Illegal Share Price Manipulation?
- Thread starter BrunoseAlves
- Start date
Zander73
Well-Known Member
A few of us have been targeting the sponsors for weeks. The replies are on the other thread and all their contact details.
The first person that we should be looking to report for any errors in the financial statements is the Auditors - reporting BDO to the English Institute as a matter of concern should be the first port of call and then the Financial Reporting Council.
When any complaint over the reliability of an audit or the reporting contained within a set of accounts the governing body would be the first port of call and then the FRC.
The FRC does state that asking the firm to review the position in the first place but i would go to the institute stating that you don't believe that your complaint would be taken seriously.
https://www.frc.org.uk/auditors/pro...aints-about-statutory-auditors,-accountants-a
https://www.icaew.com/about-icaew/r...-interest/complaints-process/make-a-complaint
This would be a wake up call to the auditors, Celtic and their shareholders because any damages payable would have an impact on the truth and fairness of the financial statements and i am sure the institute and the stock exchange would have to take the matter seriously and investigate, infact any complaint made to the institute is investigated as a matter of course.
This is the guy who signed off on the audit.
Alastair Rae (senior statutory auditor) For and on behalf of BDO LLP, Statutory Auditor Glasgow 19 September 2018 BDO LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (with registered number OC305127).
When any complaint over the reliability of an audit or the reporting contained within a set of accounts the governing body would be the first port of call and then the FRC.
The FRC does state that asking the firm to review the position in the first place but i would go to the institute stating that you don't believe that your complaint would be taken seriously.
https://www.frc.org.uk/auditors/pro...aints-about-statutory-auditors,-accountants-a
https://www.icaew.com/about-icaew/r...-interest/complaints-process/make-a-complaint
This would be a wake up call to the auditors, Celtic and their shareholders because any damages payable would have an impact on the truth and fairness of the financial statements and i am sure the institute and the stock exchange would have to take the matter seriously and investigate, infact any complaint made to the institute is investigated as a matter of course.
This is the guy who signed off on the audit.
Alastair Rae (senior statutory auditor) For and on behalf of BDO LLP, Statutory Auditor Glasgow 19 September 2018 BDO LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (with registered number OC305127).
Last edited:
cambridgeblue
Well-Known Member
Again - rumours are rumours.
When did the solicitors for the victims first formally approach Celtic ? This is the key date.
Before that Celtic's obligations are reduced.
When did the solicitors for the victims first formally approach Celtic ? This is the key date.
Before that Celtic's obligations are reduced.
jf1960
Well-Known Member
Should be made a sticky and bombard them every day I would do it and they cvnts would certainly do it if it was about us
Bazoo
Well-Known Member
Missing from their risk register are the following
- Compensation payments to hundreds of victims
- Demotion to bottom tier of football
- Loss of European license
- Imprisonment of Directors for deception of LSE
- Desertion of sponsorship
- Fines from EUFA/SFA
- Brand becomes toxic
- Share price collapse
- LSE financial punishment
- Criminal investigation of cover-up of child abuse
I do like their stadium safety certificate was mentioned
Britvic55
Well-Known Member
Sensiblesteve
Well-Known Member
The mentally challengeds are all ready on record saying it’s been an ongoing investigation for over 2 years
Bottom line is they've been caught lying one way or another, either to all the media over their insurers investigation or not detailing it in their accounts , so which lie is it ?
Mason Boyne
Well-Known Member
Again, we were not demoted. We were kicked out of the spl and had to apply to join the lowest league in the country due to the vacancy that that created.
We were in effect kicked out of football.
If Spartans had apppied for that spot in competition to us , who knows how the voting may have went.
They didn’t demote us they tried to kill us.
SuperGers07
Well-Known Member
Superrangers
Well-Known Member
I don’t really subscribe to there having to be Director transactions or not. It’s about misleading the market and all potential investors. Were Directors dumping shares, for me it would only exacerbate the issue.
