Celtic and Republicanism

The Green Brigade have caused Celtic no little bother in the past week, with two displays referencing the Offensive Behaviour Act and involving Irish Republican imagery and song.

This has led to the club being investigated or charged by both the SPFL and UEFA for infringements of their rules regarding fan behaviour.

I'm not concerned here with the Offensive Behaviour Act (which is a nonsensical piece of legislation and should be repealed ASAP), but with the content of the banners themselves.

The Green Brigade were making a valid point about the similarities (although let's not take that too far because there are significant differences too) between the Republican armed struggle of the 1970's - 1990's and the 13th - 14th Century struggle for Scottish independence. They also have a point that the Offensive Behaviour Act is an unacceptable attack on freedom of expression. That though is not my concern here either.

It may well be a freedom of speech/expression issue, but having a right to do something doesn't mean you have to, or even should, do it.

At heart this issue is about an insistence on showing support for the Irish Republican cause at Celtic matches. I've no problem with anyone being a Republican, although it's not an ideology I share myself. I've no problem with anyone displaying their support for Republicanism either, but in an appropriate setting, which I do not believe a Celtic match is.

So here is the heart of the argument - how far is Republicanism a part of Celtic's DNA?

I'll define my terms before going on. "Celtic," is Celtic FC, founded 1887, incorporated as a limited liability company in 1897 and floated on the stock market as Celtic plc in 1994.

"Republicanism" is the political ideology espoused by Provisional Sinn Fein, tracing its roots to Wolfe Tone's Republicanism of 1798 by way of the First Dail 1919.

On what basis is Celtic claimed to have been Republican, or associated with Republicanism right from the start?

It usually revolves around the patronage of the club by Michael Davitt, who laid a sod of Donegal turf in the centre circle of the original Celtic Park.

Does this mean the club endorsed Republicanism? For me that is quite a stretch.

Michael Davitt was certainly a Republican at one stage in his life. He was a member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood and was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment in 1870 for his part in arms smuggling. He was released after serving half of his sentence in 1877 and rejoined the IRB, becoming a member of its Supreme Council.

While imprisoned, Davitt came to believe that the only way the people's lives could be improved was by being given ownership of their land. He devoted the next part of his political career to enabling tenant farmers to buy their land from absentee landlords.

From 1878 - 1881 the Irish National Land League, with the support of Charles Stewart Parnell, campaigned for tenants' rights, specifically "the Three F's," (fair rents, fixity of tenure, and free sale). Their strategy was one of withholding of rents, resisting evictions, and eventually ostracism of the worst of the landlords, the first target being Captain Charles Boycott.

The Land Act of 1881 secured Davitt's objectives.

When Celtic was founded in 1887, what exactly was it that made Davitt a hero to so many? Was it his IRB gun smuggling activities, or his heroic efforts on behalf of Irish tenant farmers which, with it's renunciation of violence, inspired Mahatma Gandhi some 70 years later?

 Of course we may never know definitively the answer to that question, but what is the likelihood? Republicanism was a fringe movement in Ireland at the time and the vast majority of the people were supporters of Parnell and Home Rule.

It is debatable by this point whether Davitt can even be accurately described as a Republican. Throughout the 1890's he was a Member of Parliament for the Irish Parliamentary Party and when he died in 1906 his funeral was attended by The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

That Davitt was at one time a Republican is indisputable. That he was Republican in 1888 is less clear.

Given the popularity of Parnell and the Irish Party of which Davitt was an ally, and his fame for helping the downtrodden tenant farmer, it is far from clear that the newly formed Celtic approached him on account of his Republicanism. His later career in the House of Commons suggests he would hardly have been the sort to lie in wait for Mick Collins at Béal na Bláth.

Barring solid evidence to the contrary, it is impossible to say with certainty what the political leanings of the founders of Celtic were. On the balance of probability, I consider it highly unlikely that all, or even many of them, were Republicans.

Of course, even if they were, that by itself would not make Republicanism intrinsic to Celtic. What did Celtic say about itself?

