Defining Cruyff is not easy but there are some objective facts to assist: three times European Champion, three times Ballon d’Or winner, voted Europe’s Player of the Century in 1999, and third place in the World’s Player of the Century at the same time.
On the field, the most damming criticism of him is that he wasn’t Pele or Maradona, both of whom won World Cups, but neither changed the direction of travel in the game as Cruyff did. Pele’s Brazil seemed out of sight as they strutted their stuff at the 1970 World Cup. By 1974 the Dutch, with Cruyff pulling all the strings, had tactically moved the game on a generation. It would be decades before Brazil won the tournament again.
The Dutch know all this and, rightly, place Johan at the pinnacle of the game, but there was more going on in the Netherlands at the time. Feyenoord beat Cruyff and Ajax to the European Cup by 12 months as a generation of players matured together.
While the Netherlands took hosts Argentina to extra time in the 1978 World Cup final, Cruyff was watching on TV. Of course they would have won had he played, but that they came so close without him is a testament to the rest of his Dutch generation, forever in his shadow, but great nonetheless.
So would the Dutch revolution have happened without him? Something would have happened, Luxemburg would not have beaten the Netherlands in the 1970s, as they did in the 60s, but it would have been a revolution you might not have noticed. Ajax’ European Cup adventures may have ended with the 1-3 home defeat to Benfica in the 1969 quarter final. Feyenoord may not have edged extra time in the final the following season.
Allied to his skill, speed and strength, Cruyff opened the eyes of all who played with and against him. After Cruyff, opponents knew the old rules didn’t apply anymore.
Yesterday’s story in the Guardian, citing “sources at a major Premier League club” would signal the end of the last pretence of meritocracy in football, where the most wealthy will only play each other in European competition.
Resist of wither like Miss Havisham.
1,974 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- ...
- 52
- »
So, if? Res.12 is dumped it’s CFC fault? Not a case of that the res.12 guys couldent carry it over the line or get ant where with it, SO! Oh hears a good idea? Let’s blame CFC.
Get serious ffs, it failed because it had no purpose, and was driven by agenda against the CFC board, I said it three year ago and have yet to be proved wrong (and would only be to happy to have been ) it’s a busted flush.imo.
Guys,
I prefer a wee bit of reliable and widely known facts and circumstances to be sprinkled amidst the wild speculation.
So far this morning, as with yesterday morning, that has been absent,
SFTB
No doubt facts are king (oops) but did you not feel MrPastry`s 7:51 was a reasonable hypothesis?
I would like to hear what the Res12 Bhoys think of his `speculation`.
JJ
Bad news being reported on the Simunovic front.
There is a suggestion that a recent knee operation could see him miss out on our Euro qualifiers next pre-season. On top of Janko’s mystery injury, this leaves us weak at the back.
Tony…
Take a step back and think…the facts are all there re res12.
The sfa turned a blind eye and have been caught out assisting the huns.
Do you you think we would been treated with the same grace?
That mob was wringing their hands with the thought of us going bust in the nineties, they held us to ransom on the rental of hamdump, they held the the registration back for Guidetti, wanted the TRI taken down!
Well done to the res12 bhoys for trying to nail them on this…without the help of our board. :(
I love travelling up from London on the train – would never fly, except in an emergency.
Just a footnote to my original post – UEFA/FIFA rules preclude a member club taking their association to court.
So what kind of revenge could we visit on the SFA?
Whether it was maladministration, or corruption by the SFA, I don’t think we will ever know – it is almost certain that it was deceit and skulduggery hatched in Ibrox in the first place – but what’s new?
We must move on as a club and as a support – we cannot let wrongdoing by others drive a wedge between us. HH
SFTB
It’s all speculation both sides of the debate, so in time we will all see who speculated the better opinion, it’s what the blogs all about, it’s not a big deal mate it’s a debate, unless of course as you will see as the day goes on those who support CFC and the board start being name called by the malcontents THEN it’s a whole new ball game, and trust me what I have posted WILL come to fruition :))
JJ
I will leave it to them for the detailed rebuttal.
Suffice to say that, if you waited until the Sheriff’s Officer visit, to think that there were problems with unpaid bills, you were wilfully ignoring the evidence.