BrunoseAlves
Well-Known Member
Mate that sounds like advice from someone that knows their way around such matters. Any chance you could confirm that you have appropriate experience/expertise? Feel free to PM me.
Resolution 1690...we demand justice.
Raj Kebab
Well-Known Member
Couldn't we post it in the South Korean daily news if we are going to print it in Mandarin?No problem at all, a Swiss paper with the advert in Mandarin
In commemoration of the tour of Japan!
Edmond Dantes
Well-Known Member
Should have left for Good!
I complained about their market abuse in writing to the Financial Conduct Authority Whistleblowing Department. Got this reply, this morning:
Dear CDC,
Thank you for your email and sharing your concerns. I shall pass the information on to our Customer Queries Team who are best placed to take this forward. To guarantee a response from the team I suggest contacting them directly.
Their details can be found at the following link. When writing to them please make clear what the Market Abuse concerns are, so that it is clear what may fall in to the FCA’s remit
https://www.fca.org.uk/contact
Yours sincerely
Adam
Adam Ferris
Whistleblowing, Strategy, Policy, International & Intelligence
Enforcement and Market Oversight Division
12 Endeavour Square
London
E20 1JN
Tel: +44 (0)20 7066 9200
www.fca.org.uk
I have since followed it up to his suggested contact.
Dear CDC,
Thank you for your email and sharing your concerns. I shall pass the information on to our Customer Queries Team who are best placed to take this forward. To guarantee a response from the team I suggest contacting them directly.
Their details can be found at the following link. When writing to them please make clear what the Market Abuse concerns are, so that it is clear what may fall in to the FCA’s remit
https://www.fca.org.uk/contact
Yours sincerely
Adam
Adam Ferris
Whistleblowing, Strategy, Policy, International & Intelligence
Enforcement and Market Oversight Division
12 Endeavour Square
London
E20 1JN
Tel: +44 (0)20 7066 9200
www.fca.org.uk
I have since followed it up to his suggested contact.
jf1960
Well-Known Member
Oh Yes plenty of people on here and elsewhere have contacted The LSE on their online contact form
Zander73
Well-Known Member
If anyone is still interested or has not seen it then the list of sponsors and contact details are on the multi million thread. Page 9, post 414.
Excellent work by George Goudie
Bearnecessities
Well-Known Member
Fair points, just see alot of things on twitter and here like they deserve to go to 3rd division etc and it comes off really petty.
Hateleysheid
Well-Known Member
We could in theory start a trading account and buy shares in their sponsors then ask them pertinent questions as a shareholder.
Zander73
Well-Known Member
Personally I don’t want them relegated to the 3rd division. For their disgusting crimes and systematic coverups they should be shut down but that’s another thread.
I’ll Remember I’ll Try
Active Member
I wasn’t asking a question. I was stating a fact. I get the wider point being address in the thread though.
Ricksen
Well-Known Member
Scary to think what would’ve happened had we been denied entry to div 3.
Carson no1
Well-Known Member
Superb effort
Carson no1
Well-Known Member
War and I mean it
Carson no1
Well-Known Member
They have templates that they just go on and copy and send
We should play same game sticky all appropriate ones so we can all access easy
This topic is beyond me, and I understand it to a certain extent.
To collate all of the information listed in these posts, perhaps we should ask anyone within our support, who is well versed in Stocks & Shares, to take ownership of this enquiry, and to take the necessary steps to take this to the correct Authority.
This “ institution “, Celtic PLC, and I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt here, should be brought to task , and the relevant consequences or penalties should be dropped at their door.
To reiterate my initial point, we need an expert within our support in the Financial Sector, to ensure that this issue is not swept under the carpet.
To collate all of the information listed in these posts, perhaps we should ask anyone within our support, who is well versed in Stocks & Shares, to take ownership of this enquiry, and to take the necessary steps to take this to the correct Authority.
This “ institution “, Celtic PLC, and I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt here, should be brought to task , and the relevant consequences or penalties should be dropped at their door.
