Resolution 12 and Fake News.

When Resolution 12 of the Celtic 2013 AGM was brought to a close after 2022 AGM see  Part 6: Closure of Resolution 12 to Celtic AGMS: 2013 to 2022 , it caused a degree of discombobulation on the part of one Rangers supporter  who had been peddling a false narrative on social media under the name of Jas72Boyd (and possibly others)  from 2014 onwards. He constantly mocked and misrepresented what was taking place over the years from a position of ignorance, to gain favour with his followers. After initial engagement he was ignored when it became clear around 2016  he was not following the changing narrative and was sticking to his own version of the truth, no matter what.

Following the Celtic announcement at Christmas 2022  that the Celtic’s Charity wing (The Foundation) ) were to be the beneficiaries of a Celtic offer to reimburse Res12 shareholders legal costs of £11,266 he posted on Twitlonger his misguided view of events surrounding Resolution 12.

With Resolution 12 now closed it would be easy not to refute Jas72Boyd’s final TwitLonger and even twisted longer assessment of events which qualify as Fake News in order to hide the truth.

His comments from Twitlonger follow in red with clarifying comments  in italics.

Res12 – Celtic hammer home the Final Nail – #res12 #sevco #celtic #rangers

Res 12 guys have finally given up the ghost. They now know from Celtic FC legal team why there is ZERO case to be answered. Pure (sic) Auldheid told all his followers the reason in 2016. He just didn’t realise what he was saying due to the advice he was getting from somewhere.

Not true. There were meetings with Celtic legal team and at no point did they say their shareholders were wrong in respect of the granting of the UEFA Licence in April 2011. Celtic and UEFA  did confirm that any breach in the monitoring submission on 30th June 2011 would not be sanctioned until the following season but neither Celtic nor UEFA said a breach had not occurred in the monitoring period for simple reason it  was a continuation of  the same  false pretence (fraud) misrepresentation of March/April 2011 that enabled SFA to grant a licence.

The reason for the legal cost recompense offer from Celtic was given in the Foundation notice of 23 Dec 2022 that said:

“Celtic FC Foundation are delighted to announce that we received a wonderful donation of £11,266 earlier this week thanks to the Club and a group of Celtic plc shareholders.

The group, who had come together a number of years ago to seek to address certain governance issues in Scottish football, engaged with the Club and worked independently over a number of years, with the objective of highlighting the value of continuing to evolve the governance rules underpinning Scottish Football and European Cub Competition.

The group of shareholders also privately funded legal costs in the process and the Club agreed in principle to make a contribution to these costs in recognition of the effort and funds that were committed.

Thankfully for Celtic FC Foundation, with the agreement of the Club, the shareholders have directed this contribution to Celtic FC Foundation’s 2022 Christmas Appeal. We would therefore like to express our sincere thanks to all of those involved. We are exceptionally grateful for your wonderful support in helping us to ‘Share the Magic’ this festive season.”

There is no mention there  that the shareholders were wrong about the misrepresentations in April and June 2011 in RFC’s application for a licence or monitoring submission.  Had that been so Celtic could have stopped Resolution 12 at any point from 2013 by saying UEFA have investigated and the licence was granted and retained according to UEFA rules. That was never once said because UEFA refused to investigate and the license was granted in April 2011 by false pretence, confirmed by a lawyer with experience in criminal aw who looked at the evidence.

The Foundation announcement contradicts the meaning Boyd has applied to tell his followers he was right all along.. He was wrong all the way. Celtic did recognise that shareholders had a case , a strong case that the 2011 licence had been awarded under false pretence  but Celtic had no support from SFA or UEFA in particular to investigate what took place in April 2011 and June 2011.

The consequences for SFA and UEFA of establishing the truth, not only about the overdue payables at 31st March 2011, but potentially Rangers unlawful use of ebts with side letter over 10 year were too alarming in compensation terms to contemplate.

