I was quite detached from the independence referendum. I've lived in England for half a lifetime and if God grants me three score and ten, I'll probably have lived more than two-thirds of it in England.
I'm married to an Englishwoman and my three children have English accents, although my 3 year old son is well on his way to being as Celtic daft as me.
As an English resident then, I had no vote although I was regularly asked by work colleagues and English friends what way I would vote if I had one.
I'd always answer, "I don't know," because I genuinely didn't know how I would have voted. It was a huge decision to make, and not one to be taken lightly.
Twenty year old me would have been on the streets canvassing for Yes votes but time and distance has softened my attitude to independence. What I do know though, is when I woke up at 6am this morning and turned on the TV to find out the result, it was with a sinking heart that I realised it was a No.
At that moment, I realised how much I wanted Scotland to vote Yes and as it sinks in, I'm no happier about it. I wouldn't say I'm gutted, but there's definitely a real, definite sense of disappointment.
The mainstream media have been pushing the line since this morning that it was a, "decisive vote." Technically, I suppose they are correct - a decision was reached - but the word carries connotations of the matter now being closed for the forseeable future, which I think is ludicrous.
Scotland is now a country in a Union with England, which almost half of the population want to see an end to. The result is anything but decisive, which is both an opportunity for nationalists, and a danger for Scotland.
It is an opportunity because with such a small majority for No, it cannot be the end of the matter. With the No vote depending on the votes of the over 60's and the under 20's voting heavily in favour of Yes, the gap can only narrow and possibly even be reversed over the next decade. Nationalists should see the referendum as a foundation on which to build. In fact, it might even be seen as the entire first floor rather than just the foundation.
The result is a danger because Scotland is now indisputably a divided society. As the scenes unfolding in George Square tonight show, there is a virulence and hatred to the No sentiment that harkens back to a different time and place.
Of course, not every No voter looks like an extra from Green Street but the Orange Unionist element cannot be ignored.
But neither can the many on the nationalist side who have been quite awful in their description of the almost two millioin decent people who also voted No.
I saw one tweet this morning saying something along the lines of, "I hope your children come home in a Union Jack draped coffin from another illegal war."
I truly hope the person who composed that sickening message has no children of his own. Surely no parent could ever say such a thing?
That was only the worst I've seen (and by a distance), but my twitter timeline is full of descriptions of no voters as, "scum," cowards," "shitebags" etc.
They're not. They are people like your mum and dad. Like your brother or sister. People who genuinely felt that Scotland is better in the Union than out. That's all. To seek to find other, sinister reasons for people disagreeing with you because you cannot possibly be wrong, is a disturbing trend.
What kind of society would we have if people cannot disagree civilly, respect the right of others to disagree, and accept that the other people might possibly, just possibly, be right?
We stand at a crossroads. The country is split almost 50-50 between those who want independence and those who support the Union.
Had the figures been reversed and 55% voted for independence, it would have been a hollow victory. It would have been no way to start a new nation with almost half the population hankering for Union with England.
By the same token, the Unionists have won a hollow victory.
We are now being told we have to ensure the Government follows through on its "devo-max" promises, but to me that is of secondary importance. Healing the divisions in Scotland should be infinitely more important.
Nationalists should not give up on independence because of the referendum result. It should be seen as an opportunity, with momentum on their side, to win a future referendum by a big enough margin that a new nation can emerge with the great majority of the people celebrating independence together. There should be as few people as possible glowering from the sidelines.
Winning by a small majority; the only realistic hope this time out, would not have been desireable.
The Sevco-Orange Unionist element will never be persuaded. Don't waste your time even trying. But the great majority of the No voters can be persuaded. But by reasoned argument, not by insults and demonisation.
If you are a disappointed Yes voter, you need to reach out to No voters. Making yourself look and/or sound like the bitter, hateful mob in George Square tonight is no way to win a country's freedom.
There's no need for it anyway, because if the nationalist side plays its cards right, the future belongs to you.
Friday, 19 September 2014
Sunday, 14 September 2014
The Hoops, Celtic and Sevco
I have a confession to make. A shocking confession actually.
When I was young, like early years of primary school young, I wasn't awfully keen on the hoops.
I think it was because almost every other team I knew had plain shirts, I kind of wished the Celtic strip was like the Republic of Ireland strip.
Very quickly though I realised that the hoops make Celtic different. Distinctive. Instantly recognisable. They set us apart.
Like every Celtic supporter, I adore the hoops.
That's what got me thinking again about the imminent (if they survive long enough) arrival of Sevco in the top flight.
That they are allowed to masquerade as a club founded in 1872 is an almighty scandal and probably the single biggest reason why I hope with every fibre of my being that we never have to share a pitch with them.
I fear that is wishful thinking though and that inevitably, one day we are going to have to play Sevco. As long as they are still being permitted by the SFA to pretend they are the Rangers FC founded in 1872 and claim all of their historic honours, I will not be there.
I dread that day. I can feel the weeks' long build-up to it already. "The return of the O** F*** fixture" hype. The McAvennies and the McGarveys being wheeled out to reminisce about O** F*** games in days gone by. It's everything our governing bodies and media are longing for.
And I want Celtic to have nothing to do with it.
What I'd love to see, whenever we have the misfortune to play Sevco, is for Celtic to refuse to grace them with the presence of our beloved hoops.
Sevco, just like Rangers before them, wear a common or garden blue shirt and white shorts. There is nothing distinctive about their kit.
The O** F*** match means a team wearing blue shirts and white shorts attempting to kick a team in green and white hoops off the pitch.
The O** F*** game, to people around the world, would be unrecognisable if the team in blue were playing a team in yellow shirts and green shorts. Or an all white kit with green and yellow trim - take your pick. The great thing is that the "O** F***" match would never evolve a new appearance as we change our away kit every year these days, and usually have a third kit as well. We wouldn't even have to play every game in a season against them in the same kit.
I know this is unlikely to happen, but what if we, as Celtic fans, demand it of the club?
What if we were to say to them that we want to deny the SFA and the media the appearance of the traditional O** F*** match?
Football fans around the world know when they see a team in green and white hoops that they are watching Celtic. When the inevitable happens and we have to see what will of course be marketed as the return of the O** F*** match, let the millions around the world who tune in wonder if they're actually watching Celtic v "Rangers" at all.
Any thoughts?
When I was young, like early years of primary school young, I wasn't awfully keen on the hoops.
I think it was because almost every other team I knew had plain shirts, I kind of wished the Celtic strip was like the Republic of Ireland strip.
Very quickly though I realised that the hoops make Celtic different. Distinctive. Instantly recognisable. They set us apart.
Like every Celtic supporter, I adore the hoops.
That's what got me thinking again about the imminent (if they survive long enough) arrival of Sevco in the top flight.
That they are allowed to masquerade as a club founded in 1872 is an almighty scandal and probably the single biggest reason why I hope with every fibre of my being that we never have to share a pitch with them.
I fear that is wishful thinking though and that inevitably, one day we are going to have to play Sevco. As long as they are still being permitted by the SFA to pretend they are the Rangers FC founded in 1872 and claim all of their historic honours, I will not be there.
I dread that day. I can feel the weeks' long build-up to it already. "The return of the O** F*** fixture" hype. The McAvennies and the McGarveys being wheeled out to reminisce about O** F*** games in days gone by. It's everything our governing bodies and media are longing for.
And I want Celtic to have nothing to do with it.
What I'd love to see, whenever we have the misfortune to play Sevco, is for Celtic to refuse to grace them with the presence of our beloved hoops.
Sevco, just like Rangers before them, wear a common or garden blue shirt and white shorts. There is nothing distinctive about their kit.
The O** F*** match means a team wearing blue shirts and white shorts attempting to kick a team in green and white hoops off the pitch.
The O** F*** game, to people around the world, would be unrecognisable if the team in blue were playing a team in yellow shirts and green shorts. Or an all white kit with green and yellow trim - take your pick. The great thing is that the "O** F***" match would never evolve a new appearance as we change our away kit every year these days, and usually have a third kit as well. We wouldn't even have to play every game in a season against them in the same kit.
I know this is unlikely to happen, but what if we, as Celtic fans, demand it of the club?
What if we were to say to them that we want to deny the SFA and the media the appearance of the traditional O** F*** match?
Football fans around the world know when they see a team in green and white hoops that they are watching Celtic. When the inevitable happens and we have to see what will of course be marketed as the return of the O** F*** match, let the millions around the world who tune in wonder if they're actually watching Celtic v "Rangers" at all.
Any thoughts?
Friday, 29 August 2014
You Are the Weakest Link... Goodbye.
As a self-confessed statto, I really enjoyed The Numbers Game: Why Everything You Know About Football Is Wrong by Chris Anderson and David Sally.
It wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea, especially for people like me who were brought up on the Celtic tradition of open, attacking football, but it is well worth a read.