To reiterate my initial point, we need an expert within our support in the Financial Sector, to ensure that this issue is not swept under the carpet.
My initial email to the Financial Conduct Authority, Whistleblowing Section was passed to the relevant section for investigation.
I received this, today, from the FCA, Market Integrity Unit.:
Dear CDC
Thank you for your complaint on 16 June 2019 regarding Celtic Football Club PLC (the “Company”). We have noted your concerns around the Company’s conduct.
This matter has been passed to the Market Integrity Unit in the Market Oversight Directorate (MO) of the FCA. MO is responsible among other things for monitoring AIM companies’ compliance with Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on Market Abuse (the Market Abuse Regulation or MAR).
We are reviewing the issues that you have brought to our attention with a view to determining whether it is appropriate for us to exercise any of our statutory powers. As part of such reviews we may use the information gathering powers available to us to seek further information from the subjects of the enquiry and reach out to other agencies as appropriate.
Once we have completed our review, we will consider whether it is appropriate for the FCA to launch a formal investigation via its Enforcement Division, whether some other form of intervention is required or whether the case should be closed with no action. In particular, an important part of our consideration is the potential seriousness of the misconduct.
As noted in our Approach to Enforcement, not all breaches of our rules or requirements constitute serious misconduct, however, where we suspect serious misconduct, we will start an enforcement investigation. We use our experience and judgement to ascertain whether this suspicion exists and there are a number of considerations we take into account when doing so. Chapter 2 of our Approach to Enforcement document provides further detail on these considerations, which include the nature of the actual and potential harm involved; the extent to which the suspected misconduct has or may affect consumers, markets or firms if we do not take action; and the public interest in investigating the matter.
As a matter of policy, we do not provide details to members of the public about the content of our assessments (including where we decide that there are no grounds for further action). Unless our work results in a public disciplinary outcome, the FCA does not comment on these matters. We understand that this can sometimes be frustrating but you can find further information on why we take this approach here.
Please be assured that we take all complaints raised against issuers of securities subject to our rules seriously and we are considering the concerns that you have raised. We will contact you if we have any questions regarding the issues that you have raised and apologise for being unable to provide you with any further details, but we trust that you will understand the reasons for this.
We thank you for taking the time to contact us and we hope that our response to your concerns has been helpful. If however you find that our response has been unsatisfactory and you feel you have grounds to make a complaint against the FCA on this matter, you may wish to refer to our website on how to do so, by clicking here.
If any further information comes to your attention in relation to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Market Integrity Unit
FCA
I received this, today, from the FCA, Market Integrity Unit.:
Dear CDC
Thank you for your complaint on 16 June 2019 regarding Celtic Football Club PLC (the “Company”). We have noted your concerns around the Company’s conduct.
This matter has been passed to the Market Integrity Unit in the Market Oversight Directorate (MO) of the FCA. MO is responsible among other things for monitoring AIM companies’ compliance with Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on Market Abuse (the Market Abuse Regulation or MAR).
We are reviewing the issues that you have brought to our attention with a view to determining whether it is appropriate for us to exercise any of our statutory powers. As part of such reviews we may use the information gathering powers available to us to seek further information from the subjects of the enquiry and reach out to other agencies as appropriate.
Once we have completed our review, we will consider whether it is appropriate for the FCA to launch a formal investigation via its Enforcement Division, whether some other form of intervention is required or whether the case should be closed with no action. In particular, an important part of our consideration is the potential seriousness of the misconduct.
As noted in our Approach to Enforcement, not all breaches of our rules or requirements constitute serious misconduct, however, where we suspect serious misconduct, we will start an enforcement investigation. We use our experience and judgement to ascertain whether this suspicion exists and there are a number of considerations we take into account when doing so. Chapter 2 of our Approach to Enforcement document provides further detail on these considerations, which include the nature of the actual and potential harm involved; the extent to which the suspected misconduct has or may affect consumers, markets or firms if we do not take action; and the public interest in investigating the matter.
