Michael Nicholson

You said he sacked McKay. What are you basing that on? Executive appointments and removals have to be done through the board, not by the shareholders.. Desmond is also not a majority shareholder, he is our largest shareholder but he needs the backs of at least another 16% shareholdings to push through any decision. I think these are fundamentals you first need to accept.

I do think Desmond was key in appointing Rodgers. I think Lawwell was key in appointing Lennon. Desmond was trying for Roy Keane before Ange too. He usually tries to use his private jet and get involved every so often when it's a big Irish name involved but that's more or less the extent I believe he's involved. You seem to think a 76 year old billionaire with a wide portfolio of financial interests, who lives abroad, plays golf daily and hardly ever visits Glasgow has overriding control on all our major decisions. I disagree with that and think he is more or less apathetic to Celtic and delegates the decision making and strategic thinking to our boardroom who Lawwell seems to be the dominant presences on.

I don't trust some guy on a Celtic podcast to take my thinking on this. I am a qualified accountant, I've worked as one in PLCs so I have practical experience of these matters. In that extract you posted you have made a major inference there. The are 4 or 5 shareholdings that own roughly about 70% of the club. Desmond is reliant on one or a number of these shareholdings to be on the same page as him, he is simply unable to go on a solo run on these things with regard to the boardroom. For me all the signs point to apathy being the issue with Desmond rather than a * for control and you've not pointed at a single measure that can substantively counter that which is what I'm getting at.

I stick to the facts and I make my own judgements on what sounds logical and realistic with regard to that so I'm very much up for having my mind changed if there is a solid and coherent argument against my position.

 

You’re not sticking to facts. You believe something and I believe something else. My beliefs are based on various different accounts from multiple different sources and you believe it’s different because you can’t understand why a billionaire would care about an investment worth around £100m… that’s not a fact.

Martin O’Neil literally has just said in an interview that dropped less than an hour ago:

“Asked if he can assure supporters that Desmond will be setting his sights for Celtic as high as the manager, O’Neill answered: “Absolutely no question about it. Dermot will have a vision of the football club but as a club owner or as a major shareholder and the person who's making the decisions, he might see going forward in a different light than the manager”

That’s an ex-manager now, as well as a current shareholder who runs in the circles with many other shareholders who are all saying the same thing. But no, Desmond isn’t in charge because he doesn’t own another 16% or whatever other nonsense you’re talking. He’s making the decisions. Simple as that. He may spend his life golfing and touring the US but he has people in positions of power, making the decisions for him.

 

I still couldnt tell you what Nicholson does...

 

Nothing, by the looks of it.

 

That's what I thought too.

It's Nicholson's twitter handle, either that or his Da.

 

Wee sister probably

 

Thats interesting. Nicholson is 45 yrs old. Dom McKay was also in his 40’s. The dinosaurs are easily in their 60’s and used to doing things their way. Wouldn’t it be great if the grey brigade * off and let the younger execs actually do their job.

 

Might be an EQUALS card tho.

 

Wildlife stores

 

Did this * have his voice box removed as a wean?

Big ginger, baldy streak of *.

 

Anyone got his email for a strongly worded message?

 

You base your beliefs off opinions of others, who know as much as you or I about the inner sanctum of the current Celtic board.

You're quoting Martin O'Neill who left Celtic 20 years ago. The only board members in place from then are Desmond himself and Allison, both non-executive members. I don't know how a vague soundbyte supports you opinion.

I only look at the facts, here they are again because you seem to put more emphasis on speculation as facts.

Desmond is a 76 year old retiree.
He lives abroad.
He rarely visits Glasgow.
Open to correction but he has invested none of his own money in Celtic in 20 years.
He spends a lot of his current time on the golf course.

Do you dispute any of the above? All of this lead me to believe that there its complete apathy Desmond has with regards to Celtic. As an investment, we have remained stagnant for years, contrary to the misinformed claims you made previously. I think Desmond is happy to delegate the running and strategy of the club to the board and will fulfill his statutory duties and do the odd symbolic gesture of getting involved in a signing or appointment of a big Irish name every once in a while and lend his jet. That's the only role I can see.

The only things I see about Desmond being very hands on seems to be loads of lazy speculation based on absolutely nothing substantive, exactly like you're churning out here. There's absolutely nothing substantive you've posted - just mere speculation.

Desmond is 76 years old, he lives abroad, he rarely even visits Glasgow. He spends most of his day on the golf course. To me its quite clear that he is a passive investor who has delegated the running of the club to the board and the dominant figure in that boardroom is Peter Lawwell.