Amongst other things, the authors suggest that football is a weakest link game, ie any team is only as strong as its weakest link.
Statistics suggest that it is far more important to not concede a goal than it is to actually score a goal. In a league match, not conceding guarantees at least one point, while scoring a goal is a guarantee of nothing.
That being the case, so the theory goes, defensive players are far more valuable than attackers, and if you have a player who regularly makes mistakes that lead to conceding goals, it can, and frequently does, prove fatal to any ambitions of silverware.
One way of assessing a team is to assign a value out of ten to each player, 1 being least and 10 best.
Football being a weakest link game, the stronger of any two teams is the one whose weakest player is better. For example, a team consisting of nine 8's, a 10 and a 4 may look stronger than a team consisting of eleven 7's. But in practice, over the course of a season the first team will lose more matches because that '4' will result in so many mistakes being made, goals conceded and points dropped.
The eleven steady players will not hand out regular thrashings, but they'll drop fewer points due to less mistakes being made over the season.
Now it should go without saying that unless Celtic gets really lucky in uncovering a hidden gem, we cannot afford to buy 10's. 10's cost way too much in transfer fees and wages and if we do manage to sign a 10 before anyone else realises he is a 10, he will soon be on his way when playing for Celtic reveals his true worth to our friends in the south.
The good news though, if The Numbers Game is correct, is that we don't need any 10's anyway. It is much more important to avoid signing 4's or 5's than it is to sign even 8's or 9's.
Dave Jones once said that Joe Ledley is at least a 7 every match and he certainly never let Celtic down, while never really being spectacular. Perhaps that is the kind of player Celtic needs to fill the team with to maximise our results/progress in Europe.
Celtic can afford to buy 7's. Celtic has a chance of holding onto 7's. Celtic can pick up 7's for a reasonable price.
Maybe what our scouting and coaching teams should be doing is avoiding signing 5's and 6's. The kind of players who try to make mazy runs out of defence. The kind of players who run into trouble in midfield due to poor decision making. The kind of players who lose their man in the penalty box because they are ball-watching. The kind of players who lose possession because of a poor first touch, or lack of confidence to hold onto the ball long enough to pass it on to a teammate.
We're talking about the basics here. Can you take to the field and do the simple things well?
Just as all you want from a goalkeeper is that he saves the shots he should save and the Hollywood saves are a bonus, maybe that applies to every position on the pitch.
Maybe all we need is a striker who scores the goals he should score, we create enough chances after all. Any spectacular overhead kicks, gravity-defying diving headers and breath-taking 25 yard volleys are a bonus.
If you go through the Celtic team that faced Maribor in your head, I'm sure you'll very quickly form a picture of who the 7's were and who the 5's and 6's were. However you compare our players to the Maribor line-up, it can't be denied that on the night, we had a 5 or two in our side, while they did not. It was a weakest-link game and our weakest-link was not as good as Maribor's weakest-link no matter how well Callum McGregor or Virgil van Dijk played.
Moving forward, Celtic do not need to splash millions on 8's or 9's to qualify for the Champions League and make an impression when we get there. We need to stop signing 5's and 6's, of whom we have too many.
We don't need to buy that expensive striker to improve the team, we need to replace those weakest links who are costing us so dearly.
It wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea, especially for people like me who were brought up on the Celtic tradition of open, attacking football, but it is well worth a read.
Amongst other things, the authors suggest that football is a weakest link game, ie any team is only as strong as its weakest link.
Statistics suggest that it is far more important to not concede a goal than it is to actually score a goal. In a league match, not conceding guarantees at least one point, while scoring a goal is a guarantee of nothing.
That being the case, so the theory goes, defensive players are far more valuable than attackers, and if you have a player who regularly makes mistakes that lead to conceding goals, it can, and frequently does, prove fatal to any ambitions of silverware.
One way of assessing a team is to assign a value out of ten to each player, 1 being least and 10 best.
Football being a weakest link game, the stronger of any two teams is the one whose weakest player is better. For example, a team consisting of nine 8's, a 10 and a 4 may look stronger than a team consisting of eleven 7's. But in practice, over the course of a season the first team will lose more matches because that '4' will result in so many mistakes being made, goals conceded and points dropped.
The eleven steady players will not hand out regular thrashings, but they'll drop fewer points due to less mistakes being made over the season.
Now it should go without saying that unless Celtic gets really lucky in uncovering a hidden gem, we cannot afford to buy 10's. 10's cost way too much in transfer fees and wages and if we do manage to sign a 10 before anyone else realises he is a 10, he will soon be on his way when playing for Celtic reveals his true worth to our friends in the south.
The good news though, if The Numbers Game is correct, is that we don't need any 10's anyway. It is much more important to avoid signing 4's or 5's than it is to sign even 8's or 9's.
Dave Jones once said that Joe Ledley is at least a 7 every match and he certainly never let Celtic down, while never really being spectacular. Perhaps that is the kind of player Celtic needs to fill the team with to maximise our results/progress in Europe.
Celtic can afford to buy 7's. Celtic has a chance of holding onto 7's. Celtic can pick up 7's for a reasonable price.
Maybe what our scouting and coaching teams should be doing is avoiding signing 5's and 6's. The kind of players who try to make mazy runs out of defence. The kind of players who run into trouble in midfield due to poor decision making. The kind of players who lose their man in the penalty box because they are ball-watching. The kind of players who lose possession because of a poor first touch, or lack of confidence to hold onto the ball long enough to pass it on to a teammate.
We're talking about the basics here. Can you take to the field and do the simple things well?
Just as all you want from a goalkeeper is that he saves the shots he should save and the Hollywood saves are a bonus, maybe that applies to every position on the pitch.
Maybe all we need is a striker who scores the goals he should score, we create enough chances after all. Any spectacular overhead kicks, gravity-defying diving headers and breath-taking 25 yard volleys are a bonus.
If you go through the Celtic team that faced Maribor in your head, I'm sure you'll very quickly form a picture of who the 7's were and who the 5's and 6's were. However you compare our players to the Maribor line-up, it can't be denied that on the night, we had a 5 or two in our side, while they did not. It was a weakest-link game and our weakest-link was not as good as Maribor's weakest-link no matter how well Callum McGregor or Virgil van Dijk played.
Moving forward, Celtic do not need to splash millions on 8's or 9's to qualify for the Champions League and make an impression when we get there. We need to stop signing 5's and 6's, of whom we have too many.
We don't need to buy that expensive striker to improve the team, we need to replace those weakest links who are costing us so dearly.
Thursday, 28 August 2014
How Much Can We Expect From Celtic?
For the first time since 2011 there will be no Champions League campaign for Celtic this season and this has led to some serious questions being asked of the board and the manager. Much of the criticism is undoubtedly justified but as long as Celtic plays in the SPFL, can Champions League qualification ever be guaranteed, or even expected, every year?
The main complaint levelled at the board is that no money is being spent on buying established players, ready to take a starting spot right away and immediately improve the first team.
Celtic has taken in huge amounts of money from transfer fees and Champions League qualification in the past four years, starting with the sale of Aiden McGeady to Spartak Moscow in 2010, but income does not equal money to spend on buying players. The club has running costs to meet and bills to pay before money can be spent on players. The actual amount Celtic can afford to spend on transfer fees and wages for players is a lot less than many supporters seem to think.
The club has actually spent a lot of money in the past three years on transfer fees but another common complaint is that too many mediocre players in the £2-2.5m range have been signed. I agree wholeheartedly with this point, but the fault here lies with the scouting and management staff rather than the board. Quality can be had in this price range, Virgil van Dijk being the perfect example, but too many average players have been bought too.
There is an argument that the club should buy one £5m player, guaranteeing quality, instead of two £2.5m players. The problem with this argument is threefold.
First of all, a £5m price tag is no guarantee of quality, witness Shane Long signing for Southampton for £12m - a striker who has scored just 67 league goals in 274 appearances since 2005. After signing for Hull City in January this year, he managed just four league goals before joining Southampton this month. Despite this, I suspect more than a few Celtic fans would have been delighted if we'd matched the £4.5m West Bromwich Albion shelled out for this goal-every-four-games striker in 2011 when we were reportedly interested.
Secondly, if a player is bought for £5m, he will demand wages of at least double those paid to a £2.5m player. A transfer fee of £5m could easily commit the club to spending £12m overall on a player over the duration of a 3-4 year contract.
Thirdly, spending £5m on a single player, even if it does turn out to be a successful signing, will be no guarantee of either Champions League qualification or progression. In Champions League terms, £5m is chicken feed. We'd be breaking the bank for a return realistically limited to reaching the Last 16, which we have proven ourselves capable of three times already since the big-spending Martin O'Neill era ended. An era when despite the huge amounts spent on building a team, we never qualified for the Last 16.
