Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond


Celtic Shareholders who put forward a resolution to the Celtic AGM in 2013 are preparing for the 2019 AGM tomorrow and some of their conclusions are reproduced below. Celtic are planning to vote the current resolution of 2019 down after several years of kicking the can down the road after an agreement to adjourn the 2013 motion was agreed at that AGM.

Given the weight of evidence, and the prevarication that has gone on for this extended period of time, you don’t have to be a student of politics to infer that Celtic are failing their own shareholders over this.

There appears to have been, at best, a failure of SFA governance over this issue. At worst? Well that doesn’t really bear thinking about. That Celtic (and other clubs too) have been in possession of the evidence outlined below but have failed to act on it is a damning indictment of the quality of people running our clubs. Peter Lawwell’s words from 2008 about the integrity of competition seem hollow coming from the same lips as the man who has failed to pursue any kind of sporting integrity over upholding the rules of the game.

Of course we are talking about a fundamental difference in how people see the game. There are those of us who (some say naively) consider that upholding the aspects of fair play and competition are paramount, and those who see the commercial aspects of the game as the foremost consideration. A pragmatist might find a way to accommodate both, but there are apparently no pragmatists in boardrooms all over Scotland – just financial accountants.

It would be unfair to categorise the latter constituency as suffering from some kind of character defect of course. Doesn’t make you a bad person because short term financial gain is your thing.

But it puts you at odds with the paying punters – or at least some of them. As a Celtic fan myself, I’m not so sure that I can take any real joy from my own club’s success if I have come to the conclusion that they themselves are happy with a rigged competition. I am not so sure I can credibly throw stones at anyone who is caught cheating when I see that serious evidence of malpractice is being ignored and hidden under the rug by my own club.

I am sure there are those who feel the same as I do. Are there enough of us? Probably not, but the effect of it all from a personal perspective, is that it disconnects me from the process where common goals and objectives are shared between fans, players and clubs. That’s what clubs are for after all isn’t it?

In short, if the game is rigged, there is no common objective.

And consequently, many of us, deprived of that shared mission, that bond broken, will be forced to re-evaluate their relationship with their clubs.

We all have our own thoughts, but the urge to walk away forever is strong with me.

The Resolution 12 Story

In 2012, Celtic shareholders brought a resolution before the Celtic PLC AGM which asked the Celtic Board to refer certain matters to UEFA because they felt that the Scottish Football Association was compromised, no longer fit for purpose in relation to these matters, at least, and had failed Celtic and all the other football clubs in Scotland and in its duty as a Governing body, and it has separately failed UEFA as the Licensing Authority appointed by UEFA to grant licences to play in European Football in relation to Scottish teams.
The actual wording used was as follows;

“This AGM requests the Board exercise the provision contained in the Procedural Rules Governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body Article 10 with jurisdiction and investigation responsibilities identified in articles 3 & 11 (Note 1), by referring/bringing to the attention of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), the licensing administration practices of the Scottish Football Association (SFA), requesting the CFCB undertake a review and investigate the SFA’s implementation of UEFA & SFA license compliance requirements, with regard to qualification, administration and granting of licenses to compete in football competitions under both SFA and UEFA jurisdiction, since the implementation of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations of 2010.”

The response of the Celtic Board was to argue that this resolution was NOT NECESSARY because the board itself had already recognised that there had been failings within the SFA Licensing process, and they were already in correspondence with the SFA in relation to much the same issue.

The difference between the board and the Resolutioners was that the board wanted to continue corresponding with the SFA rather than refer the matter to UEFA or anyone else, whereas the Resolutioners argued that the SFA were hopelessly compromised, were unfit for purpose, could not of themselves remedy the situation they had created, and so wanted to refer the matter to UEFA as an independent and overseeing body whose rules had been flaunted, broken, ignored and to be frank, completely manipulated as a result of SFA inaction and inactivity.

After much discussion between the board and the Resolutioners, it was reluctantly agreed that the resolution should be adjourned and to allow the SFA to be given the opportunity to demonstrate that they could operate as a proper Governing body should and to answer all and any questions put to them via the Celtic PLC board and , where appropriate, the Resolutioners and ,if necessary, their solicitors.
In the interim period, it has become clear to the Resolutioners that the SFA are not fit for purpose, just as they originally argued, and that they are not, and never could have been, the appropriate body to consider and determine the failings in the licensing system that the Resolutioners had complained of.

This is not merely opinion on the part of the Resolutioners but is the determination and judgement of a formally constituted judicial panel appointed by the SFA itself.
The Resolutioners complain that the SFA have failed, and continue to fail in the following areas;

  • They failed to oversee a fair and robust European Licence application process before and after March 2011 in respect of the appropriate season.
    They had failed to mount any sort of investigation despite being contacted by HMRC from 2006 onwards in relation to the unlawful activities of a member club – they should have had a watching brief and requested regular updates from HMRC directly but didn’t.
  • They failed to properly apply the necessary tests demanded by UEFA in considering licence applications, and subsequently, through their then CEO, sought to justify their licensing process and the grant of certain licences on a number of different contradictory grounds – none of which stood scrutiny.
  • They failed to monitor, update their records or make specific enquiries between 30th March 2011 and Mid May 2011 when the list of application grants was formally intimated to UEFA – and by which time there was widespread public rumour and speculation about the state of the tax affairs of a member club together with specific legal documents which outlined that there was indeed a tax bills due which would have disqualified that club from being granted a UEFA licence – had the rules been applied properly.
  • They failed to grasp the situation between March 2011 and August 2011 when the Sheriff Officers were seen arriving at the same club and had still made no enquiry.
  • They failed to carry out any monitoring duties at all post the grant of the licence, with then CEO Reagan telling Celtic that once a European licence was granted – which it was in April 2011 – all further compliance monitoring and any necessary action was the province of UEFA. This was later contradicted by UEFA themselves.
  • They failed to monitor through the June 30th and September 30th, two key datelines specified with the UEFA regulations, and there exists a damning e-mail from one SFA officer to the offending club which effectively says that he hopes UEFA will be too busy to notice the deficiencies in the latest submissions sent by the SFA to UEFA in respect of the club concerned.