The first circular, issued by the club in January 1888, said this:

Circular

CELTIC FOOTBALL AND ATHLETIC CLUB
CELTIC PARK, PARKHEAD
(Corner of Dalmarnock and Janefield Streets)

Patrons
His Grace the Archbishop of Glasgow and the Clergy of St. Mary's, Sacred Heart and St. Michael's Missions, and the principle Catholic laymen of the East End

The above club was formed in November 1887 by a number of the Catholics of the East End of the City.

The main objective of the club is to supply the East End conferences of the St. Vincent De Paul Society with funds for the maintenence of the "Dinner Tables" of our needy children in the Missions of St Mary's, Sacred Heart, and St. Michael's. Many cases of sheer poverty are left unaided through lack of means. It is therefore with this principle object that we have set afloat the "Celtic", and we invite you as one of our ever-ready friends to assist in putting our new Park in proper working order for the coming football season.

We have already several of the leading Catholic football players of the West of Scotland on our membership list. They have most thoughtfully offered to assist in the good work.

We are fully aware that the "elite" of football players belong to this City and suburbs, and we know that from there we can select a team which will be able to do credit to the Catholics of the West of Scotland as the Hibernians have been doing in the East.

Again, there is also the desire to have a large recreation ground where our Catholic young men will be able to enjoy the various sports which will build them up physically, and we feel sure we will have many supporters with us in this laudable object.
http://www.thecelticwiki.com/page/The+first+circular.

Not a trace of Republicanism, nor even Nationalism to be found there. It is clear that the driving impulse behind the foundation of Celtic in 1887 was Catholic charity. Celtic was, and remained for long, a Catholic club far more than a Republican one.

Of course many Celtic fans have, at least since 1916, been ardent Republicans, but that does not make the club so.

The question remains though - should Celtic supporters sing Republican songs at Celtic matches?

In my opinion, you should have a right to do so, but that does not mean you should.

I find the argument that Celtic has Republican roots to be very weak. No one can say the founders of the club were Republican - the liklihood is that they were not. It is also a stretch to say that by approaching Michael Davitt that the club endorsed his Republicanism.

What I feel the rebel singers should be doing is considering the feelings of other people. No one in their right minds would visit Dresden and sing songs glorifying the brave men who firebombed the city in 1945.

By the same token, a great many decent people, without a bigoted thought in their heads, find songs glorifying the organisation that bombed Warrington decidedly distasteful.

Whether we like it or not, we share this country with people who will never, ever accept the Provisional IRA as romantic freedom fighters. That many songs refer to a different incarnation of the IRA is a fine distinction that most people are unwilling to consider. And furthermore, most of these people have no axe to grind with Ireland or the Irish.

William Wallace may have done some violent things, but he has been dead these past 700 years. There's no one alive today whose son, daughter, husband, wife, parent or grandparent were killed in the Scottish wars of independence. The wounds from the Troubles are still too raw for too many people to appreciate having to listen to people at football matches singing songs in support of either side in the conflict.

You can argue all you like that people need to be educated about what went on in Ireland in the 20th Century and before, but who wants to listen to a load of football fans singing about it on their tv's when all they want to do is enjoy a match?

I often hear people say they have no problem with Catholics, but they do have a problem with Catholicism. For me, when it comes to Irish Republicanism, it's the other way round.

I draw an important distinction here between the people who are active in Republican politics in Ireland, and the Scottish singers of the songs at Celtic matches. I find nothing morally objectionable about Republicanism, and people are fully entitled to pursue its ends legitimately.

What I have a problem with is Scottish Celtic supporters using the club as a platform to spout their support for a cause which, let's be honest, most of them know little about, while telling us that they are the real Celtic supporters for doing so. That singing about Bobby Sands rather than Bobby Murdoch means they are following in the footsteps of the Marist Brother who founded the club more closely than those of us who object to their choice of songbook.

This would be an academic debate if only the songs and banners didn't hurt the club they profess to love.

We've been fined repeatedly by UEFA over the past few years, including for "illicit" banners and chants supporting Irish Republicanism. If this doesn't stop, we could be facing away bans (as happened to old Rangers for sectarian chanting before they shuffled off their mortal coil) or stand closures.

So please, campaign against the Offensive Behaviour Act all you like. Outside Holyrood would be a good place to start.

Be as Republican as you like, I'm sure Sinn Fein would welcome your feet on the ground knocking doors all over Ireland at election time. Not sure your singing at Celtic Park does the cause much good though.