The biggest problem Celtic faces is a structural one, largely outside of the control of the board.
Our income is dwarfed by that of even the lowliest EPL club. Southampton is now a more attractive proposition for footballers than Celtic; even for players who have experienced first hand how special a place Celtic Park is on Champions League nights.
We have to be realistic about this. It has to be faced and understood. When we want to sign anyone, if Southampton want him, we cannot compete with them. We will lose out on that player because Southampton can pay a far higher transfer fee, far higher wages, and offer a far more exciting professional challenge week in week out.
On those occasions when we do manage to spot talent before it comes to the attention of any EPL clubs (Wanyama, Hooper, van Dijk), the most we can hope for is two, possibly three seasons from them before the EPL clubs come calling as they WILL do given the exposure the players will get from playing for Celtic.
What this means, whether we like it or not, is that for the foreseeable future Celtic's business has to be spotting unnoticed talent, developing it, and selling on at as big a profit as possible. The alternative is to lose it for nothing at the end of the contract.
We are going to find it incredibly hard to build a team capable of challenging for a Last 16 spot in the Champions League, or some years, even just getting there. We cannot hold on to our best players for long enough to do that. So what can Celtic do?
We can do what we appear to be trying to do with Ronny Deila - implement a system from the lowest age groups to the first team to that relies on a well-drilled unit composed of incredibly fit players, playing a high-intensity game that allows a great degree of interchangeability in personnel. This will take time to achieve.
Our only hope of holding on to good players is to have a good number of Scottish and/or Irish players who have some form of emotional attachment to the club. Even then there will be more Charlie Nicholases than Paul McStays, more Lou Macaris than Danny McGrains. We're hoping for Kenny Dalglishes at best, in the sense that they'll give us a good six or seven years before heading off to test themselves in England.
Don't look on Henrik Larsson as an example of a foreign player who stayed at Celtic out of a love of the club. He hung around for seven years because we paid him top dollar to do so, at a time when Celtic was a far more attractive proposition in comparison to lower level EPL clubs. The consequence of that was seeing him leave for Barcelona for nothing in 2004. We have neither the financial muscle nor the football environment to repeat that.
So we have a problem. Any top class foreign youngsters we sign will have no emotional attachment to the club and will leave at the first opportunity. Scots/Irish youngsters *might* hang around longer, but Scotland simply does not produce talent in the numbers we once did and Ireland is heavily scouted by EPL clubs. You'll find the vast majority of Irish youngsters will regard Celtic affectionately as a second club who play in a second-rate league. They'll mostly support Manchester United/Liverpool/Arsenal or even, God help us, Chelsea. Most will sign for an EPL club given the chance.
Celtic unavoidably is a holding operation at present. Not until the Ibrox tribute act "returns" to the Premiership (I know!), but until the financial situation changes, whether that means a move to another league, or a transformational financial recovery for Scottish football.
We cannot afford to spend any more than £2-3m on a single player, and even if we could, those players don't want to play in Scotland if an EPL club is interested.
Top class players can be had for £2-3m, but we cannot hold on to them for more than a season or two because they will be off as soon as an EPL team come sniffing around. It makes no sense at all to not sell these players for a profit, because the alternative is to lose them for nothing once they unhappily see out their contracts.
So how can the likes of Maribor qualify for the Champions League with a far smaller budget than ours? Well that's a failing on the part of our scouting and coaching staff, not the board. It's actually an argument against spending more, because as we have seen, you don't have to spend tens of millions of pounds to get there. But Maribor very rarely qualify for the Champions League, and Legia have never been there.
Celtic is caught between two extremes. Nowhere near wealthy enough to guarantee Champions League football every year, but unable to regularly make our financial advantage over the minnows of European football count due to our close proximity to a financial giant.
Our best hope at the moment is to ensure the money we do spend is spent wisely. We need more Wanyamas and fewer Baldes. Above all, we need to get behind the Ronny Deila project which is a long-term one, the benefits of which will not become apparent for a year or more. We need to accept that we will not qualify for the Champions League every year in the current climate, and we need to hope that our football environment changes for the better sooner rather than later.
The main complaint levelled at the board is that no money is being spent on buying established players, ready to take a starting spot right away and immediately improve the first team.
Celtic has taken in huge amounts of money from transfer fees and Champions League qualification in the past four years, starting with the sale of Aiden McGeady to Spartak Moscow in 2010, but income does not equal money to spend on buying players. The club has running costs to meet and bills to pay before money can be spent on players. The actual amount Celtic can afford to spend on transfer fees and wages for players is a lot less than many supporters seem to think.
The club has actually spent a lot of money in the past three years on transfer fees but another common complaint is that too many mediocre players in the £2-2.5m range have been signed. I agree wholeheartedly with this point, but the fault here lies with the scouting and management staff rather than the board. Quality can be had in this price range, Virgil van Dijk being the perfect example, but too many average players have been bought too.
There is an argument that the club should buy one £5m player, guaranteeing quality, instead of two £2.5m players. The problem with this argument is threefold.
First of all, a £5m price tag is no guarantee of quality, witness Shane Long signing for Southampton for £12m - a striker who has scored just 67 league goals in 274 appearances since 2005. After signing for Hull City in January this year, he managed just four league goals before joining Southampton this month. Despite this, I suspect more than a few Celtic fans would have been delighted if we'd matched the £4.5m West Bromwich Albion shelled out for this goal-every-four-games striker in 2011 when we were reportedly interested.
Secondly, if a player is bought for £5m, he will demand wages of at least double those paid to a £2.5m player. A transfer fee of £5m could easily commit the club to spending £12m overall on a player over the duration of a 3-4 year contract.
Thirdly, spending £5m on a single player, even if it does turn out to be a successful signing, will be no guarantee of either Champions League qualification or progression. In Champions League terms, £5m is chicken feed. We'd be breaking the bank for a return realistically limited to reaching the Last 16, which we have proven ourselves capable of three times already since the big-spending Martin O'Neill era ended. An era when despite the huge amounts spent on building a team, we never qualified for the Last 16.
The biggest problem Celtic faces is a structural one, largely outside of the control of the board.
Our income is dwarfed by that of even the lowliest EPL club. Southampton is now a more attractive proposition for footballers than Celtic; even for players who have experienced first hand how special a place Celtic Park is on Champions League nights.
We have to be realistic about this. It has to be faced and understood. When we want to sign anyone, if Southampton want him, we cannot compete with them. We will lose out on that player because Southampton can pay a far higher transfer fee, far higher wages, and offer a far more exciting professional challenge week in week out.
On those occasions when we do manage to spot talent before it comes to the attention of any EPL clubs (Wanyama, Hooper, van Dijk), the most we can hope for is two, possibly three seasons from them before the EPL clubs come calling as they WILL do given the exposure the players will get from playing for Celtic.
What this means, whether we like it or not, is that for the foreseeable future Celtic's business has to be spotting unnoticed talent, developing it, and selling on at as big a profit as possible. The alternative is to lose it for nothing at the end of the contract.
We are going to find it incredibly hard to build a team capable of challenging for a Last 16 spot in the Champions League, or some years, even just getting there. We cannot hold on to our best players for long enough to do that. So what can Celtic do?
We can do what we appear to be trying to do with Ronny Deila - implement a system from the lowest age groups to the first team to that relies on a well-drilled unit composed of incredibly fit players, playing a high-intensity game that allows a great degree of interchangeability in personnel. This will take time to achieve.
Our only hope of holding on to good players is to have a good number of Scottish and/or Irish players who have some form of emotional attachment to the club. Even then there will be more Charlie Nicholases than Paul McStays, more Lou Macaris than Danny McGrains. We're hoping for Kenny Dalglishes at best, in the sense that they'll give us a good six or seven years before heading off to test themselves in England.
Don't look on Henrik Larsson as an example of a foreign player who stayed at Celtic out of a love of the club. He hung around for seven years because we paid him top dollar to do so, at a time when Celtic was a far more attractive proposition in comparison to lower level EPL clubs. The consequence of that was seeing him leave for Barcelona for nothing in 2004. We have neither the financial muscle nor the football environment to repeat that.
So we have a problem. Any top class foreign youngsters we sign will have no emotional attachment to the club and will leave at the first opportunity. Scots/Irish youngsters *might* hang around longer, but Scotland simply does not produce talent in the numbers we once did and Ireland is heavily scouted by EPL clubs. You'll find the vast majority of Irish youngsters will regard Celtic affectionately as a second club who play in a second-rate league. They'll mostly support Manchester United/Liverpool/Arsenal or even, God help us, Chelsea. Most will sign for an EPL club given the chance.
Celtic unavoidably is a holding operation at present. Not until the Ibrox tribute act "returns" to the Premiership (I know!), but until the financial situation changes, whether that means a move to another league, or a transformational financial recovery for Scottish football.