Throughout, the SFA denied that there were any failures in their procedures, that licences had been correctly granted, there had been no breaches of the rules and maintained that their procedures had been audited and approved by UEFA during the period.

According to the official UEFA website, no such Audit actually took place with the same website confirming which Football Associations were in fact audited at the relevant time. There is no mention of any SFA Audit.

The SFA claimed that not only was there nothing wrong with the grant of the licence, but that there was nothing for them to report during the post grant period as it was not their responsibility – and then added that even if something had been wrong, or was later found to be wrong with the grant, they could not report the matter to UEFA and could take no action because they were time barred from doing so.
Post the Craig Whyte Trial, where long held evidence was publicly noted and commented upon, Celtic and the SPFL publicly called for there to be a full independent Legal inquiry into all that had transpired during “the EBT years” and all aspects of how what had occurred, impacted on football Governance in Scotland.

The SFA rejected those calls and instead insisted on their own internal inquiry into the UEFA licence process for 2011/2012 – despite previously insisting that there had never been anything to investigate or report to UEFA who had entrusted them with the administration of their Licensing process.

The SFA wrote to every club in Scotland to say they were undertaking that investigation and later publicly announced that as a result of that investigation they had uncovered sufficient evidence to justify bringing formal charges alleging breaches of both SFA and UEFA rules.

This despite denying for a number of years that there had been any need for an investigation and despite reassuring Celtic that their licensing process was robust, had been conducted properly, and had not resulted in any incorrect grant of a licence.

The SFA appointed a judicial panel to hear those charges, determine whether they had been proven or not and then to hand out an appropriate punishment.

That Judicial panel have ruled that legally they (the SFA appointed panel) and the SFA itself cannot bring, hear, determine and act on those charges, nor consider the activities of the football club concerned in any judicial forum, because apparently the SFA had previously decided and formally entered into a contract which says that the SFA will not, and cannot, administer their normal Governmental and Judicial function (which would normally apply to any other club in Scotland and at any other time in the history of the SFA or UEFA) in relation to the acts concerned and the specific football club in question.
Instead, the Panel ruled that the charges concerned should be considered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport as a matter of contract and law – and could not be considered by an SFA appointed panel.
In other words, it has been judicially determined that the SFA cannot as a matter of law enforce its own rules or those of UEFA in relation to one club, and have signed away their entire right to oversee proper football Governance and the implementation of SFA and UEFA rules in this instance.

Further, that contract must have been known to all the appropriate SFA officers who decided and took part in the inquiry that led to the SFA bringing the disciplinary charges – Stuart Reagan, Andrew MacKinlay and Tony McGlennan – and when the SFA rejected Celtic’s call for a fully independent inquiry.

In effect, those same officers mounted their own internal inquiry and brought proceedings which they knew, or ought reasonably to have known, which would end in a legal dead end.
Such a course of action amounts to professional incompetence on a monumental scale – at best!

Further, subsequent SFA officials, assured the officers of Celtic Football Club that following the decision of the Independent Judicial Panel there was no reason why the SFA would not take the matter to CAS and in turn used the officials of Celtic Football Club to relay that message to the Resolutioners in the knowledge, and with the intention, that Celtic PLC shareholders would rely on those assurances and would act accordingly. Those actions and those assurances should now be the subject of a wholly separate inquiry.

Since those assurances were made to Celtic officials, Solicitors acting on behalf of shareholders have written to the SFA on no less than three occasions requesting clarification on what the SFA is doing, whether or not the decision from the independent tribunal advising that the matter should go to CAS will be implemented, and requesting a proposed timetable when this will happen. All such letters have been ignored or avoided by the SFA.
Subsequently, the current CEO of the SFA has stated that whether or not the matter should go to CAS will only be determined prior to Christmas 2019 – some 18 months after the ruling by the independent judicial panel.
This position is a complete volte face from what the SFA told Celtic officials immediately after the 2018 panel hearing.

The conclusion to all of this can only be that the SFA is not fit for purpose and that the governance of Scottish football is so bad, so broken and so far removed from normal judicial and corporate business practice that it must be looked at by an independent body if the matter is not referred to CAS.

Further, all of this must be made public, must be out in the open and must be properly disclosed otherwise any future investment in any club whether by private individuals, stock market listed entities, banks, loan houses, credit houses or whatever is predicated on the wholly fraudulent notion that the SFA will consistently apply its own rules or those of UEFA.

Celtic, as a respected member of UEFA, should not and cannot, stand back and allow this shambolic governance to continue unchecked and without external examination as to do so would be doing a total disservice to UEFA, and such a course of action would potentially make Celtic a party to the entire shambolic administration we have seen thus far.

The resolutioners have stated consistently since 2012 that SFA governance is not fit for purpose and have requested that this entire matter should be referred to UEFA as the overall governing body for European football and as a footballing authority who has entrusted the SFA to oversee the fair application of its rules in Scotland.

Despite what is now accepted as continued and regular SFA failure, that request has met with obfuscation and resistance.

However persistence beats resistance and no matter what the outcome of the 2019 Celtic AGM this is an issue which will not go away and is worthy of consideration and determination in a more formal legal forum.


  1. I seldom post but very much enjoy the contributions of many on this site.

    Until yesterday, the focus of the Requisitioners has been quite rightly on the incompetence/corruption at the SFA.

    Yesterday's casual dismissal of Resolution 12 now places Celtic plc in the eye of the storm that awaits, should the Requisitioners decide to continue with their action.

    The plc board are intelligent businessmen. Surely they must know this. They must have assessed the risk and decided that they can see this through.

    I fell totally disheartened.

    Like others, I stopped attending Celtic Park in 2012 at the first whiff of Celtic's complicity in this mess. I am now a livestream viewer who while, thoroughly enjoying the football we play, feels anger and regret that the game I love is so utterly corrupt.

    I hope there is a winnable option open to the Resolution 12 guys, but this is no longer about getting our game back, it's just about trying to get some punishment for the guilty.