But please don't tell me that by singing Republican songs you are fighting for my right of free speech, or being true to the roots of the club we both love.

One final note - I've lost count of the number of times over the past week I've seen or heard someone say the club wants to lose its Irish roots and become a Glasgow version of Hibs.

That's nonsense. Celtic is a Scottish club with proud Irish roots and that will never, ever be forgotten, especially by people like me who are equally proud of their own Irish roots.  But Republicanism is a political ideology, not a nationality and you don't have to be Republican to be Irish. Nor is it the only authentic expression of Irishness.

Let the people sing their stories and their songs, but we might all like different songs and you might not like all of them. Far better to sing about what unites us as Celtic fans rather than divides us.






    

Victor Wanyama: Should He Stay Or Should He Go?

Jock Stein famously said the Celtic shirt doesn’t shrink to fit inferior players.

That much is true, but there is a magical quality to the green and white hoops. Sometimes they can make inferior players grow to fit them.

Celtic makes great players, but once that green and white shirt is removed, the magic often wears off and very few players go on to greater success when they leave.

Ask Charlie Nicholas – one time darling of Celtic Park who burst onto the scene as a teenager in the early 1980’s.

The Cannonball Kid was the hottest property in British football at the age of 21 in the summer of 1983. He could have signed for Liverpool or Manchester United, but chose to head for the bright lights of London instead, to sign for Arsenal.

The British football landscape had a very different look to it back then. Arsenal was not the dazzling, inventive purveyor of the beautiful game it would become under Arsene Wenger.

Arsenal was not even a particularly successful club back then either.

They were a stuffy, defensive outfit and the young Nicholas soon found his natural exuberance curbed to the extent he once found himself tasked with man-marking Bryan Robson in a match at Old Trafford.

After four decidedly average years at Highbury, he found himself returning to Scotland with Aberdeen in late 1987, a 26 year old whose career was on the slide.

The Cannonball Kid was gone, and a slower, bulkier Nicholas, despite still showing flashes of the old outrageous skills he once possessed in abundance, never again hit the heights of those early years at Celtic.

Charlie Nicholas returned to Celtic at age 29 in 1990 for the swansong of his career and left without winning a trophy in 1993.

His was a career that never came near to fulfilling that early promise.

As Victor Wanyama ponders his options this summer, he would do well to remember another Celtic midfielder who once had the world at his feet, only to see his career nosedive on leaving.

Liam Miller joined Celtic as a teenager and made his debut at the end of season 1999-2000 against Dundee United.

A series of injuries curtailed his appearances, and after a loan spell in Denmark, his next league appearance came in August 2003.

Breaking into a Celtic team that had appeared in the UEFA Cup Final the previous season, Miller was a revelation in the first half of the season, the highlights being a barnstorming performance in 1-0 win at Ibrox against the now-defunct Rangers FC, where he dominated his opposite number, Mikel Arteta, now of Arsenal.

He followed this with a scoring appearance as a substitute in the group stages of the Champions League, scoring in a 2-0 win over Lyon and a hugely impressive display in a 3-1 win over Anderlecht where he opened the scoring after 17 minutes.

Miller was forced to from the field through injury during that match against Anderlecht in the 75^th minute and left to thunderous applause from the packed stands.

By that point, Miller had made himself an indispensable member of a team that included luminaries such as Paul Lambert, Neil Lennon, Stilyan Petrov, Henrik Larsson, Chris Sutton and John Hartson.

He was a star in the making, but looking back, he must surely acknowledge that it was both the high point of his career, and the night his career went into a downward spiral.

Sitting in the directors’ box that November night was Sir Alex Ferguson, who had come to run the rule over a 17 year old Anderlecht defender by the name of Vincent Kompany.

Ferguson would not in the end pursue his interest in the Belgian, but Miller had very definitely caught his eye.

Two months later, in January 2004, Liam Miller signed a pre-contract agreement to join Manchester United at the end of the season.

After just 26 league appearances, at the age of 23, Miller was swapping the green and white hooped shirt that had made him a star for the red of Manchester United.

Things would not work out for Miller at Old Trafford and after just nine league games in two seasons, the second spent on loan at Leeds United, he was moved on to Sunderland on a free transfer in 2006.