Just as Keith Jackson claimed a reporting “scoop” for revealing details of the Ticketus findings, a mere 9 months after Phil had told him about it in his blog.
P.S. Do you not think that, if the SFA thought they had a plausible or hypothetical defence, they might have advanced it already, instead of keeping shtum like the guilty tend to?
Aff oot- catch replies later
MR PASTRY on 26TH MARCH 2016 8:25 AM
MACJAY1@8:05 – Of course I agree with you on the cheating and it does rankle with all Tims, including me – but trying to be pragmatic, why are we tearing ourselves apart over this?
==============================================
I doubt that we are.
I doubt that the opinions expressed on C.Q.N. are representative of the rank and file.
Sipsini
Good morning, if as you say the facts are all there, then why do the res.12 guys have so many questions for the SFA? Instead of taking it to a court of law and charging the SFA of fraud?
I’m afraid it’s not as cut and dried as the res.12 guys are leading others to believe, ergo the reason CFC jumped ship and see no future in chasing it.
I trust the boards judgment, until some time I think they have been proved wrong, and IMO, this is not the time.
SFTB
I don`t think the SFA had a plausible defence.
JJ
SFTB@8:38 – On your P.S. SFA point – short answer – No.
From their point of view, if there is no case to answer, then no explanation required – it might annoy some of us, but it is a logical position.
MACJAY1@8:05 – Of course I agree with you on the cheating and it does rankle with all Tims, including me – but trying to be pragmatic, why are we tearing ourselves apart over this?
~~~~~~~~~~~
As a supporter like yourself during the cheating years, doesn’t it stick in your craw that they’re getting of Scot free!
It does me. During that period, I listened to them gloating and saw them winning trophies whilst cheating.
Now I’m being told it was a blip and all is well now In their eyes they’re back.
Right, why not just applaud them as they take to the field at parkhead (CP) let them sing up to their knees, wear thems socks to signify what they sing!
News reaches me that the 3 High Court judges doing a wee job for the SPFL have ruled that Newco do indeed have to cough up the 250 k fine imposed on Deidco..
Levant Quick News CSC
Jeezo,
The ability of some people just to make things up is truly astonishing. For right or wrong , for good or bad,can I just point out a ould of things re Res 12 – especially to YNOT67 who, to be honest and with the greatest respect to him, is more like Mr YNOT JUST MAKE THINGS UP AS I GO ALONG this morning!
1. Res 12 from the outset was started by people who have nothing to do with the Celtic Trust and the Celtic Trust have not taken part in its running from the start until now. If you don’t believe me, ask Hamilton Tim, as the long standing view of the Trust is that Res 12 has nothing to do with them. I have also been told by one member of the CT this week that they (The CT don’t know enough about the detail of where Res 12 is to have a view at the current time)
This is a view I don’t agree with incidentally as it should be of interest to all Celtic supporters and shareholders.
So to answer your question – no the resolutioners have not sat down with the CT and orchestrated Res 12 with them at any time. FACT.
3. In the entire history of Celtic PLC until Res 12 there had never been a resolution put forward by shareholders which had not been defeated by the block vote of the board. Many institutions, through which individual shareholders bought shares – such as HBOS etc – always send a proxy to vote WITH the board and unless individual shareholders oot out of that position they will effectively vote with the board at all times.
On that basis alone, Res 12 was NEVER going to attract enough votes to be passed at the AGM – no floor resolution will – but it gained enough votes to get a public airing.
Shamefully, when Morrissey turned up at Celtic Park to have in the resolution, he was thrown clean out the door and looked upon as a troublemaker and a rebel not to be trusted.
Only later, did it occur to those running Celtic PLC that there might just be something to the resolution and that shareholders might just have information and knowledge that those running the show did not have. I think you will find that they acknowledge that. By all means ask.
The board of any PLC will not always be right, nor will they always act in what everyone considers to be the best interests of the shareholders.
What is clear though, is that outwits the boardroom, Celtic PLC has a lot of intelligent, well intentioned and knowledgeable shareholders who, through the rules and regulations of the very same PLC structure, have a means to formulate resolutions which formally become part of the PLC agenda. These need not be pro or anti board or sponsored by the Celtic Trust or any other organised group.
