scottish Sport (or something like that )may hold some sort of security over that.

Sorry that's not very helpful.
always willing to learn mate to be honest They have muddied the waters that much nothing is ever what it seems

i did remember reading this who knows if its true

Plans to convert Albion Car Park by Ibrox Stadium into major residential development - Glasgow Live
 

Auldheid

Pro Youth
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
9
Almost like a benevolent dictatorship then. It will be interesting to see how some the much trumpeted sponsorship deals are viewed by the company writing the cheques as their names are not spread across Europe. Also, do you think Lawell and his reluctance on the resolution 12 question was afraid of losing Rangers/Sevco/ as a gate attraction and had visions of operating in a league no more competitive than what Ireland has.
It is absolutely clear that in 27 July 2012 Peter Lawwell and Eric Riley had 24 hours to accept the 5 Way Agreement and not objecting in that time frame would be taken as acceptance. It's called plausible deniability.

It is also clear that in Oct 2013 Riley had the 5 Way Agreement rehearsed to him by SPL lawyer Rod McKenzie when discussing collecting the LNS £250k fine as was the possibility of "Rangers" taking the matter to CAS. That possibility was because in the 5 Way Agreement there was a clause that any issues arising from it would be dealt with by CAS.
That is exactly the same clause that caused the SFA to abandon their own Judicial Panel Disciplinary Process into non compliance with UEFA FFP in 2011.
When evidence was presented to Celtic backed by legal opinion that the licence was granted under false pretence in April 2011, Celtic refused to take matters forward with UEFA, sticking to the JPDT process subsequently abandoned in May 2020 by the SFA.

The latest Res11/12 at 2020 AGM asked Celtic take this failure to provide footballing justice up with the SFA and in response Celtic said they would engage with the relevant authorities, but in such fuzzy terms it is unlikely they ever will because they know why the JPDT was abandoned, which is because of the clause in the 5 Way Agreement PL and ER accepted in July 2012.

What Res12 has exposed is the role Celtic played in keeping a footbal team playing at Ibrox, I mean if Rangers committed fraud in March 2011 to by pass UEFA regulations which all the evidence points to, fraud that would not have been necessary if no overdue payable existed, then how difficult would it be to allow such a club , with 10yrs breaching registration rules that hid the tax payer subsidised wages being paid to players of a quality other clubs could not afford , and so acting in bad faith to fellow members, to take part in Scottish football?

Celtic, because Rangers had not acted in good faith were either put in the position of accepting the 5 Way Agreement or were already party to it before 27 July 2012. Either way the 5 Way Agreement that paved the way for football to continue to be played at Ibrox was with Celtic's acceptance.

Had knowledge of the 5 Way Agreement not mattered, then Peter Lawwell would have had no need to deny such knowledge to shareholders at the 2019 AGM , a denial that is at odds with the truth.

So your suggestion is spot on and the more Celtic supporters who know the role PL played in keeping a version of Rangers going, the more who will not renew STs or some other form of withholding cash, until he is no longer at Celtic and obstructing the course of football justice.

His latest Dubai debacle will be the nail in his coffin because he is no longer good for the bottom line and it will be in The Company's interest, the clause behind which Celtic act in secrecy to stop facts being established, to get rid of him no matter how big a severance package he has to cushion his fall.

Resolution 12 has done its work.
It has held Celtic to account to extent they agreed to become active rather than passive on engaging with relevant authorities, the reason the adjourned Res12 to the 2013 AGM was no longer necessary, all the investigative work having been done by shareholders and the outcome is left with Celtic to deal with.
Whether they will or not now depends on the value every Celtic supporter puts on watching a game where it is an established fact that rules were set aside to benefit one club with Celtic's acquiescence.

If that doesnt matter, dont complain about referees, unfair financial practices etc. In not making Celtic act as they undertook at the 2020 AGM, each Celtic supporter has lost the right to complain.

That is an individual choice but at least it will be an informed one before renewals are requested for next season.