From Sunderland he moved to Queens Park Rangers in January 2009, but was released at the end of the season.

Miller returned to Scotland so join Hibernian in August 2009. After two moderately successful seasons he left in June 2011 to sign for Australian side Perth Glory and earlier this year moved on to Brisbane Roar.

Now at the age of 32, Miller can look back on a career during which he has gained one SPL championship medal in Scotland, and one Championship medal in England.

He could, and should, have won so much more.

The stories of Charlie Nicholas and Liam Miller should serve as cautionary tales for Victor Wanyama this summer.

Very few players have ever left Celtic Park and gone on to reach greater heights with other clubs.

Only two in the last 40 years can truly claim to have done so – Kenny Dalglish and Henrik Larsson (an honourable mention should also go to Brian McClair, although he never came close to the heights scaled by the other two).

The other thing Dalglish and Larsson have in common, as opposed to Nicholas and Miller, is that they left Celtic as mature, established professionals, well-equipped to handle the pressures of playing for huge clubs in pressure-cooker environments.

Dalglish was 26 years old and had scored over 100 league goals by August 1977. He had also appeared in two European Cup semi-finals for Celtic, and represented Scotland at the 1974 World Cup Finals.

Perhaps the most important factor in Dalglish’s post-Celtic success, was that he joined Ian Paisley’s all-conquering Liverpool, a trophy-winning machine of which he was to become the lynchpin.

Larsson was almost 26 by the time he joined Celtic and left after seven trophy-laden seasons and a UEFA Cup Final appearance. At the age of 32, he joined Barcelona and would win the Champions League two years later, making a decisive contribution from the bench as Barca came from behind to defeat Arsenal.

So what of Wanyama? Should he leave Celtic this summer?

My advice to Victor would be to choose his next step wisely.

At 22 years old, he has a decade or more in front of him as a top level footballer. Time is very much on his side.

Should he leave now, he will undoubtedly earn far more money than Celtic can offer (although he’ll hardly end up a pauper if he stays), but what will he have to show for it at the end of his career?

Right now, his options seem to be mid-table EPL at best. Even if the rumours of Liverpool interest are true, the Merseyside club are a shadow of their former selves, and he would be unlikely to win many trophies there.

His best move may be to stay with Celtic for another two-three seasons, winning trophies and competing in the Champions League, before making that next step as a player at his peak. By then, should his development progress as expected, he would have his pick of the top clubs and be better equipped to flourish there.

Above all, Wanyama should be aware that the magic often wears off when you remove those green and white hoops. Leaving Celtic is, in only very exceptional circumstances, an upward step.

 

 

UEFA, the BBC, Derry City and The Rangers

It has been an interesting week in the Great Sevco Same Club/NewClub debate. Of course it is a metaphysical reality that the club currently playing out of Ibrox is not the club founded in 1872, but that has not prevented Rangers fans from inventing all sorts of imaginative ways to claim they are the same club.

First of all, there was quite a stir amongst Rangers fans online about a decision by the BBC's editorial standards committee, which upheld a complaint that the BBC's referring to "old" and "new" Rangers was inaccurate. The trust was guided in its decision by Lord Nimmo Smith's report, which concluded for the purposes of the SPL dual contracts investigation that Rangers "the club" can be separated from its corporate identity (then Rangers Football Club plc).

This is entirely incompatible with Scots Law as BBC Scotland made clear in its statement on the ESC ruling.

We should bear in mind though that LNS was not ruling on Scots Law, but on the SPL definition of "football club," specifically as to whether The Rangers Football Club Ltd (formerly Sevco Scotland Ltd) had an interest in the case and a right to representation at the hearing.

LNS concluded that for the purposes of the SPL investigation, a "football club" is "an undertaking capable of being bought and sold."

Crucially, but usually overlooked though, LNS stated he was satisfied the "football club" has no legal personality separate from its owner and operator.

Which brings us to UEFA.

As we all know by now, UEFA define "football club" as "a legal entity responsible for the running of a football team," a much clearer definition than that of the SPL, which rather ineptly boils down to "a football club is a football club."

To meet the criteria for a UEFA license, the applicant must be a legal entity which is a member of a national association (12.1a), or has a contractual relationship with a member (12.1b).