This is why UEFA were not interested, not because the licence in April 2011 was correctly granted  but because it wasn’t. Hence UEFA Head of Club Licensing justifying not investigating on the grounds that Rangers FC PLC (the offending club) no longer existed to investigate, having been replaced by the new Rangers FC Ltd (the club) and the new Rangers International Football Club PLC (RIFC PLC the company) the new club/company as correctly UEFA described both  in June 2016 reply   to Celtic small shareholders solicitors. 

He cant take any action against that advice though. It was from within his own group.

What advice? There never  was any  to say the license had been properly granted only that any sanction for a breach in the monitoring period would apply from the following season had Rangers FC  been able to continue as a member of the SFA/SPL.

Celtic’s legal team were aware  this was the case but as the Foundation announcement implies by saying shareholders were acting independently and as  an announcement in Celtic  AGM 2020 papers makes clear, Celtic pursued the issue in their own way and the Article on overdue payables in the new  Financial Sustainability Regulations (FSR) has been significantly strengthened to make UEFA’s intent clear that tax payable (not a potential liability) in  relation to tax due at end of previous year, had to be settled by 31st March of following year, when it became overdue if not paid by that date. FSR also strengthened the regulations on monitoring of overdue payables to tax authorities which puts national associations the (SFA)under more scrutiny to see FSR is applied as UEFA intend.

The overdue payable rule in FFP, strengthened in FSR, rules out the dates of HMRC  letters as being points of crystallisation that Boyd has  used to argue his case that all was sound (See his later comment on crystallisation). The 31st March is the date of “ crystallisation”, a term that like “potential liability” does not feature in UEFA regulations, although used by Stuart Regan then CEO of SFA to justify to the media the licence being correctly granted. He like Boyd was wrong and has since dodged out of Dodge.

These are the reasons why  Celtic made the £11,266 recompense offer that shareholders then donated to The Foundation that added to The Foundation Christmas Appeal of £385K.

Res 12 and the “Ranjurz are a New Club” idiots have blown ££££££££££££

Res12 was never a same club issue. It got connected because of a NEW “ club/company” statement that the Head of UEFA Club Licensing Andre Traverso, who also led on FSR, made to justify not investigating how Rangers obtained a licence in 2011. As can be seen from the Celtic’s shareholders lawyer’s letter on      27 May 2016  the “same club”  idea was not an issue raised  and it was Traverso who volunteered in his reply of  8th June 2016 that UEFA could not act against a club/legal entity that no longer existed. 

Traverso used the same FFP Article 12 terminology that defines a club to correctly describe Rangers FC Ltd (the club) and Rangers International Football Club PLC (the Company) who both came into existence in 2012 and is the reason why the new club/company had to wait until they had served 3 years  as new members of the SFA in line with the then UEFA FFP Article 12

 £12000 on legal fees £11, 266 to be exact,

£5000 on an advert in a Swiss Paper – The advert drawing attention to misgovernance of Scottish football costing taxpayers millions that no Scottish media outlet would touch? The one whose date coincided with Celtic shareholders solicitors letter to UEFA in Switzerland that got the unexpected and unsolicited Traverso new club/company reply? Some would think the money was well spent.

£3000 on an advert in the Herald – If this refers to The Statement that Celtic Supporters did not recognise Sevco as Rangers that was never a Res12 matter so why mention it?

£x000 on a ridiculed report from fanswithoutscarves who had to close all his social media down an hour after I exposed the racket and report. 

That fanswithoutscarves report by a professional auditor was free  and correct.  A  payable existed from  21st March 2011 when talks with HMRC ended, not a “potential liability” under discussion which was how Rangers Auditors described the payable on 30 March 2011 as did Rangers Chairman on 1st April 2011 in Rangers interim accounts. It was on this false pretence/fraud  (as described by a lawyer with criminal law experience) that SFA  Licencing Committee that included then Rangers administrator now a Director, Andrew Dickson granted a  UEFA licence.