Apparently everybody in footballing circles know Rangers obtained the UEFA licence in 2011 on false pretence, but like Celtic, do not see it in the interests of Scottish football that pays them so well, to state that it happened and so the illusion that the media thrive on, continues.
 

Auldheid

Pro Youth
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
9
Btw what goes for what Celtic supporters are having to consider before providing the cash that keeps their club going, applies to the supporters of all other clubs because the 5 Way Agreement was agreed to in 2012 by all the clubs in the SPL.

The big difference I know is that you have known for years that Celtic and Rangers run the game.

I have a better idea now how you must feel.
 

Auldheid

Pro Youth
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
9
Btw what goes for what Celtic supporters are having to consider before providing the cash that keeps their club going, applyjes to the supporters of all other clubs because the 5 Way Agreement was agreed to in 2012 by all the clubs in the SPL.

The big difference I know is that you have known for years that Celtic and Rangers run the game.

I have a better now how you must feel.
 

Auldheid

Pro Youth
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
9
No I have admitted nothing of the kind.
If the legal opinion was wrong in fact if anything stated was wrong Celtic would have come back immediately and told us at some point between 2013 and 2020.
They had a number of opportunities to do so.
If you are JasBoyd whose arse BRTH handed you on a plate for putting out a false narrative then I'm am not going to indulge in responding to your misinformed views and give you oxygen.

It is what it is. Even the lesser charges of non compliance during the monitoring period have been halted because of the CAS clause in the 5 Way agreement and until such times as UEFA themselves look at the evidence and give the only opinion that carries authority your views carry no more weight than those formed by looking at the evidence and football resistance to making a ruling based on it.
 

Auldheid

Pro Youth
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
9
When Rangers agreed that a payable existed at 21st March it ceased to be a potential liability subject to ongoing discussions on that day.
It became a payable. It was not reported to the SFA on 30 March as a payable but as a potential liability. It wasnt.
Art 50 does not use the word liability as the basis for deciding if a payable is overdue or not.
By describing a payable as as a potential liability in the letter from Rangers auditors on 30 March the SFA were not required to establish if it was overdue or not at 31st March.

Under your construction UEFA are saying do you owe tax at 31 Dec ?

Do you at 31st March still owe that tax at 31st Dec?

You do? Licence granted.

The whole point of UEFA FFP in relation to tax owed is to get any paid by the 31st March.
That goes back to A White Paper on sport when many many clubs owed the different tax authorities and the EC wanted that position to change.

Not getting a licence if tax from previous years not settled 3 months into the following year was UEFAs way of giving clubs the incentive to pay their taxes instead of player wages.

Ginannina unlike Rangers said the had a payable at 31st March. Their licence was refused but because they were negotiating payment the Greek FA approved the application but asked UEFA to check if they were ok with it. After investigation UEFA said no. You have a payable at 31st March. You admitted it (Rangers didnt) and even though you have paid it since (they had) you do not meet the requirements of Art 50. Seems a bit harsh so Giannina appealed to CAS and CAS upheld the UEFA decision.
The crucial point is UEFA rules are not dependent on when bill's arrive because that could vary from country to country so one club might get a licence because the bill for the tax from the previous year and unpaid at 31st March had not arrived until after that date whilst another club where a bill did arrive before 31st March had a payable.
CAS found UEFA's stance a fair one so dont get hung up on the paperwork all that mattered to UEFA in the Giannina case is they honestly reported having a payable that was not paid by 31st March which made it an overdue payable. As I said earlier Rangers concealrd from SFA they had a payable. Had they done so Art 50 would have been applied although whether the SFA unlike the Greek FA would have asked UEFA to check is another story.
All that mattered to UEFA in the Giannina case is they admitted to having a payable not paid by 31 March but under discussions with the Greek taxman. Rangers did not even admit a payable existed, overdue or not.
You have argued your point before and the it doesnt make sense based on why Art 50 exists at all.
Not only is it an incentive to get tax relating to previous years paid it makes for financial fair play between clubs going into UEFA competitions who have settled their tax at the expense of the better player quality that not paying taxes has afforded and clubs with lesser player quality because they paid their taxes instead. The former are more likely to beat the latter and progress further and earn more. Hardly fair is it?
 

