19th May 2020 Finally, two years plus to the day limited charges were first made the SFA Board decided
“A Judicial Panel convened to consider a notice of complaint raised against Rangers FC in 2018 – in relation to alleged new evidence regarding representations received prior to the awarding of a European licence for season 2011/12 – determined at a preliminary hearing that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the matter.
“Instead, it concluded that jurisdiction lay with the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
“Following consideration of the implications of such a referral, including legal opinion, it was the board’s unanimous position that this matter should not be referred to CAS.
“The Scottish FA now considers the matter to be closed.”
The implications for the fair and honest governance of Scottish Football are staggering in that in a case where all the evidence points to fraud, the national association who may have been negligent in granting the licence in 2011 under the Licence Committee Chairmanship of Rod Petrie can, under his current role as a President of and member of the SFA Board, close down an investigation into his part in what evidence suggests is fraud.
Indeed, all actions by SFA since first contacted by Celtic shareholders in 2014 give the appearance of an organisation trying to cover up what on the evidence provided and expert opinion, both accountancy and criminal, looks like fraud.
May 2020 As a consequence the 19 page report was sent to the UEFA Integrity Unit who acknowledged receipt and a week later passed it on to the relevant person.
July 2020 The legal opinion suggesting fraud was uploaded with no reply to date. The UEFA Integrity Unit were informed of Board’s response to Resolution 11/12 in the AGM 2020 Notice of 18 November 2020 . The information provided to UEFA can be viewed HERE .
8 Sept 2020. A Resolution signed by over 100 shareholders was delivered to Celtic to be tabled at the 2020 AGM. It was also shared with the CST who found the case just but correctly waited to hear Celtic’s response.
30 October 7 weeks after receipt Celtic responded that the Resolution could not be accepted because of the nature of the statements and allegations against named Board members which made it defamatory and so was not allowed under
s.338 of the Companies Act 2006 (which) provides that a resolution proposed by the shareholders “…may be properly be moved at an annual general meeting unless … (b) it is defamatory of any person.”
This was not unexpected as the purpose of the Resolution was to make public through the AGM notice what had taken place in respect of Celtic’s questionable handling of Resolution 12 and inaction on using evidence that should have seen the Lord Nimmo Smith Decision revisited (see HERE at 9 Jan 2018).
There being little time because the AGM Notice had to be approved and sent for printing to allow for a fresh resolution it was agreed that the shareholders would draft a statement and the Board would respond and both appeared in the AGM Notice under Celticplc_AGM_Notice_2020_061120.pdf (celticfc.net) on pages 8 and 9 which The Board will vote Against because of their undertaking in their response that they
“ will engage with the relevant authorities as appropriate in the interests of the Company, providing an update when possible. In the circumstances, therefore, the Board considers the resolution to be unnecessary and recommends that you vote against it.”
Whilst a welcome move forward from avoiding making any evidenced based representations to the SFA in 2019 in rejecting Resolution 12 that year nor taking up UEFA’s offer to pursue matters in June 2016, shareholders nevertheless had no confidence whatsoever in believing the word of a Board containing the CEO who accepted the 5 Way Agreement in July 2012 that caused the very matter that the Board are now undertaking to engage with SFA on in their response.
The Res12 shareholders consequently expressed that view in over 50 e mails to the AGM e mail address provided seeking details on how the engagement would be conducted, in what time frame, who would receive the results and expressing no confidence or trust if the CEO were involved.
Shareholders concerns were made public on 9th December via Phil MacGiolla Bhains blogs (as Res12 matters have been before ) Here and the Res12 Group awaited the Board’s response at the AGM to the questions raised in the letters Here which are only two of at least 50.
That verbal response by the Chairman Banker Here only confirmed shareholders concerns as no time table to engage was provided and he stated that he had looked into the role of Peter Lawwell and concluded that he was satisfied he had acted in the Company’s interest!
Given the following facts either Chairman Bankier had not seen the documentation provided to Celtic or if he did he seems to be confirming that telling lies to small shareholders in Celtic PLC is in the Company’s interest. An explanation of just what is the Company’s interests is something that should be shared with the vast number of shareholders so that they can decide what they are investing either emotionally or financially.
The documentation that underpinned the Resolution rejected by Celtic in 2020 can be read HERE