Quantcast
Latest News

Celtic shareholders make fresh challenge to Lawwell over Resolution 12

|
Image for Celtic shareholders make fresh challenge to Lawwell over Resolution 12

Some Celtic fans are calling into question two different accounts of the club’s contact with UEFA over the long running issue of Resolution 12.

The matter first appeared on the agenda of the 2013 AGM and appeared to be supported by the board of directors until some stage in 2018.

Formally at the 2019 AGM the club announced that they weren’t prepared to take the matter to UEFA, preferring to leave the SFA to rule on their own competence that allowed the old Rangers club to compete in the Champions League qualifiers despite having unpaid and overdue social payables (Tax).

A group of dedicated shareholders have provided a wealth of information to the club with the evidence presented to the 2017 Craig Whyte trial putting the issue of the overdue tax beyond question.

Picking up on confusion given to shareholders at the 2019 AGM one fan on Sentinel Celts revealed he had contacted the club for clarification:

John Paul (Taylor, Celtic SLO)
I would like this e mail passed to Mr Lawwell for a response please and a reply confirming it has been done.

I am routing it via your good self because I believe the time has come for clarity, following conflicting statements made at the 2019 AGM from the top table in respect of Resolution 12.

The lack of clarity only served to mislead shareholders about key issues and the opportunity to clarify should be taken by Mr Lawwell at the next Fans Forum dedicated to the purpose, along with satisfactory justification of why it is not in Celtic’s interest to bring the SFA to account if deception occurred causing Celtic shares to lose value.

Signed Date

Dear Mr Lawwell

At the recent AGM you stated that UEFA were not interested in pursuing events in 2011 when a UEFA Licence was granted to Rangers FC by the SFA and retained in dubious circumstance.

You went on to say you had contacted the Head of UEFA club licencing that morning and repeated more or less the same answer Andrea Traverso gave in a letter dated 8th June 2016 addressed to the lawyer engaged by shareholders representatives seeking UEFA advice on the processing of the UEFA Licence in 2011. In particular, you repeated his point that any sanctions applied for breaches would not have happened until the following season, meaning no loss to shareholder value and so no justification for pursuing.

Mr Bankier on the other hand said UEFA had conducted an investigation and found no case to answer without specifying what UEFA had investigated and the reasons why no compliance failure occurred

So, which is it? UEFA investigated and no case to answer or UEFA do not want to investigate?
What exactly were UEFA asked to consider either by phone or in any paperwork submitted to them?
Was any paperwork submitted to them?

Had the rules been followed either the tax bill of £2.8m would have been paid before 31 March 2011 or the licence would have been refused with Celtic entering the Champions League qualifiers.

Competing in the 2012/13 Champions League boosted Celtic’s turnover by £24m compared to the previous season.

It seems hard to believe that after eight years of correspondence the Celtic board believe that it is not in the company’s interest to get UEFA to audit the paperwork for the 2011 licence. Competing in the group phase of the Champions League can boost Celtic’s turnover by around 40% with associated benefits in terms of the value of players who’ve featured in UEFA’s top tournament.

CLICK HERE to visit Sentinel Celts

Share this article

Online and independent- the only way to be. Enjoying instant news access and reaction, following the trends if not an influencer!