A few of us have been targeting the sponsors for weeks. The replies are on the other thread and all their contact details.100% Target their sponsors & see how they like being in the spotlight.
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 usA few of us have been targeting the sponsors for weeks. The replies are on the other thread and all their contact details.
The Annual Report of Them plc dealt with the y/e June 2018 and nowhere were the potential liabilities, because of legal actions, mentioned. This can not be because of ignorance as they had already instituted an investigation
This is an edited version of their report, pages 9 & 10, so were they lying about the investigation? Or complacent?
"PRINCIPAL RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES The principal risks and uncertainties facing the Group and those that the Board considers to be associated with running a professional football club such as ... are set out below. In addition to the uncertainties inherent in football, there are many risks associated with running any company. These risks are included within a risk matrix, which is regularly reviewed internally and with the Audit Committee on behalf of the Board, and updated as necessary .
(i) Player transfer market and wages (ii) Season ticket revenues (iii) Match day attendances (iv) Revenues from broadcasting contracts and football competitions (v) Financial Risk (vi) Brexit (vii) Stadium safety certificate "
Children are mentioned three times only in the documenr all in the section Our People
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
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.
And yet we were demoted...I'd be calling for them to go down but I want to win 55 over them too much
i just wonder if they will come out now and try to clarify that it is their insurer's investigation and not their own as they first claimed, they will be looking to put distance on any claims they have misled shareholders and the Lse
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.LSE staying no director transactions since 2016.
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).
Resolution 13
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
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.
Oh Yes plenty of people on here and elsewhere have contacted The LSE on their online contact formhave they been reporting to the LSE?
if not, they will get away with it
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.A few of us have been targeting the sponsors for weeks. The replies are on the other thread and all their contact details.
Think that there are 2 genuinely separate issues here. Firstly the child abuse. That is just unspeakable and we should not make light of it. While we can and should call them on the depravity of it, this should only ever be in the context of its horror and not about point scoring or god forbid about seeking any sporting advantage. I think most of us do walk that line.
On the other hand, the cover up is open game. That is corporate chicanery and seeking to avoid financial losses. That can be called out openly and, after all that has happened to us, should be used to screw them into the ground if we can. Our financial issues were a result of legal tax avoidance. Celtic did it too. Just with a mechanism that has had fewer repercussions for them. We never sought to hide heinous crimes to better our bottom line.
This should be pursued with each and everyone of their sponsors.
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.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.
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.
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.
Superb effortI 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.
War and I mean itScary to think what would’ve happened had we been denied entry to div 3.
They have templates that they just go on and copy and sendShould 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
Scary to think what would’ve happened had we been denied entry to div 3.
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).
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
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
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.
I won't hold my breath with that one,mate.The suggestions that Celtic may have breached stock market regulations by failing to disclose their 2 year internal investigation is worth discussing separately from the abuse scandal. Should it be true that they have failed to divulge matters that would have had significant potential to change their share price or damage their ability to attract sponsorship, then they have benefited financially and gained sporting advantage by actions that may constitute illegal insider trading.
We can of course anticipate a prompt SFA/SPL investigation based on recent precedent. Hopefully they will deal out comparable punishments in order to demonstrate an absence of bias and to maintain sporting integrity.
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.
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.No, because the information is now public.
You would have to have made the investment & because of new publicly available information that you didn’t know when you bought the shares knowing this would have influenced your share purchase mate.
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?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.
Nice one Prod. Well done mateUK 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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
Scottish football would have died, eventually.
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.
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?
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.