Westcoaster

Pro Youth
Joined
Dec 31, 2020
Messages
4
It doesnt matter if something is a payable. It only matters if its an "overdue payable"

At 31st March every year, taxes are owed to every authority in Europe. They are all payables. They will be from events in Jan and Feb and March and bills received but still to be paid. NONE of these bills or payables need to be disclosed. They are not OVERDUE PAYABLES. Thats very important. Just because you know how much is owed to HMRC, it doesnt make it OVERDUE.

You are right Art 50 doesnt show what it means but Annex Viii does describe it and is very clear.

"1. Payables are considered as overdue if they are not paid according to the agreed terms."

So in order for a payable to be considered overdue then the bill must be issued with the agreed terms and not paid by the date of the terms. This is why Rangers tax became an overdue payable on 19th June. Im not sure why you are questioning this as you have already stated this online in the past.

As for the confusion around 31 December then Article 50 again is clear. You are required to disclose

e) The balance payable as at 31 December, including the due date for each unpaid element; and
f) Any payable as at 31 March (rolled forward from 31 December)

There is no ambiguity here. The overdue payable has to be overdue on 31st December 2010. (E) and you need to also give the rolled forward amount (f)
25th April 2017

Revenue bosses ‘forced Rangers to agree to pay ‘small tax case’ after EBT side letter’ – The Scottish Sun

REVENUE bosses forced Rangers to agree to pay the "small tax case" after officials produced an EBT side letter, Craig Whyte's fraud trial heard.

A letter from the HMRC's Keith McCurroch to Murray International's head of tax and pensions in November 2010 revealed the bill for the "discounted options scheme" was £2.24m. Mr McCurroch warned the company the tax authority had won a legal battle over the scheme and demanded payment. But, according to former Rangers finance chief Donald McIntyre, Murray advisers still didn't want to pay up.
He said it was only when the HMRC produced a side letter at a January or February 2011 meeting that payment was agreed.
He said: "My understanding was that the advice of Murray International's tax advisers was we had grounds to challenge the assessment.
"At a meeting subsequent to (the HMRC letter) HMRC produced a side letter.
"I can only think the grounds to challenge were compelling to someone until the additional information was produced by HMRC."

The letter from HMRC warned the £2.24m debt would continue to gain interest until payment would be made.
It referred to deals for Gers stars Craig Moore, Tore Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer.
The court had earlier heard Craig Whyte agreed to pay £2.8m to settle the small tax case as part of his takeover in May 2011, in which he paid £1 for Sir David Murray's 85 per cent share in Rangers.

Herald 5th Jan 2020 SFA remain quiet on Rangers' UEFA licence charges | HeraldScotland

Almost 20 months since the SFA’s compliance officer hit Rangers with two charges concerning their application for a licence to play in Europe in 2011/12, the ruling body continues to do nothing to take matters forward.

The last act of Clare Whyte’s predecessor, Tony McGlennan, was – following an eight-month investigation – to issue the charges against Rangers in June 2018 after sworn statements made in court during the trial of former owner Craig Whyte revealed that the board at Ibrox had been made aware in January, 2011, of money owed to HMRC regarding what became known as the Wee Tax Case, when payments were made to several players under the Discounted Option Scheme in an attempt to dodge tax.

UEFA insists that all clubs taking part in their competitions must declare overdue tax payable. However, Rangers claimed in their submission for a licence in 2011 that they had no overdue payables and that they were “in discussions” over a disputed tax bill.

However, Rangers directors testified during the Whyte trial that the club knew the tax bill was overdue in November, 2010. As a result of their application being granted, Rangers were allowed to compete in the qualifying rounds of the Champions League (where they were eliminated by Malmo) and the Europa League (where they lost out to Maribor); had their application been rejected – as it should have been – then Celtic, runners-up in the SPL in 2011, would have taken their place in the Champions League.

I guess the sworn testaments in court would make them "legal facts".
 