  2. From Andrew Smith, in today's 'The Scotsman' print edition:

    "…Resolution 12 dates back to the Scottish FA's decision to license Rangers to participate in the Champions League in season 2012 despite their failing to meet the criteria [my italics] due to unpaid taxes"

    A bold assertion of the facts, for which Andrew Smith deserves recognition.

    [Also in the 'Scotman,' we have some numptie of an ex-Captain in the British Army postulating that TRFC may change the fact that soccer success has not come to the economic powerhouse that is China, following TRFC's decision to establish a Soccer School in Shanghai, with the Yew Cheung International School to which Hateley and Gibson paid a visit earlier this year.]

  3. Allyjambo 27th November 2019 at 13:09


    It is also worthy of note that he is charging them interest, apparently the SA authorities would not sanction anything else. It appears he is impecunious when it suits and the SA authorities curtail his activities at other times.

    It may be worth keeping an eye out for any new securities being registered. 

  4. South Africa sounds like a lovely place to live.

    The Authorities give financial advice, assistance and directions to residents even when those residents have been convicted of tax fraud, narrowly avoided eighty odd years in jail and have been charged with dozens of similar and worse crimes.

    How helpful must the South African Authorities be to decent, honest, law abiding residents?

  5. I have read the comments with regards Dave King having to put his money in so early in the season, I believe that originated from PMG. That would suggest a cash flow issue, in addition to a turnover one. 

    That loan is I believe part of the way in which they are dealing with the £10m shortfall . People have questioned why it would be needed so early in the season, surely cash flow issues would come later on.

    I think it is generally agreed that this shortfall was caused by the purchase of two players, Kent and Hellander if memory serves. Basically they bought players they couldn't afford in order to compete and have had to borrow the money. 

    It does occur though, what terms were the players bought under. If they have to come up with so much of the money straight away, and to clear the debt within the season that would suggest that the other clubs have not given them very much by way of "time to pay". Though to be fair the structure of these deals is not something I am particularly up on. 


  6. Looks like Club 1872 won't be spending all (if any) of their remaining cash in the January share issue extravaganza.

    Club 1872@Club1872rfc

    Delighted to announce that Club 1872 members have voted to approve a project to support @RangersWFC through creating memorable matchday experiences for the Rangers community and providing an equipment fund for players who experience hardship/poverty.

  7. easyJambo 28th November 2019 at 12:12


    Assuming they were ever going to be invited to join in. The feeling I get is that if there is investment it will be specific people doing it, resolution 8 which I believe relates to pre-emption, was passed. 

    I don't think the board has any particular problem with Club 1872's holding being diluted and only sell them shares when there is no-one else with cash they are willing to put in. 

  8. Hugo_Z_Hackenbush 28th November 2019 at 10:15

    '..I hope there is a winnable option open to the Resolution 12 guys, but this is no longer about getting our game back, it's just about trying to get some punishment for the guilty.'


    As said before, I do not speak for the Requisitioners .

    Peter Lawwell  (clearly determined to treat the licence question as a purely football matter) said: ".We will continue to  ask for an independent review and we will wait to see what the outcome is of the SFA charge from last year. We're pushing for that but, unfortunately, you can't force a decision out of them"

    What blathering, misleading  nonsense!

    If I remember correctly the 'charge' from last year was deliberately exclusive of the critical questions- did Rangers lie to the Licensing Committee when they said there was no debt due to be paid by the deadline date-31 March, but not paid?

    And if so, did the Licensing Committee know that they were being lied to but nevertheless awarded the licence?

    Waiting for the result of an enquiry related to a period after 31 March is nothing to the point!

    And, instead of hypocritically wringing  hands and expecting us to believe that 'you can't force a decision' out of the body of which you are a significant and powerful member, Celtic should now take the results of the Requisitioners' research findings as evidence of there being sufficient ground to ask the police to investigate. A quick look at what Rangers had put on their application form and any related  communications between Rangers and the SFA , and a word or two with HMRC would clear up the matter in jig-time.

    The SFA would soon comply, knowing that in a case like this, it would be every  man for himself in face to face interviews with chaps experienced in business /boardroom irregularities and the possibility of such 'irregularities' having crossed the line into criminality.

    If the police were to find nothing to show that reference to COPFS is required, well and good. We could all relax (in the knowledge that some folk might have been given a salutary fright and be extra careful in future)

    If there were to be a reference to the COPFS followed by an actual prosecution…….well and good. 

    as a respecter of the Law, I would accept the verdict of the Court, as I accepted the verdict in the CW trial, and the dropping of charges against the others. 

    I do not accept the Celtic Board's decision to faff about, after they have already strung matters out for six years .

    (and as a wee aside, I detest the patronising manner adopted by Mr Bankier to some of the speakers from the floor)

  9. easyJambo 28th November 2019 at 12:12

    '…providing an equipment fund for players who experience hardship/poverty.'


    What an ineptly   worded  announcement! Worthy of being assessed as 'poor even by Level 5 standards'

    A means-tested 'clothing grant' for poor girls who want to play football! Shades of the old National Assistance Board

    Such poor abilities in the PR line!

    Could they not just have said that they will be spending money on their women's football team and encouraging participation, which is certainly a good and praiseworthy thing to do?


  10. As much as I disagree with the – current – CFC's Board's handling of Res.12…


    Lawwell seems to have tried to wash his hands of the issue – whilst implying 'wilful ignorance' on the shenanigans going on around Scottish football in 2011/12, in particular.


    He is a shrewd and successful CEO: he knows EXACTLY what is going on in Scottish football at any given time, both publicly and behind closed doors.  It's his job to know about any and all potential risks and issues which could impact his club/business.  To state the bleedin' obvious.


    But, to complete the charade, will the SFA CEO Maxwell now be wheeled up from the Hampden bunker to issue a statement to try and kill off further discussion and "to move on"?

    His organisation was very publicly referenced at the CFC AGM, so you would think he would/should respond?


    Or, will the de facto CEO Petrie make a comment?


    …or, will the SFA do absolutely SFA, as per?  smileysmiley

  11. It seems that Celtic are prepared to accept the cheating etc. carried out by Rangers* and the SFA to keep the Blue Pound and the TV deals. What I can't understand though is why they don't speak out and condemn the same club claim and the "going for 55" nonsense. 