If Desmond was the type of controlling figure you and others point him out to be, where is the growth plan? Where is the investment? Why is he living abroad and on a golf course. Why is Lawwell chairman and not Desmond? You put a serious expectation on a 76 year old with a wide portfoilio of investments. Is a £40k salary and £200k dividends and a relatively stagnant share price a pretty mediocre return on £100m. For me, all these factors comprehensively reinforce my theory that he is a passive investor, otherwise he'd be demanding more return from his investment. He doesn't care enough about it and there is nothing contrary to indicate he does.

You also have said twice now that Desmond sacked Dom McKay. What are you basing that on? You've said it twice and asked what you are basing that on both times and neither time have your furnished me with an answer.

For me the club is being run the way Peter Lawwell wants it to be ran, not Dermot Desmond. I think all the facts point towards that and the theory that's its Desmond who is repsonsible seems to be based on little more than lazy speculation and conjecture.

 

Baldy and ginger, that's really unfortunate eh

 

It sure is a rough hand he’s been dealt.

 

AND NOW HE'S TAKING IT OUT ON US ALL

 

Are you seriously suggesting that someone like David Low, a shareholder, who runs in the same circles as the board knows the same as you and I with regards to the ownership of the club? That's just not true. These aren't the opinions of others. David Low literally breaks down the situation with the shareholders. It's just not true to suggest he knows the same as you and I.

I think you're struggling to get what most of us are saying here. Yes, Peter Lawwell and Michael Nicholson will run the football club. However, they're chosen by Desmond to run the club in a specific way. Desmond chose Lawwell in 2003 to sort the club out after consecutive years under O'Neil of bleeding money. Desmond would have told Lawwell to make the club profitable. Lower the wage budget, maximise player sales. We cut back on the club (I think that was the right decision by the way) because we couldn't sustain the club with the previous model. The board are made up of Non-Executive Directors, who are all put into that position by Desmond. Again, David Low talks about this. So, while officially, the board will decide who sacks Dominic McKay for example, the Non-Executive Directors, the Chairman, the CEO will all have been told by Desmond. You can choose to ignore someone like David Low if you want but he's well-versed on the current situation when it comes to shares and ownership of the club.

You keep on going back to what Dermot Desmond is, does and where he lives. Todd Boehly lives in the US and runs Chelsea. I mean, consecutive managers have said that they speak to Desmond weekly. Rodgers said it, Lennon said it and I think Ange said it as well. If he's in touch with the managers weekly, how often do you think he's in touch with Lawwell or Nicholson? Possibly the same? I'm not an accountant like you. I'm an Operational Energy Manager for a company who manages and maintains Industrial Boiler Stations throughout the UK. We have 3 Boiler Stations down in the South of England, I think I've been there three times this year. Met the clients, met the operators on site. Guess who makes the decisions on the running of that Boiler Station? I do. I have a site manager on all 3 sites, they run the day to day operations of the sites. When major things are going on, such as shutdowns or breakdowns or money needs spent or the client requests certain changes... guess who makes the decisions? I do. I meet with the Site Managers weekly, every Friday. Over Teams. So, I run the site from afar. It's not rocket science. Technology allows us to be flexible that way.

Again, I'm not suggesting he's hands on. I'm suggesting he makes the decisions on how the club is run, who manages us, what our budgets are. I think that's all controlled and set by him. We know he picks the manager. He chose Ange. He met Ange before the CEO had even spoken to him. So, we know he's picking the managers and we all know he's picked Rodgers twice. So, he is making decisions. That's not conjecture, it's coming from the managers themselves.

Again, I'm not disputing that Lawwell and Nicholson run the club. They run the club the way Desmond wants them to run it. He can control the club from afar, have his two lackeys pick up the heat and he can live his life as a 76 year old billionaire, playing golf in the US every day. No one is really disputing that. You think Lawwell/Nicholson aren't driven by Desmond and I disagree, given there are various accounts, from various people who have had various dealings with Celtic and Desmond.

Back to the McKay thing, we know that multiple people who sit on the board are "in the good grace of the majority shareholder"... McKay spoke openly about talking with Desmond beforehand. Desmond is named nearly every time something major happens. He's a major shareholder. Not a majority shareholder, not an owner, at least on paper. So, why then, does he speak to managers, speak to incoming CEOs, speak to the board. He doesn't put his own money in, the club is self sustaining. How can a man with such apathy for the club constantly make major decisions behind the scenes? Why is he controlling who manages the club and not the board? Is it such a ridiculous leap to suggest that he picks and chooses who he wants in the dugout so he can pick and choose who he wants running the club? It's not and you know it's not. Simply suggesting that he doesn't NEED to because he's a billionaire who plays golf isn't an answer.

