According to a group of Celtic shareholders, directors of the club have backed off from challenging UEFA over the SFA’s decision to grant Rangers (IL) a license to take part in UEFA competitions in the 2011/12 season.
Despite having refused to pay a £5.8m bill to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs at 30 June the Ibrox side were given the opportunity to claim a £15m Champions League windfall.
According to UEFA regulations clubs taking part in their competitions can’t have any overdue social taxes with the Ibrox bill relating to the Wee Tax Case which helped pay the wages of Tore Andre Flo and Ronald de Boer.
The issue was first raised at Celtic’s 2012 AGM and after initially being rejected by the club was taken up after documentation was presented by concerned shareholders.
UPDATE: I have been contacted by one of the shareholders to say that there was a ‘communication breakdown’ in January and that the matter isn’t quite over.
After a number of meetings the shareholders were encouraged to raise the issue with the SFA, when that was stonewalled the club suggested taking the matter up with UEFA.
The 100 shareholders behind the motion asked the club to challenge UEFA on the matter but after that idea was turned down the shareholders have gone public with their frustrations.
In a lengthy post on the popular Kerrydale Street fans forum one of the shareholders behind the Resolution laid out the board of directors reluctance to challenge the SFA over the licensing issue.
The post explained: “I can now confirm that Celtic PLC have not written to UEFA and asked them to intervene in any respect re the matter of the UEFA licence granted by the SFA in March 2011 to Rangers Football Club.
“Celtic PLC did raise concerns about the process with the SFA prior to Res 12 coming before the Celtic AGM in 2012 and, subsequent to the resolution being adjourned by agreement, the board of the PLC have openly accepted that information has come to light which is worthy of further discussion with the SFA.
“They have discussed this with the SFA compliance officer informally and formally, and were very keen in encouraging shareholders to write to the SFA formally intimating both complaints and concerns regarding the licensing process.
“On being advised that this had been done through a large corporate firm of solicitors retained by the shareholders for this very purpose, those representing the board advised that they would now be keen to discuss the matter further with the SFA.
“A copy of the solicitors letter was obviously copied to Celtic PLC.
“The SFA’s response to that letter and subsequent correspondence was that they would only discuss the issues raised with, by and through the member club – namely the board of Celtic PLC.
“There have been discussions between the SFA and Celtic on the matters raised but neither party has seen fit to advise shareholders on the nature of those discussions and their outcome, or what progress, if any, has been made in clarifying what was and what was not submitted to the SFA in support of the licence applications.
“Nor has there been any comment or fresh information provided on whether or not those discussions have clarified the steps taken – or not taken – by the SFA during the licensing process or the reasoning behind those decisions and actions.
“The SFA conduct in relation to these matters remains of considerable concern.
“At the outset, you will recall that the Celtic PLC board took the view that Res 12 was not necessary. That view was then changed as it became apparent that the board were not fully conversant with either the salient facts and information surrounding the application, nor the rules surrounding UEFA compliance procedures.
“Following the resolution being adjourned, the board and shareholders worked together to put pressure on the SFA to address various issues including documents which were sent out by HMRC which, on the face of it, had not been disclosed to the SFA or UEFA as part of the then licensing process.
“As mentioned above, the shareholders, with the agreement of the Celtic PLC Board and the compliance officer of the SFA, formally intimated all matters directly to the SFA. Consequently, the SFA said they were happy to take up all of the matters raised with the board of Celtic PLC.
“Those discussions, may or may not, be ongoing.
“In the interim, the board of Celtic PLC have encouraged shareholders to write to UEFA and in particular the CFCB who regulate licensing matters, and bring that body up to date with the correspondence sent to the SFA by the shareholders and the replies received from the SFA compliance officer – including those replies which state that the SFA will discuss the matter with the Celtic Board and only the Celtic Board.
“The shareholders will write such a letter through their solicitors.”
“However, shareholders believe that this is really a function that should properly be carried out by the executive board of Celtic PLC. There is ample scope for the PLC board to explain their current position and ask that UEFA take note of the discussions and explanations provided by the SFA in correspondence and at meetings. Further, they are free to ask UEFA to examine all the documentation thus far presented and compare that documentation with their official records in relation to the licence application concerned.
“If necessary that communication could have been sent in confidence with a request that the procedures to follow remain confidential during the course of the criminal proceedings instigated by the Crown Office.
“For whatever reason, Celtic PLC have not written any such letter and are not, apparently, currently considering writing any such letter – but are encouraging the shareholders to do so instead.
“Personally, I can’t fathom why that should be.
“The executive function of the board of directors is to preserve, protect and maintain the interests of shareholders in the company.
“It seems odd that the same board, who previously said that they would take all necessary steps to look after the interests of shareholders in reltion to matters of Governance in Scottish Football, should ask shareholders to formally write to UEFA instead of doing it themselves.
“If they felt there was no merit in such correspondence they would surely say so?
“If they had felt there was no merit in writing to the SFA in relation to these same matters they would not have facilitated and encouraged, such correspondence between shareholders and the SFA, have met with the SFA to discuss the matters concerned, or have taken such an active and supportive part in the Res 12 process from the outset.
“If, as a result of that process and the subsequent correspondence between all parties, the board of Celtic PLC had received information from the SFA which persuaded them that everything to do with the 2011/2012 licensing processes had been completed in accordance with the UEFA rules and regulations, then surely they would have advised shareholders of their conclusions and on what facts and circumstances those conclusions were now based?
“Equally, had they been provided with such an explanation they would not be encouraging shareholders to write to UEFA as of today’s date?
“For the avoidance of doubt, the Celtic PLC Board have never intimated that they have received satisfactory explanations in relation to any of the matters raised by them, or by the shareholders, and have at all times encouraged shareholders to further press the SFA for answers to the points raised.
“Accordingly, the position of the board in not seemingly wishing to write to UEFA with regard to these matters and the application of UEFA rules is baffling in the extreme under these circumstances.
“Some of us will be writing to Celtic PLC to advise that this stance is incongruous with their previous statements to the shareholders and raises serious concerns about the board’s desire to actually have the matters raised independently investigated.
“For the avoidance of doubt, what is or should be the subject of independent investigation and scrutiny is the information submitted, and processes followed and considered by the SFA or the UEFA Licensing officials, in relation to the UEFA licenisng applications presented in season 2011/12.
“The same information and documentation concerned would have been germane to the commission chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith and would have been considered by that commission had the original dates of reference for the commission not been changed prior to the start of the hearings.
“Why the oriiginal dates of that commission were changed has never been explained to shareholders.
“If any shareholders wish to express their opinion on the board’s stance re this then obviously they are free to write to the chief executive, the liaison officer or any other representative of the PLC.
“I wish to reiterate again, that the board of Celtic PLC have been fully supportive of the aims and objectives of Res 12 and have played a full and active part in having shareholders press the SFA for satisfactory answers which have not, thus far, been However, the same board are not willing to take the same matters up with UEFA on any kind of official basis but are instead relying on the activities of individual shareholders.”
CLICK HERE for the link and follow up.