  12.  Ballyargus says :"What I can't understand though is why they don't speak out and condemn the same club claim and the "going for 55" nonsense."

    It's because that's part of the whole scam, AKA "the old firm".  It's their golden ticket.



  13. As a lifetime supporter of Celtic Football Club, I felt very saddened and emotional when I saw the headline in the Celtic Star:-

    'Rangers may have been liquidated, but yesterday a little bit of Celtic died' – referring to the Board's stance on Res 12. So true.

    One bit that stood out was when Ian Bankier was asked the relevant question about licensing processes, his answer was that "We have taken Professional advice (I don't believe that for a minute – my words), and are mindful of our duties to shareholders (Dermot Desmond anyone?)".

    I get the business part, but the Board has basically 'shirked its duty, and is arrogantly disrespectful to the ordinary supporters (the vast majority are not shareholders), whilst castigating the Green Brigade (as charitable in their own small way as CFC) who were singled out for costing the club a lot of money (I think Lennon said he could buy a player for the amount!) by their misbehaviour. 

    'Money doesn't talk – it swears' (Bob Dylan).

    Anyway, I'm away the noo(feeling somewhat downheartened)


  14. Ballyargus 28th November 2019 at 17:47
    What I can’t understand though is why they don’t speak out and condemn the same club claim and the “going for 55” nonsense.
    ernie 28th November 2019 at 18:01
    It’s because that’s part of the whole scam, AKA “the old firm”. It’s their golden ticket.
    PL, can’t speak out about it as he has not seen the 5 way agreement. And if you believe that you can believe they are going for 55.

  15. John Clark 28th November 2019 at 12:56
    Could they not just have said that they will be spending money on their women’s football team and encouraging participation, which is certainly a good and praiseworthy thing to do?
    I read somewhere today they had released 15 lady players.

  16. £50m for the gruffolo noow

    £50m for more or less now? Have to say he has developed in to a very saleable asset. Forget about 2nd liquidation guys! Just sayin (I thing I am consistent here) !! The barstewards will survive curtesy of CFC all other clubs and the SFA!






  17. Homunculus @11:54


    In dave kings valedictory adress to the agm at around 29 minutes. He states, subsequent to the annual report, that he has provided the 5m interest bearing loan( south African exchange control authorities not being willing to allow further investments in shares, due to takeover panel issues) for summer transfers. 


    That particular 5m need not be included in monies forthcoming. It has inflated the shortfall, future transfer monies payable and inflated the annual wage bill. 


    Oh and still needs to be paid back(with interest)








  18. For the benefit of Scottish football in Europe it is encouraging to see both CFC and TRFC do well in the Europa League.

    TRFC should qualify, and the expectation is that the Scottish coefficient is now significantly boosted to achieve an extra spot from the 2021/22 season.

    So, on the pitch the clubs are getting on with it – and perhaps slowly changing how others regard the standard of Scottish football?


    But, off the pitch?

    What happens if/when TRFC goes bust?

    Will we have a repeat of the 2012 – global – coverage of 'Rangers' demise?

    That, and all the nonsense which has followed, is a permanent black mark on Scottish football: all because of 1 club.


    It seems like the SFA is sleepwalking – again – into a similar scenario where the 'same club' inflicts untold amounts of negative publicity and stresses across the Scottish game.


    And even more frustrating: the other 41 clubs look as passive as they were in 2011/12…

  19. I heard on Radio Scotland  this morning the recipient of a £569,000 EBT payment (courtesy of the arch-cheat)  propagandise on behalf of 'Scottish Football' and assert that it is flourishing.

    I beg to differ.

    What is flourishing in Scottish Football is the dreadful  culture of lies and deceit made so obviously manifest in the 5-Way Agreement and (possibly) in what may have been criminal abuse of governance pre-dating that Agreement;

    a culture so strong and powerful that no one within it has the courage and moral integrity to challenge it.

    I then read a little report in 'The Scotsman' that caught my eye as I turned a page in the 'business' section.

    It related to a   company[of hugely more value and standing than the piddling little SFA] which " Officers at the Serious Fraud Office have spent the past four years probing what went on at the firm between 2011 and 2015", and against which some shareholders have begun legal action.

     And I cheered myself up with the possibility that fraud officers might still be required to  visit Hampden Park.

    [the report in 'The Scotsman' was only two paras: a fuller report is at this link


  20. There's a piece in the Herald today by Graeme McGarry:

    That the journalist failed to realise that the premise is laughable is worrying. That his editor passed the piece for publication is even more so.

    One of the comments BTL is quite brilliant:

    'This is beyond ridiculous.
    Here's another puzzler for Graeme McGarry to ponder: who has done more for Civil Rights in America? Martin Luther King, or David Duke of the KKK?'


  21. Incidentally, and further to my post of 10.15, I note "Quindell's broker Cenkos was fined £531,000 for its role in the debacle."

    Cenkos was of course the broker for the RIF plc Prospectus: a Prospectus which, in my view, ought not to have been authorised by the FCA.

    In which connection I received yesterday afternoon an email reply from the 'complaints department' of the FCA. It opens as follows 

    ".."Thank you for your email on 7 November 2019.

    We have liaised with the relevant departments, unfortunately we have not received any correspondence in relation to your letter dated 6 September 2019.'

    And it goes on to ask me if I could copy stuff to them!

    I will do, of course.But not until ink cartridges that are on their way to me as I speak actually arrive and let me print off copies of the snail mail letters that I had sent to Bailey and Randell, as well as print versions of all the emails.

    I understand that snail mail can be lost or misdirected ( I did have  proof of delivery of one letter, certainly). I don't understand how emails can be lost (other than by being deleted, whether accidentally or otherwise).

    I still have had no reply from the Clerk to the Treasury Committee.

    I am now interested in these incidents of inefficiency almost as much as I am in the actual subject matter! 


  22. Apologies in advance to those of you who don't care much for a certain Glasgow divide, but I noticed something strange on the SPFL website this morning. 