Where is the growth plan? He's nearly trebled his investment since 2008 because of the way we have been run. If you offered shareholders the opportunity to treble their investment in less than 17 years, they'd all be jumping at the chance. He might be very happy with where his investment is and wants things to remain the way they are. The club has been run the same now since 2005, Lawwell came in during 2003. Why does he need to risk further investment to achieve further growth? He's literally trebled his investment and the club will probably continue to grow, slowly, over the course of the next few years.

We just disagree on where we see Desmonds involvement. I don't think anyone is saying he picks the curtains in the boardroom. I do think he's involved in the major decisions, I do think he's managed to get a board put together who does what he asks and he does have control over the club, without having the control written down on paper. You think differently. Rodgers talks openly about speaking with Dermot weekly. Why? If he's not involved, why does Rodgers speak to him so frequently? Is he lying? Was Lennon lying? Was Ange lying? There's a history of the major shareholder making decisions and no one challenging him, why? Again, you just don't have an answer for that and choose to believe differently. That's fine. i just think it's incredibly naïve.

 

The first part about David Low doesn't even corroborate anything you've said, the only thing he has mentioned is that a certain amount of our shares are now untraceable and as a result, the shareholding is diluted to an extent. He can't even quanitfy that with a solid figure. How you have gone from that comment to it somehow corroborating your statement is some reasch. From the get go here you have been pedalling completely falsehoods and misinformation as fact, you really need to stop here as its clear you don't understand the fundamentals.

The second point is the key thing, it's not me misunderstand the key points here - it is you. The board are not chose by Desmond, you need to finally acknowledge this and stop pedalling misinformation. The board are chosen by the shareholders, of which Dermot Desmond holds a 34.7% shareholding. It is impossible for him to choose directors without a backing of a majority of the shareholders. You need to accept this and you need to roll back on your earlier comments that Desmond appoints board members. He is not a majority shareholder and therefore he cannot make board appointments without the backing of a majority. That is a fact and what you are sayin is a blatant falsehood.

You say our last 3 managers speak to Desmond weekly? Have you quotes to back that up from all 3 of them or are you once again manipulating things and using them out of context to support a position you like to represent as fact but can't subtantiate any of it.

I really have to keep emphasising how little you know of corporate governance affairs. Peter Lawwell was not picked by Desmond in 2003 to sort the club out. He was appointed by the board, all executive appointments are recommended by a board containing a number of directors who will recommend a person, this is then put to a vote and ratified or not. Desmond carries the same voting power as any other director. This is what you don't understand and it's incredibly frustrating for me to have to hear you keep misunderstanding the due process that happens in corporate appointments and operation runnings of a listed company.

Desmond is not and never has been a majority shareholder, he cannot do anything without the support of a majority of the shareholders. He cannot appoint anyone on the board with the approval of the majority of the shareholders. He cannot appoint anyone at Executive level without the approval of the majority of the board so please stop perpetuating this falsehood. It's not possible and you clearly don't understand the rules that govern listed entities by saying this. You are under the illusion he is a majority shareholder, he's not so please not the distinction.

The more you speak, the more evident it is to me that the less you know what you are talking about. Look at the example you just gave with Chelsea and Boehly. Chelsea unlike Celtic are not a listed company and they have majority controlling interest and it's not Todd Boehly who is a minority invester and owns only about 13% of the club to my knowledge, again I am open to correction on this. Chelsea's majority controlling interest is an equity firm called Clearwater. They could remove Boehly imminently by way of an EGM if they wanted so I am glad you used Boehly as an example because it shows you don't grasp the way these things work.

Another thing that exemplifies how passive and how non-interested Desmond is, is that he doesn't even attend all the board meeting, he is the only director who has had a proxy represent him at meetings. The man is retiree who spends most of his time on the golf course, he has a private jet, he lives a few hours away in Spain and you are telling us this controlling figure who can veto any decision (a lie as he can't) isn't even bother to make the minimal effort to attend these meetings in person? Again this is yet another comprehensive example that supports my position - Desmond is a passive investor, he doesn't care - he leaves it to the board to manage and has minimal involvement.

The things you are suggesting he does are backed up by absolutely nothing substantively. What are the cold hard bits of evidence you use to deduce that it is Desmond who sets our budgets? You continue to reference your opinion as the substance to you believing what you want to believe, it's a circular argument where your opinion and not the facts act as the principle.