As a matter of policy, we do not provide details to members of the public about the content of our assessments (including where we decide that there are no grounds for further action). Unless our work results in a public disciplinary outcome, the FCA does not comment on these matters. We understand that this can sometimes be frustrating but you can find further information on why we take this approach here.
Please be assured that we take all complaints raised against issuers of securities subject to our rules seriously and we are considering the concerns that you have raised. We will contact you if we have any questions regarding the issues that you have raised and apologise for being unable to provide you with any further details, but we trust that you will understand the reasons for this.
We thank you for taking the time to contact us and we hope that our response to your concerns has been helpful. If however you find that our response has been unsatisfactory and you feel you have grounds to make a complaint against the FCA on this matter, you may wish to refer to our website on how to do so, by clicking here.
If any further information comes to your attention in relation to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Market Integrity Unit
FCA
kclarkhall
Well-Known Member
Scottish football would have died, eventually.
Hillheadbear
Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaallllllllll
The fact of an investigation would not necessarily mean an error in the financial statements. For an auditor it would be a factor to take into account in the risk assessment. However, in the absence of any actual compensation claims or any ongoing litigation, the extent of that risk would be unquantifiable. As such, it would not require any provisions in the accounts or a going concern statement.
Nevertheless, there may be a disclosure requirement in their financial statements but that would be necessarily vague; perhaps a UK CA could help us on that.
Let's not mix up audit and stock exchange rules here.
Bazoo
Well-Known Member
I really do hope they get severe financial punishments for this
Rodney Wallace
Well-Known Member
UK corporate governance code:
C.1 - the company should present a fair and understandable assessment of the company's position and prospects.
C.2 - The board is responsible for determining the nature and extent of principle risks it is willing to take and maintaining sound risk management and internal control systems.
Company directors are required to carry out a robust assessment of principle risks and how they are being managed to mitigated.
This all relates directly to the rule on "Inside Information" - the definition of which is information of a precise nature which has not been made public, relating directly or indirectly, which if we're made public would be likely to have a significant effect on the prices of shares.
Celtic have breached their responsibilities.
Please include the FCA, London Stock Exchange and the Complaints Commissioner in any mailing lists.
C.1 - the company should present a fair and understandable assessment of the company's position and prospects.
C.2 - The board is responsible for determining the nature and extent of principle risks it is willing to take and maintaining sound risk management and internal control systems.
Company directors are required to carry out a robust assessment of principle risks and how they are being managed to mitigated.
This all relates directly to the rule on "Inside Information" - the definition of which is information of a precise nature which has not been made public, relating directly or indirectly, which if we're made public would be likely to have a significant effect on the prices of shares.
Celtic have breached their responsibilities.
Please include the FCA, London Stock Exchange and the Complaints Commissioner in any mailing lists.
Grigo Yossarian
Well-Known Member
Well done Charlie.
Either way you will get an objective evaluation & no cover up from them mate. Unlike this mhob up here.
Grigo Yossarian
Well-Known Member
Another Good post PW.
I won't hold my breath with that one,mate.
Hillheadbear
Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaallllllllll
We don't know whether they have carried out a "robust assessment of principle risks and how they are being managed to mitigated" or not. My guess is that they have which is why they have gone with the separate entity nonsense.
The real issue is one of disclosure and, given that the financial consequences are unquantifiable for the time being, this is probably a judgement call.
I will admit that I don't know the stock exchange rules. However, I suspect that they are not in breach of them as yet because there have been no actual compensation claims and no actual litigation against them.
What information is actually public? They have issued no statement of what they investigated or if they found anything, so right now NOTHING is in the public domain.
Why? Surely the date of the original offence is the key date, not when it was reported. Break the law it's when it happened not when it was reported. Am I missing it here?
Zander73
Well-Known Member
Nice one Prod. Well done mate
Rodney Wallace
Well-Known Member
Without getting to bogged down in rules. They appear not to have disclosed a secret investigation into something that has the potential to impact their share price and balance sheet.