In addition, this membership must have lasted for at least three consecutive years (12.2).

If we accept that Rangers is the same club (by the LNS definition), then "Rangers FC" will never qualify for a UEFA license.

It fails on three counts:
i) It is not a legal entity
ii) It is not a member of a national association
iii) Lacking legal personality, it cannot have a contractual relationship with a member.

The legal entity is The Rangers Football Club Ltd (formed May 2012).

The SFA member is The Rangers Football club Ltd.

"Rangers FC" does not have and cannot have a contractual relationship with The Rangers Football Club Ltd.

When The Rangers Football Club Ltd does eventually qualify for UEFA competition, the UEFA license will be issued to the club - The Rangers Football Club Ltd, which is a different legal entity to the previous club playing out of Ibrox.

Last week, UEFA issued co-efficient points to those clubs which will be playing in the qualifying rounds of their competitions this summer.

Derry City, a different legal entity to the old Derry City which went under in 2009, were awarded the FAI base co-efficient points and these were not added to the points gained by the old Derry City.

It is now looking more likely than ever that under Article 12 of UEFA's Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play rules, they can only regard The Rangers FC as a brand new club.

Do the SFA's rules on player registration apply to The Rangers?

The Rangers FC accepted a one year registration embargo as a condition of SFA membership in August last year.

The intention was that the new club would be unable to register players until January 2014 (albeit after giving them the summer 2012 window to build up their squad for the assault on Division 3).

We have since been treated to the unedifying sight of The Rangers gloating about an alleged loophole in the rules that allows them to register free agents on September 1st, and they have this week unveiled Cammy Bell and Jon Daly, whom they intend to register on September 1st. There has even been speculation that they can play as trialists from the start of the new season.

The basis for this belief is that clubs can register "free agents" from September 1st, and that as Bell and Daly's contracts with their previous clubs expire on June 30th, they will be free agents.

But let's look at what the SFA's registration procedures actually say.

The key point is article 1.2, 

0. "A professional player who has failed to find employment during a registration period may sign and be registered for a club outwith the registration periods."
   
   
   
   The rule applies not to "free agents," but to players who have failed to find employment in the registration period.
   
   
   
   We must assume that any player signed by The Rangers before 1st September has found employment in the registration period therefore should not be able to be registered outside of the registration period.
   
   Over to you, SFA.
   
   Although it should not be beyond Sandy Bryson to come up with a labyrinthine explanation as to why Daly and Bell can play from September 1st...
   

Scottish Football Needs a Bigger Top League

St Mirren and Ross County have today ended hopes for the setting up of a 12-12-18 structure and a single governing body for Scottish football.

The ending of reconstruction hopes for the moment has been met with widespread dismay and it looks as though there could be a period of recriminations to follow, with Aberdeen and Hearts criticising St Mirren in particular, while Scotland’s newest club, Rangers, appear to be very happy with the day’s news.

Personally, I am glad that the particular structure proposed will not now be happening.

It involved a quite ridiculous split of the top two divisions into three groups of eight, and would have been a dog’s dinner of a set up.

The rationale behind it was to ensure “meaningful” games throughout the season, which it was hoped would attract more television money and interest to the Scottish game.

Fundamentally though, the problem with Scottish football is not that there are too many meaningless games, or that the league is not competitive enough.

The problem Scottish football faces is a chronic lack of quality. Jock Stein famously said that a 100m race between a group of pensioners would be competitive, but it would not be fast.

Reconstruction is badly needed, but the aim of that reconstruction should not be to make the game more competitive, or more meaningful, or attract more money.

The aim of reconstruction must be to improve the quality of Scottish football. That can only be done by improving the quality of player we produce.

The first thing that must happen is the removal of the split.

The league split supposedly leads to a more exciting end to the season, with the top teams playing off for the title and the bottom half fighting to avoid relegation.

This is not always achieved because frequently (as this year) there is very little doubt where the title is heading by the end of Matchday 33. Barring an incredible end of season collapse, it is only a matter of time before Celtic clinches the title. This year there will be an exciting race to decide which Scottish team will bomb out of the Champions League qualifiers in the first round in early July.