Over £20000 of fans money spent on a load of nonsense. 4 years they chased UEFA with letter after letter. 4 phone calls I made and UEFA changed their rules the very next season due to their legal error in the original rules which I exposed.

It was 3 letters at the most in 2016  that told UEFA there was a serious issue but UEFA would not pursue because the club responsible for the breach was by 2016 undergoing liquidation and UEFA could not act against the NEW club/company that replaced the old club as they were not responsible for the licence application in 2011..

No idea who Boyd spoke to or what error he pointed out to UEFA or when but later editions of FFP contain no observable change to the relevant 2010 FFP Article 50 that deals with overdue payables to the tax man. UEFA have however changed their rules in the new FSR to make the intent and purpose of the rules on overdue payables even clearer. The purpose was not just to make sure any tax due by end of previous year was paid by 31st March to ensure fair play to clubs that had  paid HMRC their due and not used tax payer money to pay players’ wages,  but also to indicate to UEFA that if tax  was not paid  then a club might have solvency problems. This  in fact materialised at Ibrox in Feb 2012 only 5 months after UEFA verbally approved the false monitoring submission of 30 June 2011 after discussions with the official at the SFA responsible for checking FFP compliance ,  an approval that meant Rangers had no future financial forecasts to submit to UEFA, “Good news “ the SFA official dealing with UEFA and Rangers on licensing called it.

10 years of priceless family time wasted when Celtic FC, their lawyers, Head of Legal ECA and 2 Heads of Legal FA, told them there was no case to answer as they, and their “representatives” clearly didn’t understand a bill had to be crystalised, issued, received and gone past its due date BEFORE 31st December 2010 in order for it to meet the criteria of disclosure in the rules for 31st March 2011.

None of this is accurate and is a fundamental error of understanding of UEFA intent. As has been pointed out previously the 31st March is the effective crystallisation date. This was upheld by Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) when handling an appeal of Giannina FC in 2013 that emerged late 2016. This made it absolutely clear what UEFA intended in their FFP rules and crystallisation dependent on letters or meetings is just not a factor because of how different tax regimes over Europe handle overdue tax.  One date was needed to standardise one rule across Europe and that date is the 31st March.  Boyd ignored this clarification when referred to the Giannina appeal to CAS as it totally refuted his technical argument..

In respect of how shareholders approached the Resolution what has confused Boyd was that Res 12 was initially based on evidence of events in the monitoring period that suggested a payable was overdue at 30 June  and in the absence then of any evidence that the license had been granted under false pretence, shareholders focussed on the info they had in respect of the Rangers  submission to UEFA at 30 June 2011 in the monitoring period,  which turned out to be as  false as in their application for a licence granted in April.(but that was not known initially )

This is why requisitioners accepted at that point the UEFA explanation that breaches in the monitoring period would not face sanction until the following season. This removed shareholders locus in terms of loss of share value through missing out on the CL place Rangers wrongly took.

 However, the Giannina case establish without doubt  the date UEFA  deemed a liability became a payable which turned shareholders attention to the grant period and in 2018 proof that a payable existed before the 31st March in the form of a minutes of a meeting with HMRC and Rangers on 21st March emerged  from a legitimate source as well as HMRC testimony in court covering the same March period when the  potential liability became a “payable” the term actually used in  FFP Articles to define the point when a potential liability under discussion became a payable. The word “liability” does not appear in the relevant FFP article.

The fact this took place on the 19th June 2011, a fact which Auldheid admitted himself when he didn’t understand the rules, meant the licence was issued correctly. Celtic FC legal report confirms this hence why their hands have been completely tied on the issue of what happened in 2011.

More nonsense and a failure by Boyd to realise his argument is based on his failure  to accept or comprehend purpose of the rules that dates on HMRC correspondence are irrelevant to UEFA, the 31st of March sets the effective date in stone. It was not because the rules were not understood pre 2016 by requisitioners but because there was no proof before then that the license had been wrongly granted in 2011. However, in 2016 the Giannina CAS case made UEFAs intent clear on the date on which any tax due from previous year finally became payable by.