Res 12 was the first such resolution and I for one hope there will be many more because this is the way that a PLC is meant to operate – for the benefit of all shareholders.
So sorry to burst your bubble but Res 12 this far has been nothing to do with the trust in its management – in fact it has been managed by the board far more than the trust.
By the way there will be a formal letter going to UEFA through solicitors, as requested by the PLC board, and that same PLC board will formally be invited to confirm their involvement in the discussions with the SFA etc thus far. UEFA will also be provided with a copy of the most recent letter from the SFA to Celtic Plc on the topic – that letter is dated 15th March as I recall – and once again it fails to answer any material point on the basis that shareholders are not named and that the SFA prefer to deal only with the member club on the topic concerned.
What else they have told “the member club” we don’t know as it has not been shared with us.
2. I repeat – for the umpteenth time – that when the resolution, it’s content, aims and objectives together with the supporting evidence was considered by the Celtic PLC board, that same board on the basis of professional advice, withdrew their opposition to the resolution and publicly stated at the AGM’s of 2013, 2014 and 2015 that they would work with shareholders to pursue the aims of the resolution and that they would continue to correspond with the SFA on the matter. NOTE the word CONTINUE!!!
Not only have the board written to the SFA they have had meetings with the SFA through the company secretary and he has reported back to the resolutioners and indeed encouraged them to take certain action. As of last week, he was still encouraging them to take action by writing to UEFA.
Presumably if YNOT67 is backing the board to the hilt he will be backing their call to have the Res 12 people write to UEFA?
Or am I wrong in that? If I am wrong in that then presumably YNOT67 disagrees with the board’s position and would prefer no letter to go to UEFA and that the matter should just be left to lie fallow – contrary to the public statements read out by Ian Bankier at successive AGM’s.
SoT
Is that what Winning Captains has been alluding to with his `same club` comments?
JJ
SIPSINI on 26TH MARCH 2016 8:50 AM
MACJAY1@8:05 – Of course I agree with you on the cheating and it does rankle with all Tims, including me – but trying to be pragmatic, why are we tearing ourselves apart over this?
~~~~~~~~~~~
As a supporter like yourself during the cheating years, doesn’t it stick in your craw that they’re getting of Scot free!
=================================================================
Indeed it does.
Sorry, but the quote above ain`t mine.
It`s from the patisserie man on the train.
:-)
Sipsini
The institution has to be defended at all times and at any cost, that my friend has been going on since day one with this mob, in my time,my Fathers,time, and my Grandfathers, this isn’t new it’s the Huns doing what they do best, the big cover up, res.12 is a walk in the park to cover up, are you kidding me?
They are steeped in all sorts of skullduggery in all those years of old club new club, who are and was Craig Whyte and Charles Green? Bit part players and professional patsy’s of a game the Huns play well, manipulating the media that these where the bad guys? Bad guys my arse, the bad guys are way way above those two guys, who by the way played a blinder, and none of them will do any time because they know where the bodies are, oh no credit the Huns they are second to know one when it comes to cover ups, some have even said murder?
The new Huns and the old Huns play/played out of Ibrox, but what you should never forget is? They are based at Hampden
Good morning, first Saturday for a long time with no gym or Celtic to watch. Delighted to be giving the gym a miss though.
I see that the Res 12 debate rages on, some welcome clarity and updates from BRTH this morning.
For what it is worth, I did proxy my votes and have sent the new mandate to the solicitors concerned. I would hate to be part of a cheering crowd who had not contributed to the victory. As I have said before I am a dreamer and always look on the positive side of this shambles.
Wet and miserable in darkest Lanarkshire, so I will get on with domestic chores before returning to the trough at my favourite Lanarkshire restaurant this afternoon, the 6 weeks of Lent will soon be a distant memory.
Have a good weekend.
I wonder if the train is going through a tunnel?
From a VERY comfy bed in Lewes.
By the way I hate iPhones for posting – bloody awful things!!
Can I add one more detail to the idea that res 12 is a busted flush or whatever – and at the end of the day it may be.