We cannot afford to spend any more than £2-3m on a single player, and even if we could, those players don't want to play in Scotland if an EPL club is interested.
Top class players can be had for £2-3m, but we cannot hold on to them for more than a season or two because they will be off as soon as an EPL team come sniffing around. It makes no sense at all to not sell these players for a profit, because the alternative is to lose them for nothing once they unhappily see out their contracts.
So how can the likes of Maribor qualify for the Champions League with a far smaller budget than ours? Well that's a failing on the part of our scouting and coaching staff, not the board. It's actually an argument against spending more, because as we have seen, you don't have to spend tens of millions of pounds to get there. But Maribor very rarely qualify for the Champions League, and Legia have never been there.
Celtic is caught between two extremes. Nowhere near wealthy enough to guarantee Champions League football every year, but unable to regularly make our financial advantage over the minnows of European football count due to our close proximity to a financial giant.
Our best hope at the moment is to ensure the money we do spend is spent wisely. We need more Wanyamas and fewer Baldes. Above all, we need to get behind the Ronny Deila project which is a long-term one, the benefits of which will not become apparent for a year or more. We need to accept that we will not qualify for the Champions League every year in the current climate, and we need to hope that our football environment changes for the better sooner rather than later.
Monday, 11 August 2014
Celtic Owe Legia Warsaw Nothing
The fallout from the decision by Henning Berg to field a suspended player in the second league of Legia Warsaw's 3rd qualifying round tie with Celtic continued over the weekend, with Legia attempting to put a guilt trip on Celtic over their exit from the tournament.
First off, I sympathise with Legia to a certain extent. They thoroughly deserved to win the tie, having played exceptionally well in both matches, and they have lost their place in the tournament, and the potential £15-20m windfall that goes along with it, because of an administrative error.
That's as far as it goes for me. I feel sorry for them, but it's just tough. End of story.
UEFA's rules on fielding suspended players are crystal clear - if you put one on the pitch, you forfeit the match.
It doesn't matter if he was only on for a few minutes or even a few seconds.
It doesn't matter if you already have the match won when he comes on.
All that matters is that you have fielded a player who is banned from playing in that match.
In that situation, UEFA has no room for leeway. There is no range of sanctions open dependent on the severity of the breach, or how far the outcome of the match was affected. There is only one possible sanction, and that is the match is forfeited by a 0-3 scoreline.
It's easy to forget, especially given the inaccurate reporting surrounding the issue, that Legia were not expelled from the Champions League for fielding a suspended player.
That leads us to the hand-wringing over the "disproportionate" punishment. The punishment was actually entirely proportionate and any attempt to mitigate the forfeit of the 2nd leg with resort to, "the match was already won," or "it made no difference to the result," sends you straight down the Sandy Bryson route, where "sporting advantage" has to be determined before clubs are properly punished for fielding banned players.
That way lies a cheats' charter where clubs can afford to take a chance on fielding banned players, knowing that they could very possibly argue their way out of forfeiting the match, as it was obviously merely a simple administrative error, and the criteria for determining the punishment would be entirely subjective.
When we consider how hard done by Legia are, we need to remember that the moment they fielded a suspended player, they forfeited the match. It wasn't a punishment inflicted by a UEFA disciplinary panel, it was the consequence of fielding the suspended player.
Regardless of how well Legia played on the night, regardless of the minimal (or none at all) impact it had on the result, the match was forfeited by Legia, through their actions in fielding a suspended player.
It is as if the 0-2 defeat Celtic suffered on the night never happened. We actually won the match by a 3-0 scoreline because Legia forfeited the match by fielding a suspended player.
Never let it be forgotten that it was Callum McGregor's goal in Warsaw that earned us our place in the play off round.
Now Legia want us to give up our place in the play off because THEY made one almighty cock-up on the night.
What Legia did was sheer, unadulterated, gross incompetence.
If they didn't know the rules of the competition, no matter how obscure they may be, then that is entirely their own fault. Legia's co-owner should be looking at his own role in this fiasco rather than attempting to morally blackmail Celtic.
He presides over a shambolic, amateurish organisation that went into the Champions League completely ignorant of how to register its players correctly and ensure suspended players have served their suspension before using them.
It is not Celtic's responsibility to ensure Legia Warsaw, or any other opponent, know the rules of the competition.
Legia Warsaw now need to take responsibility for their own gross incompetence and stop trying to coerce Celtic into taking that responsibility for them.
First off, I sympathise with Legia to a certain extent. They thoroughly deserved to win the tie, having played exceptionally well in both matches, and they have lost their place in the tournament, and the potential £15-20m windfall that goes along with it, because of an administrative error.
That's as far as it goes for me. I feel sorry for them, but it's just tough. End of story.
UEFA's rules on fielding suspended players are crystal clear - if you put one on the pitch, you forfeit the match.
It doesn't matter if he was only on for a few minutes or even a few seconds.
It doesn't matter if you already have the match won when he comes on.
All that matters is that you have fielded a player who is banned from playing in that match.
In that situation, UEFA has no room for leeway. There is no range of sanctions open dependent on the severity of the breach, or how far the outcome of the match was affected. There is only one possible sanction, and that is the match is forfeited by a 0-3 scoreline.
It's easy to forget, especially given the inaccurate reporting surrounding the issue, that Legia were not expelled from the Champions League for fielding a suspended player.
That leads us to the hand-wringing over the "disproportionate" punishment. The punishment was actually entirely proportionate and any attempt to mitigate the forfeit of the 2nd leg with resort to, "the match was already won," or "it made no difference to the result," sends you straight down the Sandy Bryson route, where "sporting advantage" has to be determined before clubs are properly punished for fielding banned players.
That way lies a cheats' charter where clubs can afford to take a chance on fielding banned players, knowing that they could very possibly argue their way out of forfeiting the match, as it was obviously merely a simple administrative error, and the criteria for determining the punishment would be entirely subjective.
When we consider how hard done by Legia are, we need to remember that the moment they fielded a suspended player, they forfeited the match. It wasn't a punishment inflicted by a UEFA disciplinary panel, it was the consequence of fielding the suspended player.
Regardless of how well Legia played on the night, regardless of the minimal (or none at all) impact it had on the result, the match was forfeited by Legia, through their actions in fielding a suspended player.
It is as if the 0-2 defeat Celtic suffered on the night never happened. We actually won the match by a 3-0 scoreline because Legia forfeited the match by fielding a suspended player.
Never let it be forgotten that it was Callum McGregor's goal in Warsaw that earned us our place in the play off round.
Now Legia want us to give up our place in the play off because THEY made one almighty cock-up on the night.
What Legia did was sheer, unadulterated, gross incompetence.
If they didn't know the rules of the competition, no matter how obscure they may be, then that is entirely their own fault. Legia's co-owner should be looking at his own role in this fiasco rather than attempting to morally blackmail Celtic.
He presides over a shambolic, amateurish organisation that went into the Champions League completely ignorant of how to register its players correctly and ensure suspended players have served their suspension before using them.
It is not Celtic's responsibility to ensure Legia Warsaw, or any other opponent, know the rules of the competition.
Legia Warsaw now need to take responsibility for their own gross incompetence and stop trying to coerce Celtic into taking that responsibility for them.
Wednesday, 9 April 2014
Celtic: What's it all about?
The fallout from the Leigh Griffiths affair continues apace and I've spent the day batting away accusations of being an apologist for racism or being "stupid." I don't discount the possibility, but the person who alleged this stupidity on my part was unable to explain herself.
Now what could it be I wrote yesterday that merits being called an apologist for racism?
Could it be the part where I said Leigh Griffiths had stepped out of line?
Or the part where I said he should be fined to the maximum allowed (if found guilty after a proper investigation)?
Maybe it was the bit where I described the refugee chant as "stupid," "mindless" and "nasty?"
Perhaps it's because I said refugees should always be welcomed because we have a duty to provide a safe haven for the oppressed?
Or more likely it was because I do not consider the chant to be racist at all. You see, to defend anyone against the accusation of witchcraft... oops, sorry, racism, is to be guilty of it yourself. It stands to reason, doesn't it? Racism is bad, and can't possibly be defended or condoned so... er... did I suggest it is okay? Answers on a postcard...
Anyway, some of the criticism has got me thinking. Particularly the charge that no Celtic fan, on account of our history, should tolerate a song calling someone a "f****** refugee."
I actually agree with that statement and have said Leigh Griffiths should be punished if he sang it. But here's something that may be controversial to say - Celtic was not founded by refugees.
The founders of Celtic were, to a man, citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
When they left Ireland for Glasgow they crossed no international frontiers or borders. They required no special permission to enter, remain, work and live in Scotland.
They were migrants, not immigrants, no different from the Highlanders who likewise streamed into Glasgow throughout the 19th Century. The Donegal dialect spoken by most of the Irish in Glasgow was closer to the Gaelic of the Highlanders than it was to the dialect of Irish spoken in Kerry.
