Larry Cafiero: It seems that the Resolution 12 issue was a contentious one at the 2019 AGM back in November. It appeared that Peter Lawwell tried to sweep it under the rug prior to the meeting. And in the meeting, nothing came of the issue. Lawwell said at the AGM that UEFA was not interested in pursuing licensing inconsistencies for Rangers/The Rangers from 2011. Yet Ian Bankier went on to say at the same meeting that UEFA investigated and found nothing. Many Celtic fans are seeking – and rightfully demanding – an answer. Which of these two versions of the story do you think it might be?
Auldheid: The new Resolution 12 at 2019 AGM to transfer any investigation from SFA jurisdiction to UEFA was rejected by Celtic, even although the SFA had reportedly passed their right to pursue justice to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) because of a clause in the 5 Way Agreement between The SFA, The SPL, The SFL, Sevco and Rangers FC made on 27 July 2012.
A number of shareholders who supported Resolution 12 are unhappy at the answers given to them at the AGM and have since written to Celtic seeking clarity on top table responses supported by the forensic professional accountant’s report into events during the period when the UEFA License was granted in March/April 2011. Celtic were asked to read and digest then if they agreed the conclusions to pass to the SFA to bring the matter to a close by March if not sooner. The shareholders await a response and the full 18-page report, and 65 pages of appendixes that support it, will be made available online.
Larry Cafiero: So let’s look at the SFA’s involvement in how we are in this situation today. UEFA has asked the SFA to “tighten their ship,” so to speak, regarding the checking of overdue payables to tax authorities. To your knowledge, or to anyone else’s, has the SFA exhibited any evidence that they have done so?
Auldheid: News that the SFA had been asked to “tighten their ship,” specifically with reference to overdue payables to players AND tax authorities, was contained in the UEFA Compliance and Investigation Activity report 2017 to 2019 that can be downloaded from https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/about-uefa/news/newsid=2637525.html It was not publicised to my knowledge but it does beg the question, how far back does the noncompliance go and it certainly supports the findings of SFA negligence at best in the professional accountant report sent to Celtic by shareholders in early January.
Larry Cafiero: So to see if I understand all this – as an American witnessing this from across the ocean in a sports environment that is somewhat different that what I am accustomed to here – terms like Resolution 12, LNS, and a 5 Way Agreement are somewhat foreign. I would imagine that the best way to ask this question is in three parts.
First: How could Peter Lawwell, the CEO of Scotland’s biggest club by awards won on the field and money raised through commercial operations and match play, state that pursing the club’s interests as directed by the club’s supporter/ stakeholders through Resolution 12 is not in the PLC’s interest?
Auldheid: That is a question Peter Lawwell and The Celtic Board have to satisfactorily answer to shareholders and the failure to do so combined with directing shareholder representatives down an SFA path in 2013 that has parked that supposed investigation in a CAS cul de sac, for 18 months, which was the alternative to involving UEFA, only adds to the perception that he/Celtic has/have something to hide.
Larry Cafiero: The second part of the question: How could Lawwell allow the LNS ruling to stand unchallenged after the HMRC victory in the Supreme Court?
Auldheid: The appearance of challenging LNS and being refused by the SFA is contained in a series of letters between the SFA and SPFL released in September 2017 https://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/SFA_Correspondence.pdf
The SFA did recognise that the Craig Whyte court testimony justified investigating the UEFA 2011 license issue but not LNS. The SFA did suggest the SPFL present Lord Nimmo Smith with the Tax Tribunal testimony of Sir David Murray that EBTs were used by Rangers to secure wage competitive advantage, but it is not clear if this was followed up along with the details of the unlawful DOS EBTs kept from LNS scrutiny that had been provided to Eric Riley in 2014 as a member of the SPFL Board.
The detail of that saga can be read at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9dnVHSl9OU3RoWm8/view
The latter concealment of significant evidence should have overruled any legal advice the SFA sought in 2017 and in any case the LNS Commission was a then SPL-led investigation, so why could the SPFL in 2017 not ignore the SFA and conduct a review? They instigated LNS and if that Commission had been misled by non-disclosure of unlawful EBTs with side letter with related HMRC correspondence surely they could shout “red card, red card” (foul!)
CONTINUE TO NEXT PAGE…