Auldheid

Pro Youth
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
9
It doesnt matter if something is a payable. It only matters if its an "overdue payable"

At 31st March every year, taxes are owed to every authority in Europe. They are all payables. They will be from events in Jan and Feb and March and bills received but still to be paid. NONE of these bills or payables need to be disclosed. They are not OVERDUE PAYABLES. Thats very important. Just because you know how much is owed to HMRC, it doesnt make it OVERDUE.

You are right Art 50 doesnt show what it means but Annex Viii does describe it and is very clear.

"1. Payables are considered as overdue if they are not paid according to the agreed terms."

So in order for a payable to be considered overdue then the bill must be issued with the agreed terms and not paid by the date of the terms. This is why Rangers tax became an overdue payable on 19th June. Im not sure why you are questioning this as you have already stated this online in the past.

As for the confusion around 31 December then Article 50 again is clear. You are required to disclose

e) The balance payable as at 31 December, including the due date for each unpaid element; and
f) Any payable as at 31 March (rolled forward from 31 December)

There is no ambiguity here. The overdue payable has to be overdue on 31st December 2010. (E) and you need to also give the rolled forward amount (f)
I think you had this argument with the tax experts at TJN.

Their view that the agreed terms was PAYE terms has been confirmed by the tax inspector in his court testimony when he recalculsted the sum due on PAYE he terms.
What you had was tax due from 2001 under those terms. The ones HMRC applied.
After being fobbed off by Rangers they were sent Determinations of sums due in 2007, appealed and agreed to wait on outcome of an appeal by Aberdeen Asset Management that went to an FTT that found for HMRC in Oct 2010.
Rangers then faffed about with a continued appeal but gave in on 21st March, so no longer under dispute and no longer a potential liability .
Buy that was the justification given by SFA for granting the licence without even looking to see if it was a payable never mind if it was overdue.
It doesnt matter if it was overdue or not , it escaped that scrutiny so licence granted under false pretence.
So what you have at 31st March is a payable going back all the way to 2001/2 that had been subject to dispute until 21st March 2011. The payable left the safety of the dispute zone, it wasnt paid by 31st March, there was no written agreement with HMRC to extend the payment date beyond then , the dispute no longer applied and the HMRC case was rock solid.
Looks like a payable at 31st March that was overdue to me.
Regardless it escaped such scrutiny by the status Rangers provided to SFA and if your interpretation is so right why did Andrew Dickson who was on the SFA Licence Comittee not ensure the status was properly described rather than allowing the questionable proof required by the rules to be used instead.
I'll go further why after a conversation with Dickson on 6th December by Regan, did Rangers go ape shit when Regan presented a draft justifying exactly why the SFA granted the licence ie no payable existed only a potential liability.
The reaction at Ibrox was hardly that of men with nothing to fear.
Words to the effect issuing Regan's draft could rebound on the SFA were used and Rangers arranged dinner between Craig Whyte and Campbell Ogilvie on 15/16th Decemember, ayr Ogilvie the ebt innocent, to discuss that and other issues.
I'm willing to bet if UEFA had looked at the whole case from inception to end they would have this lot have been trying to avoid paying tax due from Oct 2010 at latest and 2001/2 at the earliest and misrepresented the true status of the tax owed to get the licence their survival depended on.
What I will concede and where I will leave it is that until such times as UEFA make a ruling on the transaction as a whole and whether they consider an overdue payable existed or not your assertions carry no more weight than mine so you can stop insisting your interpretation is right and I'll stop saying the surrounding evidence suggests you are wrong.
Celtic having allowed shareholders to approach UEFA in 2016 did not take up the opportunity UEFA offered to investigate further but never explained why, as in we are satisfied there is no case to answer.

Celtic at AGM said they had sought legal advice but did not say what it was that shareholders are wrong. They said it was not in the Company's interest to pursue further which suggests there was something to pursue but wider consequences from doing so were not in Celtic's best interest. I think it reasonable to deduce from that that the licence grant was not in compliance with UEFA FFP or that
what the Chairman would have said to draw the curtain over Res12 was that it fully complied.
You often assert what Celtic's position on the grant was. They never have.
 
Top Bottom