    The Betfred Cup Final is being advertised as Rangers v Celtic. This despite Celtic being the first team to qualify for the final, and also, given that the final is on neutral ground, surely the only way to state such things is in alphabetical order? Let's say the final had ended up Hearts v Hibs, would the alphabetical order be followed or would Hibs be stated first?

    I guess many of you will see this as nitpicking, but I see it as an indication that the team the authorities consider to be the more important of the two is listed first. 

  23. uth, probably unconscious bias on the part of the SPFL.


    As a fellow hoops fan, I can't get too excited – as there is already an overabundance of very conscious bias from the governing bodies.


    I suppose the advertising of the game will simply result in the confirmation of a 'home' defeat !  

  24. upthehoops 29th November 2019 at 12:39

    "…surely the only way to state such things is in alphabetical order?."


    I think, whatever the basis for deciding, the record since 1946/47 shows that when Celtic met Rangers [great not to have to write TRFC or the Rangers of 1872!] in league cup finals at Hampden , the 'home' team is given as Rangers 6 times and Celtic 5 times, [ my eye may have missed the odd one].  

    But more or less even.

    check this link, uth,

    On those figures I don't think there has historically been a special effort in favour of Rangers?

    At each final, though, somebody must decide what to tell the printer of tickets. I wonder whether there is any kind of League understanding, or is it just left to whoever gives the printer the instructions?

  25. John Clark 29th November 2019 at 13:13


    John, the link you provided shows winning teams first. It does not show how the match was billed in terms of who was the 'home' team. As I say I can see no valid reason for it to be Rangers this time, other than the SPFL simply regarding them as the superior club in terms of importance and status. This seems like good old fashioned 'get to the back of the bus' stuff. 

  26. upthehoops 29th November 2019 at 13:50

    '..the link you provided shows winning teams first.'


    You're right, of course! 

    Kind of you  to refrain from calling  me what I clearly am-an idiot, reading the results list as if it was a fixtures list!!

    Maybe someone will let us know if there is an agreed protocol covering the point? although StevieBC might be right in thinking it's unconscious bias.

  27. I would have thought it depends which tie was drawn out first in the semi final draw.

    the winners of the first tie would have been first in the listing for the final.

  28. John Clark 29th November 2019 at 14:12

    StevieBC might be right in thinking it's unconscious bias.


    As I said, some will see it as nit picking on my part. From my point of view, being in my late 50's, and having grown up in the West of Scotland, I see it very much as deliberate policy.  Just like when they were covering an end of Hampden, they covered the end that Rangers fans would always occupy if they played there. Other fans would get the covered end if Rangers were not playing, but Celtic fans were left exposed to the elements no matter who they played. I know others on here have raised the point about the national stadium having 'ends' and I can see where they are coming from. However, that doesn't take away the fact that the Rangers support were always better catered for than other fans. I haven't been to Hampden since 2007, and unless there is root and branch reform of the SFA I will never be in it again, which means of course I will never be in it again! Especially as even my own club's board appear quite happy to sit at the back of the bus, as evidenced at the recent AGM. 

  29. If you say it as printed , Rangers versus Celtic , the latter club has the more kudos regardless of where you put the emphasis ,imo . Try it with a  different team from TRFC .

  30. Re the billing for the betfred final I thought I would ask the SPFL and within 10 minutes got a reply to my email.

    Good afternoon


    Thanks for your email.


    Our convention for the final is as below…


    Winner of semi-final 1 v winner of semi-final 2


    This was the draw as it came out, hence Rangers v Celtic


    Rangers v Heart of Midlothian

    Hibernian v Celtic


    Kind regards




    Stand down paranoia alert then?



  31. In the interests of fairness it is only right that I confirm the following after a quick check with the SPFL.

    They have confirmed to me the convention is the final is stated every year as the winner of semi final 1 v the winner of semi final 2 as they are drawn. Fair enough. 

  32. Just an observation from RIFC’s latest Confirmation Statement (CS01) submitted to Companies House earlier today.

    The Club's website and Club 1872's website show that Club 1872 holds 16,202,838 shares.

    However the CS01 shows that Club 1872's holding is actually in two parts, the largest being 15,027,838 held by "Club 1872 Shares CIC" and the smaller one with 1,175,000 held by "Club 1872 Projects CIC". The split is the result of the cash held for use by the Projects CIC being redirected to help fund their latest share purchase. The "Projects CIC" investment equates to £235,000 at 20p a share.

    I seem to recall that the Projects CIC had cash (around £400k?) diverted to help fund a previous share purchase in September 2018, but all the shares ended up in the name of the Shares CIC.  There is no practical difference resulting from the split holding, but it's just an oddity that I picked up.

  33. Neil Lennon said that the flairs going off at matches and the fines  payed he could have bought another player.thank goodness they were denied the money or they may have bought .

    Go to Dumbarton Team page

    Isaac Layne

    Forward Dumbarton


  34. A lot of the SMSM reporting correctly that due to improved European performances, Scotland could have 2 CL slots for the season after next, which is great news. I was interested to see how it affected the number of qualifying games the SPFL champions would have to play – remember there was much gnashing of teeth about Celtic having to play 8 games to reach the CL group stages. If Scotland stays in 15th place (the first point at which 2 CL slots become available), they would normally enter at QR2, I think, though this depends on whether or not this year's CL winners qualify via their home league placing. Because last year's CL winners did, the 15th ranked country (Greece) had their champions enter in QR3 this year.

    Interestingly, moving a little further up the rankings helps even more re the early start. Champions of the countries ranked 14th or 13th start automatically in QR3 no matter what. Right now, Scotland in 15th is very close to those in 14th and 13th and there is good news on that front. 14th is the Czech Republic and they currently have only Slavia Prague left representing them; even better, they are just about to finish bottom of their CL group so no further contribution from them meaning Scotland should leapfrog the CR. Denmark, currently in 13th, is represented by Copenhagen who look likely to qualify for the Europa League knockout stages, but as Denmark has only them contributing points, Scotland's 2 contributing clubs could make up the ground required to leapfrog them too. Can Rangers go further?

