SO much attention is being focused on Celtic Park these days that it
is practically impossible for anyone there, especially a director, to
make a move without rumours which quickly grow arms and legs leaping up
and following closely behind.
Over the weekend the club were in danger of buckling under the weight
of hearsay and suspicion that secret negotiations were being conducted
with directors who were preparing to sell their shares and abandon the
ailing concern.
Naturally, directors, or at least those who were willing to take
calls, denied involvement in talks to sell their interests, but the
feeling that something was going on somewhere grew stronger, and while
it is unlikely changes to the board's make-up will be made shortly,
there is little doubt that people other than the Fergus McCann-Brian
Dempsey group are at work.
The distrust which exists within Celtic Park's boardroom is such that
a director or directors may have been speaking to interested parties
without the knowledge of other board members, or even those directors
who are part of Celtic Nominees Limited. This pact was born out of a
fear that certain of the major shareholders could be picked off by
outsiders pushing for change, but there is little doubt that the
strength of this group has been undermined by contacts made recently.
One director, who feels the club can't drag itself out of debt until
at least one change at boardroom level is achieved, might be unwilling
to take further part in or responsibility for what appears to be the
slow demise of a once mighty football organisation. However, it just
might be that there could be more than one departure.
Simply because not all of the pact members -- Kevin Kelly, Chris
White, Tom Grant, David Smith, and Michael Kelly (Jack McGinn and Jimmy
Farrell were excluded) -- are always kept informed of what is happening,
especially on the Dreamscape (Cambuslang to you), it is difficult to
keep track of what each director is about, but something fired the
rumour machine into action. Could it be that the powers behind the
Celtic throne finally have had enough?
Although Kevin Kelly is chairman, it is widely accepted that his
vice-chairman, Smith, who is thought to have bought approximately 950
shares, has been running the show. Frequently his fellow directors have
spoken of his business acumen and they have invested much belief in his
ability to turn the club's finances around.
So what would happen and how would shareholders feel if Smith, the
Messiah and closest ally of White, were to sell out?
It is said Smith has been in contact with the Glasgow businessman,
Willie Haughey, who offered #300 a share at the club's extraordinary
general meeting at the end of last year and it is believed something in
the region of #400 a share would have to be paid before Haughey or
anyone else could succeed in buying what would be a substantial interest
in Celtic.
Apart from that, Haughey and whoever else may be waiting in the
background -- in the past year or so the wealthy Gerald Weisfeld has
been mentioned -- may have been told that an offer of #400 a share must
be made to all members of the Kelly and White families, who account for
approximately 10 to 11,000 of the 20,000 shares.
Is this what has been going on recently? If so, many other
shareholders would be entitled to feel a sense of betrayal and
injustice. After all, the directors did enjoy the support of smaller
shareholders in the struggle to repel the McCann-Dempsey faction. Are
they not entitled to consideration in return?
It would not be outrageous to believe that someone like Smith, who is
based in London and has wider business interests, is concerned and
unhappy about the degree of unrest and uncertainty which currently
surround Celtic. He is not steeped in football's traditions and the
sound of so many baying for change every time he appears at a match must
jar on his senses.
No-one could blame a person for wanting out of such a difficult
situation, although if Smith were to leave along with White, the club's
major shareholder with around 3000 shares, the power base which denied
McCann and Dempsey would no longer exist. It has been said that, because
of the pact, no-one can sell out without first offering his shares to
fellow board members, but most legal documents have their loopholes.
Was Smith -- who, it is said, missed the start of Celtic's last board
meeting -- travelling through from Edinburgh and the office of the
solicitors who drew up the pact? Perhaps this, too, is merely another
rumour.
If Haughey or anyone else is willing to pay a figure in the region of
#4m, according to Celtic's abacus, for the majority shareholding of a
club ridden with debt -- the accumulative debt is thought to be around
#6m -- and suffering from falling attendances, the directors really
should be anxious about all of the shareholders and not just themselves.
They have said often enough that they are only custodians of the club
and that they are in place to look after everyone's interests.
It would be wrong of a single director to seek a lucrative way out now
that problems have been allowed to become so severe. Besides, what have
any of them done to deserve some kind of pay-off? Are they to be
rewarded for what the supporters, people willing to put money into the
club, regard as gross negligence?
Any director thinking of gaining a handsome sum of money for his
shares should think again and if an offer eventually does come to
relieve the family dynasties of their obligations, one man will
certainly oppose it. Dempsey has given up hope of his group winning
control of Celtic, but he surely would not allow those at the top to
benefit while the small shareholders are offered nothing.
He might be prepared to tie up interminably any buy-out by taking the
matter to court, believing that support given to him in the past could
not be forgotten, even if some directors might be of a mind to leave
their backers out in the cold. Then again, perhaps this is all only
rumour.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article