Of course, as if it needs to be stressed, this is not to lessen the inhumanity of the treatment meted out to the Irish by successive British governments. They were driven from Ireland by poverty and hunger, but unlike those who went to America for example, they were not refugees.
The point I'm trying to get to is, as we're told no Celtic fan should condone calling anyone a f****** refugee;" what is Celtic all about?
There seem to be various factions within our support laying claim to the heart and soul of Celtic and suggesting anyone who doesn't agree with them is not a "real" Celtic fan.
I alluded yesterday to a leftist, Atheist wing of our support, who make various claims about the views of the founders of Celtic, which no "real" Celtic fan should deviate from.
To listen to them, you'd think Brother Walfrid and Co. sat in St Mary's church hall quoting Marx and Engels at each other, founding a football club in order to facilitate the redistribution of wealth and impose equality of outcome on society, while planning an early campaign to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.
To me, Celtic is about football. Preferably pure, beautiful, inventive football, but you can't always get what you want.
That's why I refuse to join in the hounding of Neil Lennon whenever we only beat St Johnstone by a single goal, or (horror of horrors) get knocked out of a cup competition before the final - something that apparently never happened to Celtic before Rangers went bust.
Another thing Celtic is about to me, is the Scots-Irish experience. As Tommy Burns said, "you're playing for a people and a cause."
Celtic is club and country rolled into one for me. The club represents the aspirations and dreams of all the children of Dark Roisin in Scotland.
Celtic is also about the underdog. We naturally side with the oppressed against the oppressor because we've been there ourselves, and in the not too distant past.
That's why when I see an enraged mob turning on Leigh Griffiths my sympathy is naturally with him. I want to examine exactly what it is he's accused of and I want him treated fairly, not tied to a stool and dunked in a pond to see if he floats.
Now Celtic may be all, some, or none of those things to you. Whichever it is, that's fine by me, you've every right to support Celtic for whatever reason you do.
What I can't accept though, is any insistence that your vision of Celtic is the only valid one and any attempt to marginalise and drive out opinions that dissent from your own.
There's one thing which can't be argued with though, and that is the ethos that made Celtic what it was from the beginning: the Catholic faith.
The first circular released by the club in 1887 makes that clear. It oozes Catholicity.
http://www.thecelticwiki.com/page/The+first+circular.
I wonder what Brother Walfrid would have made of Leigh Griffiths?
Here we have a young man who has possibly (because the video is far from clear) joined in with a chant calling another player a "f****** refugee." Brother Walfrid would definitely not have approved.
Would this man of God then, have insisted on Leigh Griffiths being banished into the wilderness, career in ruins, as our lefty, anti-racist crusaders insist he should be?
I can't say for certain, but as a Marist Brother, I feel sure he would have been guided by Christ, who when asked how often you should forgive your brother who has sinned against you, said not seven times, but seventy times seven times.
I'm fully aware that many of my fellow Celtic fans do not share that Catholic faith of Walfrid's and mine, and that's just fine. You are no less of a Celtic fan because of it.
But who can lay claim to be acting more in tune with what Celtic is all about when dealing with a Prodigal Son like Leigh Griffiths - the hang 'im high anti-racist brigade, or those of us who say he deserves a second chance (not to mention a fair trial)?
Now what could it be I wrote yesterday that merits being called an apologist for racism?
Could it be the part where I said Leigh Griffiths had stepped out of line?
Or the part where I said he should be fined to the maximum allowed (if found guilty after a proper investigation)?
Maybe it was the bit where I described the refugee chant as "stupid," "mindless" and "nasty?"
Perhaps it's because I said refugees should always be welcomed because we have a duty to provide a safe haven for the oppressed?
Or more likely it was because I do not consider the chant to be racist at all. You see, to defend anyone against the accusation of witchcraft... oops, sorry, racism, is to be guilty of it yourself. It stands to reason, doesn't it? Racism is bad, and can't possibly be defended or condoned so... er... did I suggest it is okay? Answers on a postcard...
Anyway, some of the criticism has got me thinking. Particularly the charge that no Celtic fan, on account of our history, should tolerate a song calling someone a "f****** refugee."
I actually agree with that statement and have said Leigh Griffiths should be punished if he sang it. But here's something that may be controversial to say - Celtic was not founded by refugees.
The founders of Celtic were, to a man, citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
When they left Ireland for Glasgow they crossed no international frontiers or borders. They required no special permission to enter, remain, work and live in Scotland.
They were migrants, not immigrants, no different from the Highlanders who likewise streamed into Glasgow throughout the 19th Century. The Donegal dialect spoken by most of the Irish in Glasgow was closer to the Gaelic of the Highlanders than it was to the dialect of Irish spoken in Kerry.
Of course, as if it needs to be stressed, this is not to lessen the inhumanity of the treatment meted out to the Irish by successive British governments. They were driven from Ireland by poverty and hunger, but unlike those who went to America for example, they were not refugees.
The point I'm trying to get to is, as we're told no Celtic fan should condone calling anyone a f****** refugee;" what is Celtic all about?
There seem to be various factions within our support laying claim to the heart and soul of Celtic and suggesting anyone who doesn't agree with them is not a "real" Celtic fan.
I alluded yesterday to a leftist, Atheist wing of our support, who make various claims about the views of the founders of Celtic, which no "real" Celtic fan should deviate from.
To listen to them, you'd think Brother Walfrid and Co. sat in St Mary's church hall quoting Marx and Engels at each other, founding a football club in order to facilitate the redistribution of wealth and impose equality of outcome on society, while planning an early campaign to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.
To me, Celtic is about football. Preferably pure, beautiful, inventive football, but you can't always get what you want.
That's why I refuse to join in the hounding of Neil Lennon whenever we only beat St Johnstone by a single goal, or (horror of horrors) get knocked out of a cup competition before the final - something that apparently never happened to Celtic before Rangers went bust.
Another thing Celtic is about to me, is the Scots-Irish experience. As Tommy Burns said, "you're playing for a people and a cause."
Celtic is club and country rolled into one for me. The club represents the aspirations and dreams of all the children of Dark Roisin in Scotland.
Celtic is also about the underdog. We naturally side with the oppressed against the oppressor because we've been there ourselves, and in the not too distant past.
That's why when I see an enraged mob turning on Leigh Griffiths my sympathy is naturally with him. I want to examine exactly what it is he's accused of and I want him treated fairly, not tied to a stool and dunked in a pond to see if he floats.
Now Celtic may be all, some, or none of those things to you. Whichever it is, that's fine by me, you've every right to support Celtic for whatever reason you do.
What I can't accept though, is any insistence that your vision of Celtic is the only valid one and any attempt to marginalise and drive out opinions that dissent from your own.
There's one thing which can't be argued with though, and that is the ethos that made Celtic what it was from the beginning: the Catholic faith.
The first circular released by the club in 1887 makes that clear. It oozes Catholicity.
http://www.thecelticwiki.com/page/The+first+circular.
I wonder what Brother Walfrid would have made of Leigh Griffiths?
Here we have a young man who has possibly (because the video is far from clear) joined in with a chant calling another player a "f****** refugee." Brother Walfrid would definitely not have approved.
Would this man of God then, have insisted on Leigh Griffiths being banished into the wilderness, career in ruins, as our lefty, anti-racist crusaders insist he should be?
I can't say for certain, but as a Marist Brother, I feel sure he would have been guided by Christ, who when asked how often you should forgive your brother who has sinned against you, said not seven times, but seventy times seven times.
I'm fully aware that many of my fellow Celtic fans do not share that Catholic faith of Walfrid's and mine, and that's just fine. You are no less of a Celtic fan because of it.
But who can lay claim to be acting more in tune with what Celtic is all about when dealing with a Prodigal Son like Leigh Griffiths - the hang 'im high anti-racist brigade, or those of us who say he deserves a second chance (not to mention a fair trial)?
Tuesday, 8 April 2014
Leigh Griffiths and a Modern Witch Hunt
The videos which have emerged in the past week of Leigh Griffiths joining in a pub sing-along with other Hibernian fans has revealed a self-righteousness among some Celtic fans which is deeply unattractive.
A witch hunt, and I use that term advisedly, has ensued resulting in large numbers of Celtic fans calling for a young working class man to lose his job, over what in the great scheme of things amounts to little more than a minor misdemeanour.
Let's forget for a moment the role of the reprehensible Daily Record in this tawdry affair. The mob are dancing to their tune, but that is to ignore the indisputable fact that Leigh Griffiths has stepped out of line.
As a professional footballer, it probably wasn't the best idea to attend the recent Hearts-Hibs derby match with his old mates and hang out drinking in his old haunts all day.
He should be able to do that, but the reality of the situation is that he was putting himself in a situation where there was the great potential for just such an embarrassing incident to happen.