    Last year, the country in 13th were 'promoted' to start in QR4 instead of QR3 because of the aforementioned CL winners, so leapfrogging Denmark would be worthwhile. Usually 12th and 11th start in QR4, but last year 11th (Austria) had their representative go straight into the Group stages for the same reason.

    The gap to 12th and 11th looks too big for Scotland to close for a number of (good) years yet. 10th is the point at which we get a team straight into the Group stages automatically.

    I wonder if it's better to start in QR4 avoiding an early start, or QR2 to provide a potentially easier start and a chance to build some form/cohesion. Or would QR3 be a better compromise? It seems obvious to prefer the latest start possible, but if that pairs you with a decent team which has reached that stage after a good run of form, that might be scary too!!

  35. StevieBC 29th November 2019 at 09:52
    But, off the pitch?

    What happens if/when TRFC goes bust?
    I guess teams will look at it as karma and a thankyou very much, payback and here is a chance to earn money that may have been lost.
    That, and all the nonsense which has followed, and to have put up with the permanent black mark on Scottish football: all because of 1 club.
    There is an old saying that goes something like.
    “If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by.”
    And through their demise and recklessness if it helped you on your way,All the better, for them to look on and see what they have lost out on.

  36. Re the TRFC v Celtic

    my take on it is Celtic are the holders, and the rangers verses the holders to try and win something. If you are the champion you don't have to V anyone, as everyone knows you are the champion. It is up to the challengers to V the see if THEY can earn the right to be called champions.

  37. easyJambo 29th November 2019 at 17:02
    However the CS01 shows that Club 1872’s holding is actually in two parts, the largest being 15,027,838 held by “Club 1872 Shares CIC” and the smaller one with 1,175,000 held by “Club 1872 Projects CIC”. The split is the result of the cash held for use by the Projects CIC being redirected to help fund their latest share purchase. The “Projects CIC” investment equates to £235,000 at 20p a share.
    Could it be that club 1972 was tapped out at the latest share issue and funds had to be directed from “Club 1872 Projects CIC”.to take part?
    If i remember correctley i think i read something along the lines of “Club 1872 Projects CIC”. were happy for this to happen. But they did recieve some criticism as fans who donated, donated with the expectation their funds would go to projects and not some worthless shares.

  38. Cluster One 29th November 2019 at 18:58


    As stated above I believe Club 1872 had two purposes, one to buy shares and lead to some sort of fan ownership. The other to provide money for projects as agreed with the club. The money was going to be spent equally on both, after 5% was taken for administration. This was the basis on which people signed up to it. 

    Given the club was desperate for money to stay afloat it was decided that buying shares could also be a "project" and most of the money has been spent on buying shares. Demonstrating pretty well just how much control the club has over the Community Interest Company, they use the money donated for basic day to day operations.

    Unfortunately due to the dilution when lenders converted loans to equity their percentage holding has actually dropped rather than increased, so neither purpose is really being met. 

  39. bordersdon 29th November 2019 at 14:58

    '…Winner of semi-final 1 v winner of semi-final 2.'

    upthehoops 29th November 2019 at 15:11

    '..In the interests of fairness it is only right that I confirm..'


    Superb! The blog at its best.

    Well done , gentlemen, in making the effort to establish truth. 

    I tried, and made an ar.e o'masel!heart


  40. easyJambo 29th November 2019 at 13:22

    '..Sport Ireland commissioned the forensic audit of the FAI ..'


    Oh, would that SportScotland would commission a wee audit of the SFA! [I speak without a detailed knowledge of  any differences between the statutory relationship of Sport Ireland to the FAI and the relationship between SportScotland and the SFA/any particular sports entity, and with tongue-in-cheek]

    It took Sportscotland long enough to realise that the legal relationship they had with SDM's Rangers in relation to monies granted for Murray Park went up the spout when Rangers went into Liquidation, and TRFC became the owners , absolutely not legally obliged by the contracts entered into by Rangers!

  41. rumour has it that Arsenal will have to pay Leicester £14M to get Rodgers. Has Lawwell a sell on clausemail

  42. I have to assume sevco v Hearts were first out of the bag seeing as semi final 2 was seemingly played before semi final 1. Hibs v Celtic 2nd Nov sevco v Hearts 3rd Nov.

  43. What does it matter if Lawell has, or has not, had eyes on the secret 5-WA?…It still exists !…A secret pact between our governing bodies and two clubs posing as one.     It's very existence is all that matters……Or can we ALL get one?  

            I propose that the next broadcasting contract is negotiated on the basis that every cup final must include Celtic,  and in league games we can guarantee the broadcaster a minimum of five goals for.            Obviously we have first dibs on that now. However, in the interests of fairness, ALL other clubs can choose their own wee secret.

           It's probably best to draw up a list of "package",agreements to choose from……Otherwise it might get a bit ridiculous. indecision   

              Ooooops !…..Silly me…….We are probably still locked-in to the original one that guarantees we show for 4 Sevvy games……Bugger !!! 

  44. easyJambo 30th November 2019 at 09:57

    Just as well some mega-bucks furriners are champing at the bit to 'invest' in TRFC then. Can more or less guarantee that the money lost in the event TRFC is made to play a game behind closed doors has already been spent. Just have to add another million or so to Morelos' value, I suppose.

  45. It's worth remembering that, if TRFC is required to play their last group game behind closed doors, the majority of the gate money has already been paid via their £111/£123 three-game ticket package. Apparently, according to the MSM, their packages were providing £5.5m income over the three matches or £1.83m per match. There will still be many fixed costs associated with putting on the match, even in an empty stadium.

    Would they simply refund or ask the fans to 'contribute' the price of the last match? Perhaps one for their Level Sinko spinner to consider… 

  46. Corrupt official
    30th November 2019 at 08:50

    What does it matter if Lawell has, or has not, had eyes on the secret 5-WA?…It still exists !…



    Yes, Lawwell's 'daft laddie' act at the AGM in this regard was rather unbecoming for the highly experienced CEO.


    IMO, it was an affront to the minority shareholders, and to the supporters generally.

