Going along to our recent AGM I asked myself, why, as a Celtic shareholder I hadn’t attended one for about 7 years? The answer came back to me in a flash, because no matter what the attendees say or do, nothing ever changes and after it you realise you are taking a day of your work for your point to be swatted away as if we were some kind of pesky troublesome flies.
I attended AGM’s in the early 90’s when the old board were in charge, on the proxy vote of people who were then labelled as ‘Rebels’. The average Celtic fan prior to 1994 had no opportunity to buy shares, unless, and I kid you not, the Kelly or the White’s gave you some for your Christmas, yes that did happen! A ‘Rebel’ was simply a Celtic fan who was prepared to stand up and seriously question the old board’s financial scavenging & mismanagement of Celtic.
The old board ran Celtic into a financial mess with no means of paying off the debt, with astonishingly none of the directors having any personal liability to that debt. Inturn leaving Celtic FC wide open to anyone, friend or foe, coming in and doing what they wished, good or bad! People either love or hate Fergus McCann but he was the guy that saved Celtic Football Club of that there is no doubt. There was lots of talk, but he was the doer! The cheque needed signed, and when others coughed and looked around the room, he stepped forward with his pen! Thousands of fans also played their part, as did some Celtic businessmen, but he produced the dosh!
On one occasion at the AGM’s of the early 90’s, Celtic’s head honcho of security, one George Douglas asked me to leave the AGM before it had even started either that or the Police would be called. The board viewed me as a ‘Rebel’ upstart and clearly didn’t want me to attend. I left the room, the meeting was held up, and I scurried around in the inner sanctum of Celtic Park looking for the ‘Rebel’ who originally gave me permission to use his proxy. I needed his clarification as to my legal attendance. As I thought, Celtic’s Chief of Security had no clue to the right & wrongs of my attendance & I was re-admitted to the AGM.
In those days the AGM’s were bun fight, lots of energy, lots of passion, lots of emotion. Celtic emotion! Today they are sanitised affairs with carefully asked questions produced to the audience on a non-live video link affair. Questions thought up from within the Club on what they think fans concerns are and put to John Reid in the cosiest friendly environment possible.
Votes are cast on every motion the AGM has laid out and they flew through with over 99% on a yes pass. At the most recent one myself and @pmacgiollabhain were sat in the front row when the re-election of Peter Lawwell came up. It came to a vote in the room and Phil & I raised our hands against his re-election. I looked backwards towards the 1,000 or so attending and in my immediate vicinity didn’t see a single hand raised on the no vote. We were at the very front, but not having sight of the entire room, I’ve been told there were other hands raised nearer the back. Point being that vote was carried easily on a 99% yes category.
In voting against Peter it was nothing personal at all. I don’t even know the man on that level. It was simply for the reasons that I didn’t think his day to day running of the Club was correct. In the manner in which transfers were being conducted, the level of player being brought to Celtic, my information in the undermining of the football department in the way certain players were being brought into Celtic, along with the fact Mr Lawwell received huge bonuses when the trophy room didn’t have a single domestic trophy in it. The Scottish Cup is there yes, but if it wasn’t then huge bonuses were still being paid out.
Dermot Desmond couldn’t be bothered to turn up. And yes the Club’s major shareholder has also been absent in recent years as well. Was it too much of an irrelevant scene for him to attend? A guy unknown to the Celtic support at large was sent in his absence. Now we’re talking irrelevant. If he uttered a syllable I didn’t hear it. John Reid though did gaffe at least twice when he described Dermot as the ‘owner’ (obviously that’s ingrained in his mind) only to very quickly say “Er, er, I mean major shareholder” Unfortunately after JR corrected himself he called Dermot the ‘owner’ again!
Cringingly and not having to sanctify himself, because like or dislike Reid he is a Celtic fan. He said “I use to walk to Celtic Park from Carntyne” Cringy bit coming up here, adding “If Sam McGuinness is in the room today then he is my witness” That was very unnecessary and delivered in embarrassing fashion!
Question time arrived with around 15 minutes of time being allowed for questions. I made it to the mike in time before they said, that’s enough people, and put my question to Peter Lawwell sat directly in front of the front microphone. I got 2 questions in and my 2nd was that I had knowledge of Dermot Desmond standing an overdraft guarantee of around £20m in 2000, which allowed Celtic to borrow at the bank, (when we had just lost the league the season previous by 21 points to Rangers), which enabled the appointment of Martin O’Neill, the signing of Chris Sutton, John Hartson, Neil Lennon & Alan Thompson & others. Continuing, I said that Dermot was paid back via the share issue of 2005, I asked why with Dermot being the major shareholder with a personal fortune of £1.4b, why we couldn’t perhaps arrange a ‘soft’ loan with him in order to help the manager buy in a few better quality players.
The meaning of a ‘soft’ loan is when the interest on the amount borrowed is very low and the terms of repayment is of a considerable time. I stated that if that information was incorrect then say now in front of all in the room. John Reid said something along the lines that he would speak to Peter about that and get back on my question. Still waiting 9 days later & really do not expect any kind of answer at all. A very neat body swerve from JR!
There are 29,000 individual shareholders in Celtic PLC but less than 2000 from the 29,000 cast their vote! The PLC board will be very happy that attendances at AGM’s only amount to around 1,000 from the 29,000 attending, because it makes this one day of the year less excruciating for them!
Apathy in attendance is what they want. My view from now on is they can have it. Present day AGM’s are so insulting stage managed I’m not for being force-fed their no answer agenda any longer. The rather strange thing though is if apathy ruled in total, then the entire board suited up & looking very crisply shirted would infact be sitting there staring at no one! That way we would be insulting them back by not bothering to attend to listen to them push everything through they want on their command at plus 99%. Not going then? Fine, I’ll just be taking a lead from the majority shareholder!