I think we can all accept that the first chant Griffiths took part in was naughty, but essentially harmless. He was rightly fined by Celtic for his actions which caused embarrassment for the club.
Then, conveniently, a second video emerged, this time showing Griffiths possibly (because it's virtually impossible to tell) chanting the words, "Rudi Skacel is a f****** refugee."
While most Celtic fans had no problem whatsoever with the first chant, this second pushes the hot-button 'racism' issue and as a result a large number of fans have turned on the player.
This is where I have a problem. The song itself is indefensible. It is nasty, distasteful, unpleasant. Leigh Griffiths should not have been singing it, in the same sense that no one really should be singing it.
The reason that the mob has turned on Leigh Griffiths though is not that he sang a nasty, distasteful song about Rudi Skacel. The reason so many have turned on him is that the chant is, apparently, racist.
It has been compared to the 'Famine Song,' which actually is objectively racist - it targets people of a specific ethnic group and invites them to 'go home.'
The 'refugee' chant on the other hand makes no mention of its target (Skacel) being of any particular racial or ethnic group. Neither does it mention his nationality.
A refugee can be anyone who has taken a particular course of action, ie, fleeing persecution in their homeland. To be a refugee is not to have any innate characteristic. Apart from having taken that particular course of action, refugees share no other common characteristics, race, ethnicity or nationality.
As a Catholic, I believe that refugees should always be accepted, nay welcomed, in this country, no questions asked. We have a duty to offer protection and safety to those in need. As I'm often told online by the increasingly leftist, Atheist wing of our support though, I have no right to force my beliefs onto others. Apparently that's their job.
Rudi Skacel is a citizen of the Czech Republic. As an EU citizen, he has the full right to live and work in the UK. He has not fled persecution in his homeland. The chant is patently in error about Skacel's status.
By the same token, no one from the Czech Republic living in the UK is a refugee.
At this point, the mob throw their hands up in exasperation and say, "Of course it's racist, why do you think they're calling Skacel a 'f****** refugee?'"
Well the answer to that is, I don't know and neither does anyone else who has not sung it. We are into the realms of speculation now.
Could it be that thousands of Hibs fans think Skacel actually is a refugee? Possibly they do. Could it be that thousands of Hibs fans hate refugees? Maybe, but it still doesn't necessarily make them racists. Not nice people for sure (if that's the case), but not racist.
I don't discount these possibilities, but here's another one - it is motivated by the age old desire of the football fan to denigrate a rival player in song.
I'm old enough to have stood in the Jungle and belted out a song about Ian Durrant which would provoke similar howls of outrage from the self-righteous if it was repeated today.
I stood on the old Celtic end in January 1988 surrounded by thousands of fellow fans directing monkey chants and worse at Mark Walters, while people closer to the pitch threw bananas at him. I saw someone outside the ground that day dressed in a gorilla suit. Should we all have been banned for life from Celtic Park, banished from the Celtic family forever? Or did we all just need a good kick up the backside and told to wise up?
At the turn of the millennium, the supporters bus I travelled on used to while away the long hours of our trips to Celtic park by singing an offensive song about Michael Mols' wife and her, let's just say, not exactly model looks.
In recent seasons, we've heard songs about Charlie Adams' sister and even this season, the song about one of the de Boer twins' nocturnal (presumably) activities has resurfaced.
All of those chants were/are nasty in their way, but I don't remember many people being up in arms about them (the Walters incident apart).
So what makes Griffiths' refugee chant different is the alleged racist connotations.
Griffiths is guilty of nothing more than joining in with a distasteful chant with other fans of the team he supports.
It is a chant Hibs fans have been doing for several years, yet never once have I read any condemnation of it in the Scottish MSM. Hibernian has never been cited for their fans chanting it by the SFA, and yet suddenly the Daily Record realises it is racist when Leigh Griffiths is caught singing it? Not forgetting that it is far from conclusive that Griffiths actually sings it on the video that has emerged.
If Leigh Griffiths has chanted this song, he has done wrong and should be sanctioned appropriately, but let's keep things in perspective.
The baying for his blood by many Celtic fans at the moment is the result of a dubious charge of racism, leading to an almost Pavlovian response. It is a perfect opportunity for the enlightened chattering classes to attack the unenlightened working class football fan.
Anyone who dares to defend Griffiths against this charge of racism is attacked for being racist themselves. It is becoming a modern witch hunt, with the accused already deemed guilty as charged before the accusation has been examined in the light of a rational investigation.
Do Hibs fans hate refugees? Has their Rudi Skacel chant resulted in mobs of Hibs fans attacking refugees in the Capital? Are Czechs or other central Europeans at increased risk of assault in Edinburgh compared to the rest of the UK?
Or is it just a stupid, mindless, nasty verbal attack on a rival player, the likes of which is chanted by football fans of every team all over the world?
Leigh Griffiths was rightly fined by Celtic for his Sunday sing-a-long to the Hearts going bust chant. I don't know if Celtic were aware of the Skacel chant when this was dealt with, but it happened on the same day. Griffiths has not gone out after that and been caught doing the same thing again.
I'm also suspicious of any suggestion that the videos emerged separately. This has the appearance of a drip-feed of revelations, timed to cause maximum damage.
If Celtic were unaware of the Skacel chant when Griffiths was originally fined, that fine should be increased to the maximum allowed.
What I find unpalatable though is this insistence, this demand, that Griffiths must be sacked. That a young man's career should be ruined simply because of a dubious charge of racism.
That would not be justice, but vindictiveness, forced by a modern Inquisition determined to drive out anyone whose views do not conform to the prevailing liberal consensus.
A witch hunt, and I use that term advisedly, has ensued resulting in large numbers of Celtic fans calling for a young working class man to lose his job, over what in the great scheme of things amounts to little more than a minor misdemeanour.
Let's forget for a moment the role of the reprehensible Daily Record in this tawdry affair. The mob are dancing to their tune, but that is to ignore the indisputable fact that Leigh Griffiths has stepped out of line.
As a professional footballer, it probably wasn't the best idea to attend the recent Hearts-Hibs derby match with his old mates and hang out drinking in his old haunts all day.
He should be able to do that, but the reality of the situation is that he was putting himself in a situation where there was the great potential for just such an embarrassing incident to happen.
I think we can all accept that the first chant Griffiths took part in was naughty, but essentially harmless. He was rightly fined by Celtic for his actions which caused embarrassment for the club.
Then, conveniently, a second video emerged, this time showing Griffiths possibly (because it's virtually impossible to tell) chanting the words, "Rudi Skacel is a f****** refugee."
While most Celtic fans had no problem whatsoever with the first chant, this second pushes the hot-button 'racism' issue and as a result a large number of fans have turned on the player.
This is where I have a problem. The song itself is indefensible. It is nasty, distasteful, unpleasant. Leigh Griffiths should not have been singing it, in the same sense that no one really should be singing it.
The reason that the mob has turned on Leigh Griffiths though is not that he sang a nasty, distasteful song about Rudi Skacel. The reason so many have turned on him is that the chant is, apparently, racist.
It has been compared to the 'Famine Song,' which actually is objectively racist - it targets people of a specific ethnic group and invites them to 'go home.'
The 'refugee' chant on the other hand makes no mention of its target (Skacel) being of any particular racial or ethnic group. Neither does it mention his nationality.
A refugee can be anyone who has taken a particular course of action, ie, fleeing persecution in their homeland. To be a refugee is not to have any innate characteristic. Apart from having taken that particular course of action, refugees share no other common characteristics, race, ethnicity or nationality.
As a Catholic, I believe that refugees should always be accepted, nay welcomed, in this country, no questions asked. We have a duty to offer protection and safety to those in need. As I'm often told online by the increasingly leftist, Atheist wing of our support though, I have no right to force my beliefs onto others. Apparently that's their job.
Rudi Skacel is a citizen of the Czech Republic. As an EU citizen, he has the full right to live and work in the UK. He has not fled persecution in his homeland. The chant is patently in error about Skacel's status.
By the same token, no one from the Czech Republic living in the UK is a refugee.
At this point, the mob throw their hands up in exasperation and say, "Of course it's racist, why do you think they're calling Skacel a 'f****** refugee?'"
Well the answer to that is, I don't know and neither does anyone else who has not sung it. We are into the realms of speculation now.
Could it be that thousands of Hibs fans think Skacel actually is a refugee? Possibly they do. Could it be that thousands of Hibs fans hate refugees? Maybe, but it still doesn't necessarily make them racists. Not nice people for sure (if that's the case), but not racist.
I don't discount these possibilities, but here's another one - it is motivated by the age old desire of the football fan to denigrate a rival player in song.
I'm old enough to have stood in the Jungle and belted out a song about Ian Durrant which would provoke similar howls of outrage from the self-righteous if it was repeated today.