You keep labouring under the impression Desmond alone makes major decisions. Rodgers may have been Desmond's pick, I believe he was but Desmond CANNOT appoint Rodgers to the job without consensus of the board, you CANNOT keep ignoring the due process here. Desmond is not a majority shareholder so he cannot appoint board members without a consensus of majority shareholders and he can not make decisions without a consensus of board members. That fact contradicts every opinion and speculative theories you make here. As I have said before, Desmond now and again will woo a big Irish name with his private jet and reach out to them and try use his influence to get them to Celtic, to me that is the only extent of his involvement I see, the only I can see publicly. I don't think you will be able to produce actual things he has done other than this. Other than that all the signs point to him being a passive investor who lets the board at it.

You see the thing about you McKay answer there, I haven't seen one concrete piece of evidence that supports your conclusion, absolutely nothing other than conjecture and some serious reaching here, you are claiming conspiracies completely baselesslly here. How could Desmond possibly guage McKay's performance? He's over in America playing golf every day, he's a 76 year old man with vast business and financial interests. How could he possibly have the knowledge and insight to make a call on Dom McKay's first few months in the job? It defies any rational thought. The working relationship between the board and McKay is the most likely issue, whether McKay was pushed or walked or it was mutual is anybody's guess but it's another example of you trying to pass off as fact things you haven't the foggiest notion about.

The problem for me with Desmond is he's a passive investor and he's happy to let our board at it. The problem with our board for me is that they are out touch dinosaurs and Peter Lawwell is the dominant voice on that board, he clearly has blessing of our shareholders and that is the issue here. Your basic understanding of how these things worked and how organisations are governed is staggeringly incorrect.

 

I didn't pedal falsehoods. I explained why the dilution of the shares(or the untraceable shares) mean he is the owner without needing to confirm that on paper(by purchasing the additional shares).

Again, I go back to it. Why did McKay mention Desmond, specifically? Why does Rodgers mention Desmond? Why did Desmond meet Ange before the CEO? The following statement from Ange backs up that Desmond was the first person to make the decision:-

"The fact we could do it really quickly is a credit to everyone. Dermot was the first person I spoke to with regards to the club. He’s very influential and has been very supportive, personally and within the club - particularly when we didn’t have the smoothest of starts."

He also mentions the interview process in a separate interview

"I've logged on the call and spoken with Dermot Desmond.

"We had a great discussion, he's a great man, he kind of knew all about me which gave me some reassurance. I got comfortable really quickly.

"We hit it off really well. We had about a 30-40 minute conversation and he signs off by saying: 'Brilliant, love it, hang-up I'm going to set up a call with our CEO and our chairman in ten minutes time. We'll send you the link and you chat to them. If they're happy, I'm happy.'

Now, why is Dermot Desmond telling board members like Peter Lawwell and Ian Bankier to log onto a call with a manager? So, you're saying that, even from the manager himself, he's what? Not telling the truth? Are you seriously trying to tell me Desmond hasn't chosen him? If you agree, like we all do, that Desmond chooses who manages us, does that not show he gets involved with significant processes within the club? Ange actually mentions further down in that interview that he doesn't need to tell Desmond anything.

“We are in regular contact with each other and that’s because Dermot loves Celtic, he loves talking about the games and how the club is going in general. It’s not like I have to update him with everything, that’s what I do with Michael Nicholson (the Celtic CEO),” Ange said.

“He lets us get on with our roles of running the club but Dermot is really passionate about Celtic and about football. I don’t know if he’s in contact with me more or less than previous managers. I don’t know if I’m a favourite or not! But he has treated me very well.”

Now, that's literally what I've just said, is it not? He let's people get on with running the club but he decides who becomes manager, as we've just confirmed above, and by that extension, it's likely he decides far more than who's in the dugout. I'll give you this, it's likely Ange did use Desmonds fancy jet to fly into the country, though. It looks like Desmond was far more involved than just being a Plane Daddy, like you suggested.

Again, we've already been through this. No one is saying he owns the club on paper, no one is saying he owns more than 34.7%. We all agree with that. The Celtic Trust estimate that nearly 18% of the clubs shares are untraced, meaning only 82% of the votes are used during the voting process. Add in, he is backed by the second largest shareholder so his grip over the control of the club is razor tight. No one is suggesting he doesn't need backed by the board and I haven't suggested that either. What I am saying is that he, backed by the board, makes the key decisions on how to run the club. He makes the decisions, the board go along with it. Again, I go back to it. He's the major shareholder but why, if he isn't interested and takes no interest is there a long list of people thanking him specifically? Why is he putting out statements thanking Ian Bankier, Peter Lawwell and Dominic McKay? He's just the major shareholder? Why did Michael Nicholson on his appointment say he was excited to work with Dermot and the board. Why the distinction? Dermot is on the board. Quite clearly because he's far more involved than the other Non-Executive Directors.