The whole point was to ask questions of the SFA and get answers. It did not set out to prove anything at all but If you read it, it was to ask the board to go to UEFA and ask them to ask the self same questions – that was what thecresolutuon stated and that is where we are right now with the board asking the shareholders to do that.
I have been told that the Celtic PLC board feel that the SFA are obfuscating and dancing around the issues – doing e writhing to avoid answering. I won’t say who told me this but more than one of us received the same message from two different board sources.
With regard to why we asked a whole load of questions of the SFA? Again this was part of a strategy worked out with the PLC board. That same board at one point contacted Mr directly and asked if I could deliver the questions concerned, in writing, to Hampden by 1pm on a certain day. This was done and the same letter was then backed up on solicitors notepaper.
Before and following the delivery of the letter, representatives of the board met with an SFA officer who advised that if – and I stress the word if — the evidence presented was not to be found within the official files at Hampden — then in the opinion of that officer there MUST be an enquiry as to what happened in 2011.
Thus far, Hampden has refused to confirm to Celtic PLC or the requisitioners solicitors if the evidence concerned is within their files.
All they have to do is say yes or no. Really simple.
The question has been asked in writing and with the full knowledge and help of the board of Celtic PLC.
BRT&H @8:56 – Always interested in your posts on this subject, and others.
Couldn’t be the case that Celtic are directing shareholders to contact UEFA because they (Celtic) cannot, and, furthermore have reached the ‘end of line’ with the SFA.
I think it’s a case of Celtic saying, look there is no more as a club that we can do, save getting into a slanging match with ‘Rangers’, the SFA and the media and we have ‘bigger fish to fry’ – so if you as shareholders feel so strongly, then you have every right to petition UEFA(for all the good it will do – My words)
One effect that wider knowledge of Res 12 is bound to have is to ensure that there can be no excuses for this kind of maladministration/or corruption, if some prefer, to happen again in the future – in that sense Res 12 could be seen as a success.
BRTH…
Thanks for clarifying where we are at the moment.
My friends in Celtic,
CQN has been a source of information and varied opinion for many years. It remains the number one Celtic affiliated blog in my opinion.
However recently it has become a vehicle for incomprehensible views and mindgames. EG : I havent a clue now what WC has been trying to insinuate over the last few days.
With the greatest respect to him I can categorically state that we have waited long enough for the story to unravel. How long is the long game ?
To the many lurkers viewing. Get posting. The broad church of the Celtic support especially CQN need your voice to be heard. Your opinion on Celtic and associated topics is as valued as any esteemed or long term poster.
Hail, Hail to all.
BRTH
RES12 WAS taken to the CT to muse over before it went to the board, and that was posted on here, and I questioned on here why was it taken to the CT? And where the share holders told this was going to happen?
And was told by one of the res.12 guys ON HERE Something about experience they had?
Accusing me of making things up? Well no I didn’t, this happened and happened on this blog, do I have proof? No, people can only take my word for it, do you have proof it didn’t happe?
And please don’t bring in Hamilton into it as you are both two cheeks off the same arse,
Just a come back at the …Y not make it up as I go along jibe.
Mr Pastry on 26th March 2016 7:51 am
Individual shareholders have lost value in their shareholding because of the inadequate processes employed by the SFA. Failure of the SFA’s uefa licencing process is not a defence.
Celtic should not be going after Old Rangers for lost revenue. Instead individual shareholders should go after the SFA in The Small Claims Court.
Any other route will end at a blank wall. UEFA will do the same as the SFA. “Nothing” as Regan stated.
The only route is the courts and that needs to be the small claims court. Some have suggested a judicial review at the court of session but this is not an option as the losers (individual shareholders) do not have any contractual link to the SFA.
In theory The Club could seek a judicial review, but won’t do this.
Anyway, that’s my thinking on what should have been done from the outset. I applaud the tenacity, dedication, skill and knowledge of the Res 12 bhoys. I don’t think these attributes would go to waste in a court case.
SOT
The word that reached you. was correct, seen this in the Msm this morning
A TRIO of lawlords have ordered Rangers to fork out £250,000 after they lost their long running legal dispute with the SPFL.