There was a hiatus until after the Craig Whyte trial took place after which Celtic, who according to Boyd told their shareholders no rules were broken, wrote to the SFA asking them to reopen both the LNS case and the granting of UEFA Licence in 2011 based on testimony at the Craig Whyte trial that suggested Rangers knew early March 2011  they had a payable based on their solicitors advice that lying to HMRC in 2005 re existence of side letters relevant to the tax due made any further appeal a waste of money.

The SFA refused to revisit LNS but opened an investigation but only into the monitoring period in 2011 re the overdue payable, thus avoiding looking at what the SFA did at the time the licence was granted , but Rangers appealed using a clause in the 5 Way Agreement that required Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to investigate any issue arising from it. After a year of prevarication in 2020 the SFA decided not to go to CAS and drop any investigation a constant theme throughout by SFA and UEFA which totally rents asunder the fabric of lies that JasBoyd claims were told to shareholders by Celtic.

Any recent interaction with UEFA on FFP is completely independent and subsequent to the fact UEFA also shut it down years ago and said, the games up……..which Celtic FC Legal team agreed with.

Based on the forgoing clarifications this statement is simply a lie. Celtic legal team said nothing of the sort JasBoyd is making it all up as the page on Closure of Res12 shows.

To get rid of it and to shut them up, Celtic have paid offered to pay them back the £12k legal fees that were blown on advice which clearly didn’t understand UEFA rules and regulations and could have been shut down at the first pass in my considered opinion.

This is not a considered opinion ,it is an ill-informed one based on a total lack of knowledge of what actually took place. Boyd has made it all up including why Celtic offered to recompense shareholders.

 It was not a matter of shutting down Res12 to get rid of the issue. Celtic at the 2020 AGM undertook to their shareholders that they would engage with SFA and UEFA on the matter of the abandoned SFA investigation into events in 2011 and Celtic in fact took over Res12 under Res11 of the 2020 AGM. It is a matter of public record in AGM papers. Another indicator that Celtic thought there was a case to answer!

It was always unlikely the SFA would play ball in investigating themselves, so it had to be UEFA and the developing FSR, which the current Celtic CEO declared in AGM papers and at the 2022 AGM they were involved in creating,  was the obvious vehicle to proceed under and there are monitoring changes in the new FSR to prevent Rangers and the SFA acting in breach of FFP as they did in 2011.

That £12k is not theirs to keep so Celtic agreed to donate it to the Celtic Foundation, which is the only good thing to come of the 10 years they have wasted their own and their families lives Sevcoing.

By now Boyd is getting lost in his own fantasy that has seen him wasting 10 year of his life misleading his followers.

Celtic did not agree to donate the legal costs to The Foundation. They were prepared to reimburse those shareholders who funded legal costs but the same funders thought a donation of that amount to The Foundation was the Celtic way of doing things and an acceptable end to Celtic shareholders Resolution 12 saga.

Bye Auldheid. Its been a laugh. 🙂

Bye Jaser. He who laughs last laughs longest. 🙂

PS – I would just like to end this with one piece of clarification. Unlike ill Phil, John James and many other bloggers on their side who in essence rob fans of their hard earned money with daily nonsense, i dont believe, and have never believed, for a single second this was the case here. This was simply an ill judged thought with no-one reigning them in and telling them the truth. I believe some people took advantage of the situation if im being honest, but 100% genuinely believe Auldheid wasnt one of them.

The irony here is Jas Boyd thinks he has been telling the truth to his followers.

Auldheid (and the other 3 shareholder representatives) on the other hand had no need to make anything up when reporting to the Celtic shareholders  who supported Res12, whom they represented. The latter were kept up to date with the changing facts as they emerged. On the whole the shareholders are content that the requisitioners responsibility to them has been fully discharged with integrity, although angry that real justice has not been served on the guilty parties at Ibrox and Hampden.

The big difference being when you are accountable for what you say is  it  has  to be true.  otherwise it’s all fake news.