Whenever there is a close race for the title, the split makes the league fundamentally unfair, as the top two clubs do not play an identical set of fixtures and “the computer” can influence the outcome.

For example, in season 2008-09, the SPL was able to dictate that the now-defunct Rangers FC would play a third home fixture against Hearts. The principle behind this was that Hearts needed to play three away matches to balance their home and away quota and they apparently could not be expected to visit Easter Road for a third away match against Hibernian.

As a result, Rangers avoided a potentially very difficult second visit to Tynecastle in the run-in.

If I was a Hearts fan, looking at their records in matches at Easter Road and Ibrox, I would have welcomed a third visit to Easter Road .

I am certain a fan of the now-defunct Rangers FC could point to similar instances where Celtic were given a favourable fixture in a tight race in order to balance the home and away split of matches. It would merely serve to further highlight the unfairness inherent in a system involving splits and teams in the same league playing a different set of fixtures.

The split can also influence which teams finish in the top six. For example, Hearts and Dundee United are two fairly evenly matched sides, but if Hearts play 17 home matches before the split while United have 16, it would be cold comfort to United to have a third home match after the split if they were consigned to the bottom half by a defeat at Tynecastle.

What we need then, is a return to the type of league set-up almost every other league around the world uses, where everyone plays an identical set of fixtures.

So far so good, but that only addresses the principle of fairness lost in the present set-up. How do we improve the quality of the product through reconstruction?

Most clubs demand a minimum of 18-19 revenue-generating home matches per season, but it is accepted that in a 12 team league, 44 matches is too many. We can reduce the number of teams in the league, which restricts the “riches,” of the SPL to the detriment of too many SFL teams, or we can expand the league to a level where each side plays each other once home and away.

It is the received wisdom that there are not enough reasonably-sized clubs in Scotland to make this feasible.

That in my opinion is where we have gone wrong.

Of course in a top league of 16-18 clubs there will be uncompetitive matches, but that is the case in every league in the world. I would argue that we actually NEED uncompetitive matches in a season in order to develop a higher quality of player.

I would like to see a top league of 16 teams, who play each other once home and away, giving a league season of 30 matches.

This obviously produces a fixture short-fall and most clubs would be unhappy to be guaranteed only 15 home games a season.

To make this up, I would re-introduce the group stages of the League Cup, to be played early in the season, on Saturday afternoons. Groups of four teams, playing each other once home and away would give each side a guaranteed 18 home games per season and at least 36 games altogether.

To encourage youth development, I would introduce a rule that there must be a minimum number of U21 players on the pitch in League Cup matches, possibly as many as four. Clubs would need at least seven U21 players in their League Cup squads in order to ensure they could meet this rule.

Clubs would keep the home gate receipts for League Cup matches, and share the gate in the knock-out rounds.

A league of 16 would mean clubs in the middle of the league would be relatively safe from relegation and could therefore take time to develop young players free from the cut-throat pressures inherent in a 10 or 12 club league.

With only two matches against Celtic (and maybe one day a strong Sevco Franchise team), a club such as Motherwell would be more likely to challenge for the title.

Motherwell are perfectly capable of beating Celtic on their own ground on any given day, but over the course of a season, they can realistically expect to take only 3-4 points out of 12 from Celtic, while dropping 7-9 points over the four matches.

If a strong Sevco Franchise team is added to this equation, Motherwell might expect to take 4-6 points from a possible 24 in the current set-up, whilst dropping up to 18.

Now if Motherwell only had to play Celtic once home and away, they might realistically expect to take 1 or 3 points from 6, which could deny Celtic 2-3 points.

In the current set-up, Celtic has four chances to kill off a title challenge from anyone else. With only two chances, and fewer points to take away from them, I would argue that a Motherwell , Dundee United or Hearts team that put together a winning run would pose far more of a challenge to Celtic than they currently do.

The other problem in my opinion is an uncontroversial one – Scotland has too many professional teams.

The population of Scotland is roughly a tenth that of England, yet we have only just less than half the number of clubs in their league set-up.

More controversial would be the suggestion that there needs to be club mergers in order to create bigger clubs (assuming the fans of each club transfer their support to the new clubs).

I realise that this would involve fierce local rivals joining forces, and may be extremely unpopular for some, but it has already been successfully done in Inverness.

