http://videocelts.com/2013/11/blogs/latest-news/celtic-take-shareholders-licence-concerns-straight-to-sfa
Celtic take shareholders licence concerns straight to SFA Celtic will confront the SFA over shareholder concerns regarding the 2011 licence issued to Rangers despite the club having unpaid social taxes dating back over a decade. A resolution to debate the issue was scheduled for yesterday’s AGM but dropped from the agenda after discussions between a group of shareholders and the club directors. At the crux of the matter is the so-called wee tax case involving the Discount Options Scheme used to pay Craig Moore, Tore Andre Flo and Ronald de Boer between 1999 and 2004. After years of appealing Rangers finally admitted that the scheme was illegal with the final bill coming in at £6m including penalties. Despite having that outstanding bill the SFA provided Rangers with a licence to play in the 2011/12 season giving Ally McCoist’s side the opportunity to bring in £15m from the Champions League which would more than pay that bill. Had the SFA applied their own licence rules correctly Rangers would have been denied a licence allowing Celtic to compete in the Champions League qualifiers rather than in the much less lucrative Europa League. Another take would be that if the SFA had applied pressure the £6m bill would have been paid to HMRC rather than allow McCoist to go on the summer signing spree that saw Allan McGregor, Steven Davis and Steven Whittaker with new contracts as well as scouring the world to recruit talents such as Matt McKay, Lee Wallace, Dorin Goian and Juan Ortiz. Losing out on the opportunity to earn £15m is clearly a big issue for Celtic shareholders with one poster to Celtic Quick News revealing the detail of talks with the board on the subject.
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 708x668.
Last night the poster explained: “I will prepare a fairly detailed post on Res 12 — but right now I am knackered. “However, can I just clarify a couple of things some of which will be a repeat of Auldheid’s comments and others won’t. “First– it became clear that Celtic PLC had questioned various things as far back as 2011. “Second— these concerns were taken up with the SFA and it was clearly explained that the board were asking questions as a result of enquiries and concerns which came from shareholders. “Third — The nature of the enquiries were not confined to those matters which were raised by the resolution. Celtic questioned other matters altogether some of which are now of no relevance but others which are not. “Fourth— The SFA replied and provided various answers. To my knowledge, Celtic at no time said that they were satisfied with that answer and chose to simply remain silent. “Fifth— Later, as a result of further prompting from shareholders and further information, The Celtic Board made further enquiries– this time on a slightly different point and a different tack– of the SFA. “Sixth — Once again the SFA responded. “Seventh—- The board initially took the view that this procedure rendered the resolution unnecessary. “Eighth — following meetings with some of the requisitioners the Board:
a) Withdrew from their position that the resolution was unnecssary
b) Took the view that they would formally continue dialogue and have further meetings with the requisitioners.
c) Agreed to keep the entire matter “live” by adjourning the resolution rather than simply voting against the resolution as they had previously intimated.
d) Agreed to open a formal line of communication with the requisitioners through the Company Secretary– who is legally qualified– and to formally announce that line of communication to the AGM.
e) Further to publicly and formally commit to further dialogue and communication with the requistioners on the issues raised within the resolution.
“In turn the requistioners were publicly allowed to formally accept the board’s invitation to engage in further discussion ( and that was noted in the formal minutes) and to formally acknowledge that some of the steps which had already been taken by the board satisfied some of the concerns of the requisitioners— but not all. “The wording of the chairman and the requistioners was agreed and adjusted late yesterday as the dialogue was ongoing throughout last week. “The effect of all of this is that resolution 12 is most definitely a live issue. “Of key importance is that it has been formally adjourned in public meeting. “Now there are a whole host of key benefits to this not least of which the board were persuaded to depart from their initial negative position. “They acknowledged that there was merit in at least some of what the requisitioners were about and that the entire issue was worthy of further discussion and examination. “In addition maintaining a discussion with the requisitioners was in the interest of the club and its supporters. “If I can add another point just now. “Of key importance here was getting into a position where the board accepted that they should stop and consider the arguments and points raised by people like Auldheid with regard to compliance and regulation governance. “That has been achieved. “They may ultimately not agree or they may ultimately disagree on how to take such an argument forward in terms of a next step. But at least it can be discussed, suggestions made, and a next step agreed. “However, as far as the SFA and all other football fans are concerned, what happened today was that a group of fans took a formal route asking a member club to hold the SFA to account. The Club concerned, after consideration, decided not simply dispose of that proposal by rejecting it and instead allowed the matter to remain live. “With regard to secrecy and all that: “All I can say is this. The main movers of the motion were party to the discussions and documentation was produced which demonstrated all that has been said above. “A preference was expressed that the documents concerned not be placed in the public domain. Note that it was a request and not an order from on high. “The benefit of acceding to such a request? “To be honest, some of the matters raised by the club and the responses, may be germane to legal processes that are still ongoing and possibly yet to start. Nothing in the documents would tend to suggest that Celtic were failing to pursue the SFA for answers to their questions, or failing to represent the interests of the supporters. “Further– how can I put this? “When there is a written confidential record of certain matters, I can understand a protective reluctance to make that record public so that others can adjust their stance and position to suit their own ends. “There are those who have nothing to do with Celtic Football Club who could use such records for their own purposes and try to stir trouble for the club, its shareholders and its fans. “Best to leave them in the dark. “Lastly all negotiations and discussions are about achieving the art of the possible. It is not possible to say that this issue is at an end, or has been voted against by Celtic PLC, and it is possible to say that the SFA and their practices formally remain under scrutiny by the shareholders of CELTIC PLC. “By the way— that was the only vote in the hall today that was truly unanimous!!!!” To be continued… CLICK HERE for more detail on the matter