  47. Jingso.Jimsie 30th November 2019 at 11:27

    I've been wondering about that scenario, too, Jingso, and have no idea how it might pan out. It's not like a game called off for bad weather where some supporters might not be able to attend the rescheduled match but are not due a refund. This would be an avoidable situation where the club will have been held liable so it's possible that not refunding money would be outwith UEFA rules or even UK law, and the question would be raised, why allow a club that has sold so many tickets in advance to profit while smaller clubs with no/few tickets already sold would suffer a clear financial loss? I am sure, though, that there are still seats to be sold (that wouldn't now be sold) and a great deal of catering sales and hospitality packages lost so there will be a major financial hit while much of the match day expense will remain.

    I wonder, too, if Young Boys' supporters will already have incurred costs such as transport etc and have a claim against TRFC, perhaps Young Boys, themselves, will have sold travel packages that will now need to be cancelled. Could be quite an expensive mess.

    If ticket sales, travel etc, have to be refunded/reimbursed, that's yet another unbudgeted for work and expense! Up to their knees in refund paperwork. Now that's Karma!

  48. Regarding TRFC's possible stadium closure sanction. I think it would be fairer to close for the next game following Group stage finale. Thus Porto are not disadvantaged and no problems with ticketing/travelling arrangements. TRFC have likely spent the revenue generated by the last group game already and it would be a bitter pill to get no bounty from a last 32 game should they qualify. 

  49. John Clark 29th November 2019 at 23:19


    bordersdon 29th November 2019 at 14:58

    '…Winner of semi-final 1 v winner of semi-final 2.'

    upthehoops 29th November 2019 at 15:11

    '..In the interests of fairness it is only right that I confirm..'


    Superb! The blog at its best.

    Well done , gentlemen, in making the effort to establish truth.


    It was also a wee reminder to myself not to get the paranoid heid on so quickly without knowing the full facts!

  50. " In the event of a stadium closure we have set in place contingency plans to ensure the club* does not suffer financially , level 5 have been instructed to increase the value of Alfredo Morelos by £5m. " 

  51. There are a couple of issues regards any impending transfer of Mr Morelos  , one is the work permit issue that we are aware of the other is the release clause in his contract that if any club interested in him meets they will be free to offer him terms . I am led to believe the figure is around 5m . This was negotiated at his last contract increase when the fantasy figures were closer to 10m than 50m and the bad boy image was still very relevant.The fancy figures being bandied about are not in the hope that a club will make a silly offer but are intended to attract potential investors to participate in the share issue/buy out King or just get involved financially with the club with the belief that the squad is a treasure trove of riches that could easily offset any outstanding bills.It is also designed to calm any nervy creditors from demanding payment. Any club interested will have a quiet word with the agent to gauge potential interest , if there is a release clause and what potential package he is looking for. The agent knows that by minimising the offer to the release clause means more is left for the wage negotiations . It has already been slipped out by his agent that the price isn't that high and clubs should move quickly . The reason for that is he hopes to start a bidding war for his player . Minty was a master at the smoke and mirrors , King really isn't any different. 

  52. TT, that is interesting.

    If Morelos' release clause is nearer to 'the quantum' of £5M, you would have to wonder why even a Championship club hasn't bought him already?

    IIRC, if a bidding club matches the release clause, an unwilling, selling club can't do much about it – and it's for the player to agree personal terms to his satisfaction before buggering off.

    [I think this was the scenario when Liverpool lost Saurez to Barcelona?]


    Anyhoos, the fact that no Championship club – or indeed any other European club – has put in an offer, [as far as we know], then it could indicate that potential buyers regard the work permit uncertainty as a deal breaker?


    And from TRFC's point of view, it's a no-brainer: publicly state they won't sell Morelos for any price – whilst hoping he gets more playing time for his national team to satisfy any work permit queries?


    Despite the silly Ibrox valuation of £40M or £50M or whatever,

    …without a valid work permit, Morelos is probably worth closer to £0 to any EU club.

    [China might be his best bet after all? enlightened ]

  53. This proves Celtic Board are in cahoots with them….SECVCO/NEWCO

    from the trademarks website.

    22 November 2018
    Recordal registration. Recordal type: Full assignment
    Full Assignment RC000115952 received on date 30/10/2018 has been recorded, resulting to the change of ownership from Celtic F.C.Limited (id: 218706, country: GB),The Rangers Football Club plc (id: 613657, country: GB) to Celtic F.C.Limited (id: 218706, country: GB),Sevco Scotland Limited (id: 613831, country: GB). The effective date of assignment is 14/06/2012.

    Really sorry this was not raised at Celtic AGM

  54. paraniodbyexperience 1st December 2019 at 09:05

    '..This proves Celtic Board are in cahoots with them….SECVCO/NEWCO

    from the trademarks website….'


    It certainly shows that Celtic were determined to cling on to any economic benefit of  supporting the 'Big Lie' by going along with another lie , namely, that the football rivalry between Celtic Football club and the then (2012) brand new football club SevcoScotland, was a simple continuation of the old rivalry that had existed with a defunct football club: in spite of the fact that  the 'Old Firm' trade mark registration had as a matter of legal necessity had to be amended to show a different legal entity as the 'other cheek' of the ar.e.

    I have no idea of much merchandise, or other rights to use the trademark, is sold under the 'Old Firm'  trade mark?

    But whether it's millions of pounds worth, or nothing at all, the readiness to pretend that TRFC is Rangers of 1872  is as unprincipled a support for the 5-Way Agreement as anything the SFA board has done.



  55. Timtim 1st December 2019 at 01:11


    Surely if there is a release clause in his contract then any "bidding war" would relate to the players wages / signing on fee rather than the price of his registration. Why would anyone pay more than the release clause, better to spend the money on securing the players signature on a contract.

  56. @ Homunculus 12:32

    Yes the "bidding war" would be about the wage package offered to the player , the club have no say or control over who signs who once the release clause offer has been met. 

  57. easyJambo27th November 2019 at 13:39

    Petrie and Dickson still have executive positions at the SFA – does that concern you?


    it’s difficult for me to comment individuals. where we can we will hold people to account.

    Lawwell insists he has never seen the ‘five-way agreement’. Says he and Celtic have never had any involvement.