Back to Chelsea and Todd Boehly, specifically. I wasn't talking about their situation in terms of ownership or shares. I was merely pointing out that Boehly lives in America and runs Chelsea. That was literally it. I also explained that I make the major decisions of 3 Boiler Stations that I visit about 4 times a year. Basically, it doesn't matter where he stays, how often he turns up to AGMs or to the games. He can still run the club the way he wants it to be run and he doesn't even need to be that involved in the day to day running of the club.

Finally, back to the McKay point. I do believe that Desmond and the board, decided he wasn't a good fit. I still believe Desmond has the grace of the majority of the board to do what he wants and that comes from sources like David Low, to seeing the various comments by different individuals linked to Celtic. Let's face it, if he had to, he could just buy the extra percentage needed and become the majority shareholder if he wanted. He doesn't need to do that, though. He has the control he needs without having to go through the very tedious stuff he would need to. You may look at it as a conspiracy theory. It's a theory. Is it such a wild theory? I don't think so, given I've just supplied evidence of a managerial search, that wasn't an Irish manager coming in, which started with Desmond and was ended by Desmond bringing in the CEO/Chairman. By the way, Eddie Howe has also discussed talking with Desmond over a number of weeks before he decided to turn down the job.

 

You have pedaled falsehood after falsehood here. You have repeated claims that are comprehensively false either through misunderstandings of things you don't know enough about to comment or complete spoofery where you have repeated as fact. Whenever you have been pressed on something you have put up anecdotes.

Once again you are out gate spreading faleshoods now. I'll put this in bold and cap locks as its not getting through.

DERMOT DESMOND IS NOT A MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER. HE CANNOT APPOINT PEOPLE TO THE BOARD WITHOUT THE BACKING OF A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF OTHER SHAREHOLDINGS.

This is a fact, it's not a discussion and you repeatedly saying something contrary to that, as if he in some sort of lone voice telling others what to is nonsense of the highest order. It's black and white here and you are completely misinformed on that.

DERMOT DESMOND HAS ONE SEAT ON THE BOARD. HE CANNOT APPOINT EXECUTIVE POSITIONS OR FORCE THROUGH MAJOR DECISIONS WITHOUT THE BACKING OF THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD.

Again you are repeatedly stating things that are completely an utterly at odds with the board. You don't know the processes involved and required in listed companies. You have said he picks our managers, you have said he sacked Dom McKay. This cannot happen without backing of shareholders or board members.

As for Boehly. He's a chairman, he's not CEO. He has one vote, the same as the rest of the boardroom - I don't see how you see him as running the club. It's funny that you think Desmond runs Celtic and not Lawwell given that Lawwell is a minority shareholder like Boehly and also chairman, like Boehly. It's also worth nothing that Boehly is regularly at Stamford Bridge, Desmond is rarely near Celtic Park and can't even be bother to attend board meetings personally.

You seem to think trying to woo a manager with a jet and making a phone call before they are evidence of him having an overriding control of Celtic. You seem to think getting his assistant to put his name to a tribute to an outgoing member of staff is an example of his overriding control at Celtic. What absolute nonsense, this is a guy who rarely visits Glasgow, who rarely goes to games, who can't even be bothered to attend board meetings in person, yes, you got that right, he doesn't even bother to attend board meetings. Every bit of hard evidence would lend its conclusion to Desmond being a passive investor.

He is 76.
He lives abroad.
He doesn't attend board meetings.
He rarely attends Celtic Park.
He hasn't invested anything in the club in 20 years (open to correction)
He spends most of his days playing golf.
He has a large and wide array of financial and commercial interests.

To me all the above point out to him being a passive investor, he delegated the running of the club to his board, he plays little active part in the running of it. The only time he seems to come alive is when we change manager or a high profile Irish player arrives and he uses his jet and makes a few phone calls to move the deal along.

The bit you said about Dom McKay was the most ludicrous. You still haven't addressed how Desmond decided McKay wasn't up to the job in 3 months when he most likely hadn't even visited the club, how on earth could he decide that. You have it arseways in my view. It's not a case of Desmond influencing the board, it's a case of the board influencing Desmond. If you say Desmond was the man who removed McKay, it COULD ONLY be on what the board was feeding back to him - it could only be that because Desmond would have no idea on how we was performing the jobs from the golf courses he spends his days on.

Desmond is a passive investor, from what I know it's the only thing that makes sense and its where all the hard facts point toward.