That is inside information. If one person bought one share and would have made a different decision knowing an investigation into child abuse was ongoing - that's inside information.
Rodney Wallace
Well-Known Member
Sorry mate should have also added. A risk does not need to come to fruition for it to require raising.
You mention the word quantifiable, which is a fair point.
I'd counter that though by saying there is a myriad of test and other cases in the public sphere that indicates that financial impact in these matters is likely. Penn State and Man City for starters.
That is more than enough to classify as a risk with potential financial impact.
Be interested to see Man City accounts if they mentioned it last year, or in the next set of accounts that are released.
Bazoo
Well-Known Member
Their liability for the Risk (compensation etc) started the moment they became aware kids were abused by Torbett. This grew as the number of paedos participating in abuse at Celtic grew.
If they never shared that information with their subsequent insurers then I don’t think any insurer would pay out on their behalf so it is ‘owned’ by Celtic.
This gives them a financial headache which they chose to hide and in effect deceive investors and the financial markets.
Lawell is a finance guy and understands 100% what is expected in a set of accounts and indeed does a half arsed Risk register in his accounts, the elephant in that particular room is that he did not put in the risk that he knows will eventually crystallise. - possibly a financially criminal act?
Rodney Wallace
Well-Known Member
Can I check the status of this - has anyone taken the recommendations forward?
Hillheadbear
Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaallllllllll
The issue is one of disclosure and the question is whether they are required to disclose a risk when the impact of that risk is not quantifiable and when there are no actual claims or actual litigation. Businesses incur all sorts of risks but they don't generally disclose them until there is a quantifiable and material financial impact.
Even if there is actual litigation or actual compensation the amount at risk and whether it is material to the financial statements will drive the requirement for disclosure. Or, to put it in plain English, if they can get away with not paying very much then they may not have to disclose it.
The investigation itself is not something they would be required to disclose. It is the potential financial consequences arising from the results of the investigation which may be disclosable. That is likely to be a judgement call.
There may well be a significant financial impact if there are a large number of claims, if the claimants litigate and if the insurance declines to pay out (which is likely IMHO). That impact will come in the form of compensation awards and legal fees. If Celtic agree to pay compensation out of court then the financial impact will be less. Once again, it is not quantifiable at this point in time.
So the rules do matter and the rules will set out what has to be disclosed and when. I suspect that Celtic are not in breach of Stock Exchange rules at this point in time much as we would like them to be.
History tells us that the real risk to Celtic is reputational where the brand becomes toxic and where sponsors and customers walk away.
Grigo Yossarian
Well-Known Member
Well firstly the information about McCafferty’s conviction, and his interviews thereafter, were public knowledge.
Secondly, Celtic’s statement about the 2 year investigation was public. Whether we believed it or not was another matter, and I think most didn’t, but either way it was a public statement in relation to potential liabilities.
Now I’m not an investment analyst or an economist mate but I’m sure they’ll tell you about the efficient market hypothesis ? Ie the market will urgently translate public information into the share price ?
Despite no knowledge of what that financial impact might be at that stage, and this even now, that doesn’t mean investment analysts don’t evaluate share impacts on these things does it ? That’s why general inflation & unemployment numbers impact specific companies’ share prices is it not ?
“Prima facie case to answer”?
Virgil Hilts
Well-Known Member
Bazoo
Well-Known Member
Not 100% sure I agree wrt the not quantifiable risk. If a company knows they have risk that has a very good chance of happening but know it will not be cheap but don’t understand the upper exposure then it is ok to not disclose?
Hillheadbear
Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaallllllllll
It depends.
Do they know how many claimants they are going to have?
Do they have a QC opinion on their chances of prevailing in court?
Do they know the range of awards they are likely to face should they lose in court?
What will be the likely cost of legal fees?
What out of court settlement are claimants likely to accept?
Will it be material to the financial statements?
Rodney Wallace
Well-Known Member
The issue is non-disclosure, not disclosure.
Be very interesting to see their next accounts.