I stood on the old Celtic end in January 1988 surrounded by thousands of fellow fans directing monkey chants and worse at Mark Walters, while people closer to the pitch threw bananas at him. I saw someone outside the ground that day dressed in a gorilla suit. Should we all have been banned for life from Celtic Park, banished from the Celtic family forever? Or did we all just need a good kick up the backside and told to wise up?
At the turn of the millennium, the supporters bus I travelled on used to while away the long hours of our trips to Celtic park by singing an offensive song about Michael Mols' wife and her, let's just say, not exactly model looks.
In recent seasons, we've heard songs about Charlie Adams' sister and even this season, the song about one of the de Boer twins' nocturnal (presumably) activities has resurfaced.
All of those chants were/are nasty in their way, but I don't remember many people being up in arms about them (the Walters incident apart).
So what makes Griffiths' refugee chant different is the alleged racist connotations.
Griffiths is guilty of nothing more than joining in with a distasteful chant with other fans of the team he supports.
It is a chant Hibs fans have been doing for several years, yet never once have I read any condemnation of it in the Scottish MSM. Hibernian has never been cited for their fans chanting it by the SFA, and yet suddenly the Daily Record realises it is racist when Leigh Griffiths is caught singing it? Not forgetting that it is far from conclusive that Griffiths actually sings it on the video that has emerged.
If Leigh Griffiths has chanted this song, he has done wrong and should be sanctioned appropriately, but let's keep things in perspective.
The baying for his blood by many Celtic fans at the moment is the result of a dubious charge of racism, leading to an almost Pavlovian response. It is a perfect opportunity for the enlightened chattering classes to attack the unenlightened working class football fan.
Anyone who dares to defend Griffiths against this charge of racism is attacked for being racist themselves. It is becoming a modern witch hunt, with the accused already deemed guilty as charged before the accusation has been examined in the light of a rational investigation.
Do Hibs fans hate refugees? Has their Rudi Skacel chant resulted in mobs of Hibs fans attacking refugees in the Capital? Are Czechs or other central Europeans at increased risk of assault in Edinburgh compared to the rest of the UK?
Or is it just a stupid, mindless, nasty verbal attack on a rival player, the likes of which is chanted by football fans of every team all over the world?
Leigh Griffiths was rightly fined by Celtic for his Sunday sing-a-long to the Hearts going bust chant. I don't know if Celtic were aware of the Skacel chant when this was dealt with, but it happened on the same day. Griffiths has not gone out after that and been caught doing the same thing again.
I'm also suspicious of any suggestion that the videos emerged separately. This has the appearance of a drip-feed of revelations, timed to cause maximum damage.
If Celtic were unaware of the Skacel chant when Griffiths was originally fined, that fine should be increased to the maximum allowed.
What I find unpalatable though is this insistence, this demand, that Griffiths must be sacked. That a young man's career should be ruined simply because of a dubious charge of racism.
That would not be justice, but vindictiveness, forced by a modern Inquisition determined to drive out anyone whose views do not conform to the prevailing liberal consensus.
Saturday, 8 February 2014
Fergus McCann: Mo Ghile Mear
I was reminded of a story about Fergus McCann this morning as we approach the 20th anniversary of his saving Celtic from administration and possibly liquidation in 1994.
Many people will already be aware of this story, but it bears repeating as we consider the impending collapse of the new Rangers, and also calls from certain quarters for Celtic to splash the cash in pursuit of Champions League progress.
Back in the summer of 1995, the late, great Tommy Burns approached Fergus and asked if he could sign Gordan Petric from Dundee United.
We'd met Petric before he ever pitched up at Dundee United, after running into him in a European Cup Winners Cup tie against Partizan Belgrade in 1989. One of the greatest ever European nights at Celtic Park, but one that ended in bitter frustration and disappointment as a rollercoaster of a match saw Celtic throw away their lead in the final seconds to go out yet again on the away goals rule.
Jackie Dziekanowski was particularly disappointed, having scored four of Celtic's five goals on the night.
Fergus asked Tommy how much he felt Petric was worth, to which Tommy replied £800k.
Fergus gave him the nod and a bid of £800k was submitted to Dundee Utd.
To digress for a moment, it might be difficult for younger Celtic fans to appreciate how desperate we were for a centre half at that time. We are spoiled at the moment with Virgil van Dijk but he is a rarity at the club.
My Celtic memories go back to the late 70's, with the first central defensive partnership I remember being Roddy McDonald and Pat Stanton.
McDonald was a previously erratic centre half, who was steadied by the arrival of the experienced Stanton in 1976 and became a very competent defender. Unfortunately for Celtic and McDonald, Stanton's career would be ended by an injury sustained on the opening day of the 1977-78 campaign and McDonald was never quite the same again.
It's fair to say to say that following the retirement of Billy McNeill in 1975 it took Celtic the best part of two decades to adequately replace him.
McAdam, Munro, Garner, McGugan, Whyte, Baillie, McCarthy all filled the centre half berth with varying degrees of success (or very definitely not!), but apart from the all too brief Celtic career of Paul Elliot from 1989-91, no one who could be so much as spoken of in the same breath as Billy McNeill.
So it was in the summer of 1995 that Tommy Burns turned to the perennial problem of signing a reliable centre half.
Tommy had to go back to Fergus later that week to inform him that the now defunct Rangers FC had trumped us with a £900k bid.
Fergus acquiesced with Tommy's request for another £200k and a £1m offer was submitted to United.
You can guess what happened next, as the defunct Govan club duly bid £1.1m.
Contrary to his penny-pinching image, so beloved of the Scottish media back then, Fergus then allowed Tommy to put in a £1.2m bid for the player.
Rangers then, you got it, bid £1.3m and incredibly, if you bought the media image of him, Fergus allowed Tommy to go to £1.4m.
Following Rangers' inevitable £1.5m offer, Tommy again approached Fergus, asking if we could go to £1.6m?
Such was our desperation for a good centre half, Tommy was incredibly frustrated when Fergus now gave him an emphatic, "no."
"Tommy, you told me he's worth £800k, right?" he is said to have asked.
"Yes," replied Tommy.
"And now you want us to pay DOUBLE that amount? No, at that price, Rangers can have him."
I well remember the STV news that evening, as they went through the headlines at the start, "Gordan Petric on the move to Glasgow, but to Rangers or Celtic?" they breathlessly teased? "Find out in a few moments." (It's always the grammatically incorrect "Rangers or Celtic?")
I knew before finding out in a few moments that Petric was signing for Rangers. We couldn't compete with them for players in those days and there was no way he was coming to us if Rangers wanted him - they'd spend whatever it took to get him, but the sense of disappointment, frustration and, yes, humiliation was still overwhelming.
It was a sickener and so many of us felt then that Fergus should have spent whatever it took to get a hold of this decent, but no more than that, defender.
To borrow a line from Rod Stewart, I wish that I knew what I know now, when I was younger.
That story perfectly encapsulates why Celtic and Rangers followed such different trajectories in the following 20 years. In fact, Rangers did not survive the next 20 years, having shuffled off their mortal coil almost two years ago.
I only wish I knew than that Rangers had already embarked upon a course of financial steroids that would eventually kill them and that Fergus McCann was right while so many of us were wrong.
Next to that, missing out on Gordan Petric shouldn't have amounted to a hill of beans.
Fergus McCann is a colossus of a figure in our history. He deserves a hero's welcome when he comes back to the club, and the stadium he built, in August.
In fact, it wouldn't be too over the top if he was given a triumphant procession the length of London Road in a horse-drawn chariot, with a wee guy to whisper in his ear every few moments, "Remember that thou art mortal."
Many people will already be aware of this story, but it bears repeating as we consider the impending collapse of the new Rangers, and also calls from certain quarters for Celtic to splash the cash in pursuit of Champions League progress.
Back in the summer of 1995, the late, great Tommy Burns approached Fergus and asked if he could sign Gordan Petric from Dundee United.
We'd met Petric before he ever pitched up at Dundee United, after running into him in a European Cup Winners Cup tie against Partizan Belgrade in 1989. One of the greatest ever European nights at Celtic Park, but one that ended in bitter frustration and disappointment as a rollercoaster of a match saw Celtic throw away their lead in the final seconds to go out yet again on the away goals rule.
Jackie Dziekanowski was particularly disappointed, having scored four of Celtic's five goals on the night.
Fergus asked Tommy how much he felt Petric was worth, to which Tommy replied £800k.
Fergus gave him the nod and a bid of £800k was submitted to Dundee Utd.
To digress for a moment, it might be difficult for younger Celtic fans to appreciate how desperate we were for a centre half at that time. We are spoiled at the moment with Virgil van Dijk but he is a rarity at the club.
My Celtic memories go back to the late 70's, with the first central defensive partnership I remember being Roddy McDonald and Pat Stanton.