Inverness Thistle and Inverness Caledonian successfully merged in the 1990’s and the newly-formed Inverness Caledonian Thistle has gone from the Highland League to the top 6 of the SPL in little more than a decade.

The only clubs I would definitely consider “big enough” to stand on their own are Celtic, Hibernian, Hearts, Aberdeen and, assuming they last that long, the Sevco Franchise. A case might be made for the two Dundee clubs as well.

It would be a mistake to merge too many clubs to the point where there were only a dozen or so clubs in the whole country, but ideally, Scottish football should aim to have a maximum of 34 clubs (achieved through mergers) in the senior set up, with two leagues of 16 and 18.

I would also advocate opening up the trapdoor on Division 2 and providing the opportunity for a Junior club to enter the senior ranks every season.

As I started off by saying, improving the quality of the game in Scotland is far more important than chasing money from the TV companies.

There is no pot of gold within reach for Scottish clubs to buy in high quality players. We need to produce our own.

To do that much more is needed than a re-shuffle of the league set-up. There are deep-seated problems in Scottish society which prevent the production of the next Jimmy Johnstone or Kenny Dalglish. These problems cannot be dealt with by the SFA alone.

But we can make the senior league set-up a place more conducive to the development of young players. That means an environment where managers can blood youngsters knowing that it won’t necessarily cost them their job if it all goes wrong.

It means an environment where not every club is in a relegation dogfight and can develop young players in a relatively pressure-free setting.

It means a league where there are uncompetitive matches throughout the season, because competitive does not necessarily equal high quality.

Athletics fans would not turn out in numbers to watch a race between eight sprinters who will all finish within 1/10^th of a second of each other, if it will take all of them 12 seconds.

But add in one Usain Bolt and fans will turn out in large numbers to see that one sprinter finish the race in 9.5 seconds.

To continue the analogy, football fans will not turn out in large numbers to watch a league of 12 teams who will finish the season with just 10 points separating top from bottom and the top 3 separated by just two points if the football is rubbish.

But they WOULD turn out in large numbers to watch a league of 16 if it contains four or five excellent teams, even if the top two finish 20 points ahead of everyone else.

I am not naïve enough to think that my idea will be adopted by the governing bodies any time soon, but I despair at the deckchair shuffling they continually advocate in the misguided pursuit of money and competitiveness.

 

Are YOU a Bitter, Hate-Filled, Rangers-hating Bigot?

Rangers-haters are everywhere at the moment. Taking advantage of the opportunity to kick the club while they are down, Rangers-haters can be found in every bar, in every home, in every workplace, and on every street corner in the land.

So prevalent are Rangers-haters these days that YOU could be a Rangers-hater and not even know it. Fear not though for help is at hand. This quick and easy test, developed with the help of some of the top psychologists working in the US today, will enable you to identify if you need specialist support to get over your Rangers-hating psychosis.

Firstly, answer the questions below, and BE HONEST with yourself - it's the first step to overcoming the problem!

1) You are at a party at your sister and Taig brother-in-law's house, when one of his Timmy guests says that Rangers is a new club. Do you:
a) Quietly acknowledge that yes, Rangers is indeed a new club
b) Pretend you hear someone in the kitchen calling your name and hurry away from the deranged, bitter, hate-filled bigot
c) Drag your wife out, telling her you're not staying in this bigoted hell-hole, then put the guy's name, address and personal details on FollowFollow and call on your fellow Bears to send hate mail and bombard his work place with vicious defamatory accusations?

2) You are on holiday in Magaluf and realise that the newly-arrived couple in the room across the hall are from Dundee. Do you:
a) Introduce yourself and offer to show them around
b) Ignore them, you hate Dundonians. Especially that big-haired moron Jim Spence.
c) Play Tina all night at full volume and shit on their sun lounger every morning. They no doubt wrote to that Rangers-hater Thomson telling him he'd better not let Rangers into the SPL, the Timmy-loving arseholes?

3) In the dentist's waiting room you see someone reading the Daily Rhebel, who's grinning at their latest anti-Rangers, agenda-driven headline. Do you:
a) Try to sneak a look at the racing results over his shoulder
b) Get your lighter and set fire to it then phone your two mates Billy and Sammy to come down and knock seven bells out of him as he leaves after his treatment?
c) Ask him what the bitter, Rangers-hating bigot Jackson has written today?