    Res12 to 2019 was always going to be outvoted and its primary purpose was to bring events since 2013 into the open and establish Celtic's position by having a record posted in AGM history that all could see. No need for behind door meetings with folk no longer trusted.

    In that respect the response to the question on the 5 Way will make that untrustworthiness  open to all.

    The chap who posed the question has a blog called Video Celts and that response by Lawwell will raise doubts about the honesty of the motives for not only not taking the matter out of SFA hands but finding reason not to interfere in the SFA stalled JPDT, a process that itself is untrustworthy as will be made clear in due course.

    To clean up Scottish football the band of brothers that are Petrie, Dickson,Lawwell and Eric Riley need to be removed from their unaccountable positions.


  58. Auldheid 1st December 2019 at 20:44 

    A follow up from the AGM of interest possibly…


    Thanks for sharing that Auldheid.


    Talking of referees;

    • has Lawwell ever commented publicly about the currently (?) vacant Head of Referee Operations?


    • has he commented on the introduction of VAR in the SPL and its current status?

    The 'Refs Summit' for all SPL managers in February had produced an outcome that 'VAR was going to be looked at' – as a result of all the complaints about the standard of match officiating.

  59. Is it overly simplistic to observe that the latest revelations merely confirm what we've always known, but which Celtic fans have always denied, namely that Celtic FC always was and still is, complicit in the club continuity myth and subsequent title-stripping avoidance, despite falsely publicly claiming to know nothing of the five-way agreement that facilitated both of those matters? 

  60. Highlander

    The idea that Celtic were not involved was supported with what looked  like activity that gave the impression they were on the outside, including adjourning Res12  that allowed uncovering not possible had it been killed at 2013 AGM.

    There was also factor that 5 Way was not signed by individual clubs but SPL on behalf of member clubs also SFA and SFL.


    Plausible deniability has been the result but is no longer so according to the VC article referring to a date of an inbox item.

    That is the first bit of concrete evidence that will make denial impossible.

  61. '…Auldheid 1st December 2019 at 23:17

    '..That is the first bit of concrete evidence that will make denial impossible..'


    That prompts me, Auldheid, to repeat what I said before:

    "It is failure by the Celtic Board to give adequate and justified and sufficient reasons as to why they have not insisted on such investigation that arouses suspicion in the mind of shareholders ,to whom they are accountable, that they too have something to hide"

    I heard nothing at the AGM that showed that the Board were acting in the best interests of their shareholders!

    Lots of shareholders believe that the Board might well have been party by at least silent acquiescence, to the most disgraceful act of deceit/fraud perpetrated in the history of the SFA.

    Lies and deception, or silence about such, are never in the long term in the best interests of anyone.

    Lawwell gave not one single reason for the Board's view that a 'yes 'vote for Res 12 would not be in the best interests of shareholders. He just asserted that that was the Board's view, no explanation. 

    It was a pretty pathetic performance by a man who knows damn fine he is on shaky ground.

    I believe the Board is lying to itself, and lying to shareholders. Instead of boldly and confidently seeking the truth in 2013, they have used, and are continuing to use, every possible dodge to avoid having the truth dug out and possible criminal proceedings brought against the SFA.

    Sod that for a game of soldiers (or a game of football)

    It makes them as black -hearted in cheating  as any of the parcel of rogues that have emerged as a result of the arch-cheat's absolutely vile and rotten cheating.

    What price 9/10 iar if Celtic FC is to be equated with RFC of 1872 and its Board, or with RIFC plc and its board in the cheating stakes?

    Who in hell could be interested?

    Celtic was, is, in pole position to get proper investigation done so that the truth can be established. 

    No acceptable and sound reason for them not having done so, and continuing to refuse to do so, was given at the AGM.

    And that is a shame.




  62. Oh well, here we go again: the week before another hugely significant TRFC v. CFC game.

    Despite being only the LC, this game is arguably HUGE for the Ibrox club: their first piece of 'proper' silverware, bragging rights for a while – and mibbees an opportunity to make the club a bit more appealing to any potential investors?

    (If there are any.) 

    And as we saw with previous seasons' pitch invasions to celebrate TRFC winning routine league games – a LC win would be trumpeted by the TRFC, the bears and the SMSM as being the equivalent of winning the Champions' League and the World Club Cup combined!


    So, this week the SMSM 'journalists' can expect their copy/paste instructions to consist of;

    – unsubstantiated, good news p!sh for TRFC

    – unsubstantiated, bad news p!sh for CFC.

    i.e. the usual…


    Traynor got off to a quick start with Juventus 'eyeing' Kamara for £8M.

    Even Gerrard blushed at that one – and has very publicly scoffed at it as being 'made up'. [Traynor will be red in the face too, but in anger.]


    Mibbees Traynor will have to focus on negative stories on CFC instead this week…?

  63. Auldheid 1st December 2019 at 20:44


    From the VC article:

    "Why Lawwell doesn’t want UEFA to take a look and give their verdict can lead to only one conclusion- Celtic have something to hide in this, there is something that they’d rather keep quiet about".

    That sense has been growing with me for some time, but what could it be?

    On the basis of no evidence whatsoever, is it possible that Celtic fronted up the SFA in late 2011 or early 2012, they held their hands up, and a deal was done behind the scenes, possibly with UEFA involved, which all parties want to remain undiscovered?

  64. From Daily Record article about Aberdeen's debt . Is it saying that TRFC/RIFC's debt has been fully financed ?

    Rangers sit bottom of the table and have a pre-existing debt of £11.4m which has been converted into shares while the Dons' arrears have been turned into capital.

  65. 'StevieBC 2nd December 2019 at 13:01

    …Traynor got off to a quick start with Juventus 'eyeing' Kamara for £8M…'


    The nuttiest part of the Kamara squirrel was that Juve were interested in signing a twenty-four & a bit year-old player for £8m on a 'development deal'. (For those that place any credence on such sites, Transfermarkt values him at £765k.)

    The Italians might sign teenagers for that sort of money to that sort of deal, but I think Kamara's at least five (and more likely, seven) years too old to fit the profile they'd be looking for. 

Comments are closed.