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.
Thursday, 28 August 2014
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.
Sunday, 1 December 2013
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:
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)