4) A Taig at work tells you Charles Green is fleecing the Rangers support and will cut and run leaving the club heavily in debt. Do you:
a) Make a formal complaint to the boss, accusing him of sectarian bigotry in the workplace
b) Tell him you have your suspicions about Green too
c) Nothing. He's just a hate-filled, bitter, anti-Rangers, Rangers-hating bigot who has no credibility on the issue?

5) You are at an away match at Elgin, making friends and having fun, when a banner is displayed by the yokels in the home support saying Rangers have no history. Do you:
a) Lose it big-style and join other irate Bears in righteously smashing up a local pub after the game then aggressively chant The Billy Boys at other passengers on the train home
b) Laugh along good-naturedly at the joke
c) Write a furious letter of complaint to the Elgin chairman and Charles Green demanding a grovelling apology?

6) A pub in town has a huge advert for the live screening of Celtic's Champions League last 16 match with Juventus. Do you:
a) Consider watching it - the Champions League is the pinnacle of the modern club game
b) Write a letter to the council informing them the pub has breached its licensing conditions by displaying sectarian messages outside
c) Put a brick through the window and put a post on FollowFollow telling all Bears to boycott the Republican slop-house

7) You read a post on Rangers Media claiming that Rangers' problems did not begin and end with Craig Whyte, but have their roots in two decades of mismanagement by Sir David Murray. Do you:
a)  Engage in a lively and reasoned debate on the issue
b) You never read Rangers Media
c) Post the b*****d's real name and address, then put a brick through his window and poison his cat?

8) Watching a Rangers match on the big screen in your local pub, it goes on the blink 5 minutes in. Do you:
a) Rush along the road to another pub showing the match
b) Defecate on the carpet before smashing up the bar and attacking the staff with your mates
c) Wait patiently while the landlord tries to fix it?

9) At your niece's wedding, you notice one of the choices of starter is Eggs Benedict. Do you:
a) Consider whether you would prefer the Eggs Benedict, or the prawn cocktail
b) Demand to know who put Eggs Benedict on the menu - the guests have a right to know!
c) Drink ten pints, urinate on the dance floor, then start a fight with the Groom - the bitter, Rangers-hating, anti-Rangers bigot?

10) You are at the birthday party of your son's friend. As you stand around talking with like-minded Bears, you notice someone has given your son a green and white straw with his plastic cup of Coke. Do you:
a) Think nothing of it, it's only a straw
b) Grab your son and drag him out, angrily telling him to have nothing more to do with the little Timmy b*****d
c) Join the like-minded Bears in smashing up the house before reporting the wee boy's parents to their employers for their sickening sectarian provocation

Now simply add up your scores as follows:

1) a-2, b-1, c-0

2) a-2, b-1, c-0

3) a-2, b-0, c-1

4) a-0, b-2, c-1

5) a-0, b-2, c-1

6) a-2, b-1, c-0

7) a-1, b-2, c-0

8) a-1, b-0, c-2

9) a-2, b-1, c-0

10) a-2, b-1, c-0

Now for the result:

0-1 - You do not have an anti-Rangers bone in your body. You are a staunch, stalwart True-Blue and can hold your head up high in any company. You don't take any Timmy nonsense from anyone ad can always be relied upon to defend the honour of the Rangers against all-comers. The Gallant Pioneers would be proud of you.

2-4 - You claim to be a Rangers fan, but you are what David Leggat calls "the enemy within." You are a sickening appeaser and need to take a long, hard look at yourself. The anti-Rangers forces are massing (and I use that word advisedly) against the club and people like you will be the first to be dealt with when the club regains its rightful position of superiority.

5-20 - You are a sickening, hate-filled, Rangers-hating bigot. Your sinister cabal of Opus Dei familiars are the enemies of Rangers. I demand to know your name. The Rangers fans deserve to know who you are!



Well, thanks for taking the test. Feel free to share your results in the comments section, but please be aware that all Rangers-haters' names will be sent to Chris Graham, Bill McMurdo, David Leggat and the vanguardbearloonytunes.