A senior SPFL source has revealed the Ibrox club have been told to pay the penalty originally handed down to oldco Rangers after an inquiry by Lord Nimmo Smith in February 2013.
Nimmo Smith’s commission, established by the SPL after the financial collapse of Rangers four years ago, found them guilty of a failure to declare EBT side letters during the reign of Sir David Murray.
However, Nimmo Smith also ruled Rangers gained no sporting advantage from the contentious tax avoidance scheme and he did not strip any titles won during the decade in question from 2000.
Lord Nimmo Smith will head the SPL panelLord Nimmo Smith
Rangers appealed the fine last year but an independent SFA tribunal, made up of three High Court judges, have now found in favour of Scottish league bosses.
Rangers newco, under Charles Green, were asked to accept liability for the £250,000 fine as part of the controversial five way agreement that led to the award of a licence to play in the Third Division in the summer of 2012.
Rangers fans will be angered at being landed with another legacy bill and, in particular, the doggedness of the SPFL in demanding it be paid, even though it was originally handed to oldco.
However, the SPFL insist newco Rangers gave the undertaking they would cover oldco’s costs and former chairman David Somers and chief executive Graham Wallace even engaged in talks to suggest ways of paying
All bets were off, however, when the disgraced former board were replaced by the new regime last year, led by Dave King, and he carried out a thorough review of all the club’s outstanding legal cases.
The SPFL insider revealed there is still an appeal route open to Rangers via the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but it would be a lengthy and expensive process and Hampden bosses are confident a line will be drawn under the matter.
Gers chairman King could now sanction a cheque for the payment or, more likely, the SPFL will take the £250,000 from the £474,750 prize money Rangers are due to receive if, as expected, they win the Championship in the coming weeks.
Rangers last night declined to comment, but it’s understood they are furious over alleged breaches of confidentiality on the news they have lost.
Mr Pastry
Personally I think the board should contact UEFA as their stance on this makes no sense to me and, in my personal opinion, makes them look weak.
They have been in discussions with the SFA, they have had correspondence with the SFA and they have informally asked the SFA questions which they have encouraged the shareholders to ask formally and which they are now asking the same shareholders to take formally to UEFA.
If UEFA don’t deal with that request because it has not come from the club then that looks like the club are not interested or have managed the process badly. Upon receipt of any such reply, it will be passed to the club and it will then be their baby to deal with or throw out with the bath water.
If UEFA reply and say ok we will look into this and ask the SFA for their views and Celtic for theirs – then again they will have to say if there is something to this or not.
At no time – I stress at NO time – since the start of the res 12 process have the Celtic PLC board said “Listen guys there is nothing to see here. This is what has happened, here is why it happened, it all looks ok to us and we are satisfied with what went on.” That conversation has just never taken place
Brogan , thamk you for the updates on resolution 12.
SFA is so apt for that shower at Hampden masquearading as impartial leaders of ourgame
I’d venture to suggest that for a great many, a very great many of our supporters, part of the reason for (and attraction of) following the Bhoys is that we grew from and still to an
extent represent the underdog and the oppressed (cf. ‘… If you know the history…’).
That’s part of the joy, the attraction and mystique of the Celtic brand and a very large part of why we’re a club like no other’.
We have a soul, an identity, which goes far beyond titles, cups, famous victories and heart-breaking defeats.
In the real world’, of course, the club has also become a multi-million pound business. Hence much of the tension around predicaments such as Res 12. Business v. Ethics: The argument would go that it’s easy to be ethical when it’s not your millions that are at stake.
Yet those millions will only retain their value if your customers continue to buy into the whole.
There can be little debate that over the years we have all witnessed many, many instances of cheating and skullduggery perpetrated against our club. As the saying goes, we have probably not been paranoid enough.
The frustration emanates from the difficulty in proving most of the wrongdoing. It tends to be circumstantial and subjective.
Based on the testimony of the Res 12-ers, all of whom are known to many of us and can be vouched for as true Celts, we seem to have a situation in which the Board is taking a calculated business decision which flies in the face of justice: ignoring exactly the kind of evidence we have struggled to obtain in the past and displays a callous disregard for the ethics of the matter.