McDonald was a previously erratic centre half, who was steadied by the arrival of the experienced Stanton in 1976 and became a very competent defender. Unfortunately for Celtic and McDonald, Stanton's career would be ended by an injury sustained on the opening day of the 1977-78 campaign and McDonald was never quite the same again.
It's fair to say to say that following the retirement of Billy McNeill in 1975 it took Celtic the best part of two decades to adequately replace him.
McAdam, Munro, Garner, McGugan, Whyte, Baillie, McCarthy all filled the centre half berth with varying degrees of success (or very definitely not!), but apart from the all too brief Celtic career of Paul Elliot from 1989-91, no one who could be so much as spoken of in the same breath as Billy McNeill.
So it was in the summer of 1995 that Tommy Burns turned to the perennial problem of signing a reliable centre half.
Tommy had to go back to Fergus later that week to inform him that the now defunct Rangers FC had trumped us with a £900k bid.
Fergus acquiesced with Tommy's request for another £200k and a £1m offer was submitted to United.
You can guess what happened next, as the defunct Govan club duly bid £1.1m.
Contrary to his penny-pinching image, so beloved of the Scottish media back then, Fergus then allowed Tommy to put in a £1.2m bid for the player.
Rangers then, you got it, bid £1.3m and incredibly, if you bought the media image of him, Fergus allowed Tommy to go to £1.4m.
Following Rangers' inevitable £1.5m offer, Tommy again approached Fergus, asking if we could go to £1.6m?
Such was our desperation for a good centre half, Tommy was incredibly frustrated when Fergus now gave him an emphatic, "no."
"Tommy, you told me he's worth £800k, right?" he is said to have asked.
"Yes," replied Tommy.
"And now you want us to pay DOUBLE that amount? No, at that price, Rangers can have him."
I well remember the STV news that evening, as they went through the headlines at the start, "Gordan Petric on the move to Glasgow, but to Rangers or Celtic?" they breathlessly teased? "Find out in a few moments." (It's always the grammatically incorrect "Rangers or Celtic?")
I knew before finding out in a few moments that Petric was signing for Rangers. We couldn't compete with them for players in those days and there was no way he was coming to us if Rangers wanted him - they'd spend whatever it took to get him, but the sense of disappointment, frustration and, yes, humiliation was still overwhelming.
It was a sickener and so many of us felt then that Fergus should have spent whatever it took to get a hold of this decent, but no more than that, defender.
To borrow a line from Rod Stewart, I wish that I knew what I know now, when I was younger.
That story perfectly encapsulates why Celtic and Rangers followed such different trajectories in the following 20 years. In fact, Rangers did not survive the next 20 years, having shuffled off their mortal coil almost two years ago.
I only wish I knew than that Rangers had already embarked upon a course of financial steroids that would eventually kill them and that Fergus McCann was right while so many of us were wrong.
Next to that, missing out on Gordan Petric shouldn't have amounted to a hill of beans.
Fergus McCann is a colossus of a figure in our history. He deserves a hero's welcome when he comes back to the club, and the stadium he built, in August.
In fact, it wouldn't be too over the top if he was given a triumphant procession the length of London Road in a horse-drawn chariot, with a wee guy to whisper in his ear every few moments, "Remember that thou art mortal."
Thursday, 30 January 2014
The Fiddle Game
A rather harassed-looking man, let's call him Craig, walks into a bar carrying a beat-up old violin case.
He sits at the bar and after ordering a pint of Carlsberg tells the barman, let's call him Billy, all his troubles. A beloved uncle has just died, leaving him as executor of the will and it is proving very problematic. Our man has ten minutes before he has to go to the lawyer's office to sort out some frustrating legal claims on his uncle's estate.
The worst part of it? All the old boy left him was this battered old violin.
He takes it out of the case to show the barman, telling him it's only worth about £100, then asks if he can leave it behind the bar while he goes to the lawyer's office.
Taking pity on him, the barman says that would be okay and Craig rushes off to see the lawyer.
Ten minutes later another man, let's call him Charlie, comes in and asks for a pint of Dry Blackthorn.
Noticing the violin case sitting behind the bar, he asks the barman if he can have a look.
As he opens the case and picks up the violin in his big 'ands, he momentarily opens his mouth wide in astonishment before regaining his composure as he asks if it's for sale?
"It's not mine," says the barman, "it belongs to a customer who inherited it from his uncle. It's only worth about £100."
"Listen," says Charlie, this thing is a Stradivarius. Clean it up a bit, spot of polish, and it could be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds! I'm an antique dealer and I'd pay £100,000 - £150,000 for it. I know a man in London would pay any price I wanted for it over the phone right now!"
"He should be back in a while, he just went to see a lawyer. He's coming back for it," says the barman.
Charlie checks his watch impatiently, lets out a few frustrated noises, then says, "I can't wait, my train leaves in ten minutes. I'm going to have to go. Can you give him this?" He hands over an embossed business card, introducing himself as a dealer in fine musical antiques. "Get him to call me," he calls over his shoulder as he hurriedly leaves.
The barman is now thinking over his options. When the owner of the violin returns, he offers him £1000 for the violin. "It's my son's birthday next week," he says. "He's going to be 10 and he's been learning to play at school. Last week some bullies stole his violin and smashed it up. I think he's been punished enough and he's threatening to make everyone miserable if he doesn't get a new one."
"No, I couldn't possibly," he says. "It's all I've got left to remind me of my uncle."
The barman cajoles him, offering £2,000, £3,000, £6,000. Craig is now looking tempted, but still can't bring himself to part with his uncle's violin. Finally, on being offered £8,000, Craig relents and reluctantly parts with the violin.
Billy smiles contentedly. Now where's Charlie's card?
Later that night, at a lock-up garage, Craig and Charlie meet and Craig hands £4,000 over to Charlie for his trouble. Charlie puts the money in his pocket with a broad smile as Craig goes into the garage and picks up a battered old violin case from a large pile of them.
"See you later then Charlie?"
"Sure thing Craig. Same time tomorrow night."
I can't help but think of that story every time I think of a certain other Craig and Charlie. Somehow I don't think either of them are out of pocket.
He sits at the bar and after ordering a pint of Carlsberg tells the barman, let's call him Billy, all his troubles. A beloved uncle has just died, leaving him as executor of the will and it is proving very problematic. Our man has ten minutes before he has to go to the lawyer's office to sort out some frustrating legal claims on his uncle's estate.
The worst part of it? All the old boy left him was this battered old violin.
He takes it out of the case to show the barman, telling him it's only worth about £100, then asks if he can leave it behind the bar while he goes to the lawyer's office.
Taking pity on him, the barman says that would be okay and Craig rushes off to see the lawyer.
Ten minutes later another man, let's call him Charlie, comes in and asks for a pint of Dry Blackthorn.
Noticing the violin case sitting behind the bar, he asks the barman if he can have a look.
As he opens the case and picks up the violin in his big 'ands, he momentarily opens his mouth wide in astonishment before regaining his composure as he asks if it's for sale?
"It's not mine," says the barman, "it belongs to a customer who inherited it from his uncle. It's only worth about £100."
"Listen," says Charlie, this thing is a Stradivarius. Clean it up a bit, spot of polish, and it could be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds! I'm an antique dealer and I'd pay £100,000 - £150,000 for it. I know a man in London would pay any price I wanted for it over the phone right now!"
"He should be back in a while, he just went to see a lawyer. He's coming back for it," says the barman.
Charlie checks his watch impatiently, lets out a few frustrated noises, then says, "I can't wait, my train leaves in ten minutes. I'm going to have to go. Can you give him this?" He hands over an embossed business card, introducing himself as a dealer in fine musical antiques. "Get him to call me," he calls over his shoulder as he hurriedly leaves.
The barman is now thinking over his options. When the owner of the violin returns, he offers him £1000 for the violin. "It's my son's birthday next week," he says. "He's going to be 10 and he's been learning to play at school. Last week some bullies stole his violin and smashed it up. I think he's been punished enough and he's threatening to make everyone miserable if he doesn't get a new one."
"No, I couldn't possibly," he says. "It's all I've got left to remind me of my uncle."
The barman cajoles him, offering £2,000, £3,000, £6,000. Craig is now looking tempted, but still can't bring himself to part with his uncle's violin. Finally, on being offered £8,000, Craig relents and reluctantly parts with the violin.
Billy smiles contentedly. Now where's Charlie's card?
Later that night, at a lock-up garage, Craig and Charlie meet and Craig hands £4,000 over to Charlie for his trouble. Charlie puts the money in his pocket with a broad smile as Craig goes into the garage and picks up a battered old violin case from a large pile of them.
"See you later then Charlie?"
"Sure thing Craig. Same time tomorrow night."
I can't help but think of that story every time I think of a certain other Craig and Charlie. Somehow I don't think either of them are out of pocket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)