If true – and there remains a small doubt – then the board (led by the advice of its chief officer) is gambling on insufficient of us knowing or caring what’s going on.
This would be both reckless and deceitful.
The board can easily clear this up by explaining why it’s leaving this all to the resolution shareholders …
VIP
TERJEVEGEN@9:29 – What amount could the shareholders sue for and who would they sue?
What sum could be sued for?
Moneywise, as I have said before, all that was denied Celtic, was one CL qualifying tie – there is no legal mechanism to determine if they would have won that tie – so financially it would, in my view, be negligible.
Who would they sue?
If the SFA are saying that they were mislead by Rangers in not informing them timeously about the tax demand – then I can see no case to answer.
Rangers, as was, is in liquidation, so what’s the point in suing BDO on their behalf? – quite frankly I don’t even think it is legally possible.
Thank god y not Tony is on or I would be none the wiser about anything.
Tony the tiger.
Your ggggrrrreeeeaaaaattttt
MO’N was cute enough to know that, the Celtic-genie was about to be put back into the bottle when it was announced that, Lawwell was coming back to – downsize the quality of the product on the pitch.
12 years down the road and the, attendances are struggling to reach the 20,000 mark.
It now looks like, the Celtic hierarchy know full well that, the return of the huns is the only way to keep the Celtic cash register kerchinging what with the, CL now looking like a long lost dream.
All this Rangers carry-on has seen the huns, slip in the back door and work their way back up the leagues whilst, shedding any notion of paying back ‘any’ of the £140 million that they swindled.
So, who’s the mugs ?
The died(LOL) huns will be back to play the victims.
Meanwhile, in the background….Celtic supporters will replicate the split in the ranks of, the volunteers over the sea when, it comes down to – financially backing a hierarchy at Celtic Park who’ve sold Celtic FC’s soul to all the devils in hell.
Or, to rip the template of the PLC set-up, to shredds ?
A painful ‘journey’ awaits Celtic supporters, all because they were too innocent.
From this point forward….innocence will be the guarantee of victim-hood.
Only, disgusted / savvy / streetwise / rebellious Celtic supporters will save what’s left of the club from being, ruthlessly and, joyously destroyed by the returning, evil-hun-mibbery-assisted-animals.
Look before you leap – CSC
Viva la King Kojo / The Donald / Up the Celts!
…..off oot…..
To me it looks like it’s gubed, so? As I posted earlier why not just do the obvious and blame CFC and PL, it was always going to be that way, CFC where bad guys for not asking questions, they did ask and took it so far, and said better you continue on your own, CFC are in a loss loss situation here no matter how it goes, CFC weakness was taking it up in the first place, they should have let the requisitioners continue on the road they chose, and they would have got where they are now, a day late and a dollar short. CFC tried, but no matter what they have done it will never be enough for some, NEVER. ITS THE AGENDA.
Mr Pastry is now having a pastry, inter alia – le petit dejeuner is now being scoffed…and very nice too – my resolution one – no alcohol till Glasgow – then it’s the Hard Rock for a swally.
Ynot67
I think you are confusing a conversation Aukdheid had with the trust at the outset re getting a resolution on the agenda – something I had talked to him about several years before and about another matter entirely.
He was liking to drum up support about a resolution holding the SFA to account but the trust concentrated on their own resolutions and 12 was left to others.
I repeat that in over three years since I first became involved I have never met or discussed the whole thing with the trust at any level.
However – do you agree with the board that we should write to UEFA and hold the SFA to account? Do you agree that if the company secretary of Celtic Plc is told there should be an enquiry then there should? Do you agree with the SFA just refusing to answer? Do you agree that the board have on three occasions said they woujd help and assist and work with the shareholders on the issues raised or do you think they shouldn’t have bothered?
As for me and Hamilton Tim being two cheeks of the same arse, that is flattering for one of us! Not sure it is me though.
However, it would appear that you are stuck between the pair of us lol
Sadly for those in Dublin, you missed this irresistible offer by a mere 5 days.
http://goo.gl/EXJqln
Hail Hail
Matt