Celtic v Kilmarnock, Live updates
1393
Share.
Trending
- Stressed out Clement flips title race to Celtic
- Celtic v St Mirren, Live updates
- TEN AND OUT: BIG JOCK’S LAST HURRAH
- ALEX’S ANGLE: ALL IS REVEALED AMID THE TANTRUMS
- ‘IT WILL BE A BIG MISS,’ ADMITS HART AS HE PLANS GRAND FINALE
- ‘A TEAM ON A MISSION WITH A MASSIVE POINT TO PROVE,’ CELTIC LEGEND’S VERDICT
- TWO GAMES IN ONE DAY: HOW CELTIC WON THE TITLE IN 1916
- 57 YEARS AGO TODAY: TOMMY GEMMELL AND THE WEMBLEY WONDERS
- HIGHLAND FLING AS GERS FLOP
- WATCH AGAIN: KYOGO AND THE MAGNIFICENT 70
- JOHNSTON TARGETS ‘A SPECIAL SEASON’
- THE REO DEAL: ‘GREAT TO SEE HIM BACK,’ ENTHUSES RODGERS
- ABADA’S SMILES BETTER
- CELTIC 3 ST MIRREN 0: EASY AS ONE, TWO, THREE AS CHAMPS MOVE FOUR AHEAD
- CONFIRMED: McGREGOR ON STAND-BY, NAWROCKI RETURNS
- ‘NO COINCIDENCE,’ KYOGO REACTION ANALYSED BY RODGERS
- ALEX’S ANGLE: DO US A FAVOUR, CALLUM
- McGREGOR: RODGERS IN NO RUSH
- OH, WHAT CAN THE MATTER BE?
- CELTIC v ST MIRREN: 5-MINUTE QUIZ
- ‘CRAZY,’ IDAH OPENS UP ON CELTIC TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
- DAIZEN DESPAIR
- Putting fire in Dundee bellies
- ‘ABSOLUTE STEAL’: SUTTON URGES £3m DEAL
- EXCLUSIVE: ‘CELTIC’S WINNING DOUBLE-ACT,’ HOOPS ICON NAMES PRIZE GUYS
- CELTIC EURO SETBACK
1,393 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- ...
- 37
- »
The_Huddle,
Barcalona ?
The German league has a rule that clubs are 51% owned by the supporters! maybe they are no successful enough though.
Is it just all about success? I don’t support Celtic because we win things.
BMCUWP,
Or he might offer a square go in the Brazen.
I have no interest in having Gossip Girl type posts on here, telling tales on CQN “celebrities” whether they have been witnessed or told to you third or fourth hand. I felt the same way when Mickbhoy published what he thought would be hurtful, scurrilous detail on Canamalar, and I feel the same way about this morning’s efforts. If the victim of these events has not chosen to bring his version of events on to these pages, then it does not fall to anyone else to be bringing it on.
You or I could be the next target of someone’s interpretation of our “bullying” or bad behaviour- that is not what this forum was set up to be. If you have a disagreement with that poster on the basis of what he said- tackle him directly on that- do not dig up dirt on unrelated events- to play the man and not the ball. Do any of us on here live lives of such squeaky cleanliness that we could not be embarrassed by secrets surfacing? Would any of us welcome CQN becoming such a blog?
Well, it has to start with your own behaviour and decisions. If you are not prepared to offer these protections to the people you do not like on the blog, then they cannot exist for you or for me. Tony D may well have been guilty of some poor behaviour in his private life- but it is his private life- he did not share this incident on here and, as far as I can see, the other person allegedly involved, did not share it either. They are the people who have primary ownership of that tale, its details, and its alleged relevance and import for CQN.
I can make no reliable judgement on the accuracy of the tale that has been laid out here- who said or did what to whom- nor should I be asked to.
Please keep this a Celtic blog with some of the decencies that it was intended to have.
The two posts from BRT&H and from Celticonemanonevote give us really rich information on important issues that should concern us. I am aware that the blog can cope with more than one topic at a time but there should still be relevance to us.
Let us not become a CQN “Hello” magazine type of forum.
CANAMALAR
Or he might just accuse everyone who doesnt erse lick to the board of being a hun
HH
Canamalar on 22nd November 2015 2:52 pm
Barcalona ?
The German league has a rule that clubs are 51% owned by the supporters! maybe they are no successful enough though.
————–
Barca are not really different to what we are at the moment, rich people at the top making decisions for the club. They are massively in debt as well despite all the money they pull in from TV etc.
Dortmund tried to go the total fan led route, but that ended up in bankruptcy.
Any model in football involves someone being in charge. Who’s in charge in BRTHs utopia?
setting free the bears for Res. 12 & Oscar Knox on 22nd November 2015 2:57 pm – See more at:
—————-
It was the reason Tom M stopped posting on here, it’s like a primary school on here sometimes.
The_Huddle
The poster who is being attacked today was guilty of the same behaviour in his posts about Jeanette Findlay, who may or may not be a poster on here (it does not matter if she is or not). The point is about keeping standards of privacy about the private lives of all of us.
It is fine to criticise me for things you know about me and my views because I have revealed them on here. It is not relevant to bring in extraneous material, whether true or not, to cast doubt on my views about Celtic football club and football in general, which is what this blog is about.
I am not defending Tony D because I like him or his posts. I want the same defence available to all of us who post on here.
Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan supports Oscar Knox, MacKenzie Furniss and anyone else who fights Neuroblastom
Great Post
The _Huddle,
I suggest you have a wee look a the ownership of Barca they are nothing like us, they have a membership scheme that owns the club.
The Rich people are put there by the members as per BRTH model when he made the analogies of mechanic and doctor so not sure if you fully understood BRTH’s post.
You then provide one German team having problems, as I said, all teams require 51% fam ownership! I. Don’t get what’s hard to grasp there or how one team in trouble negates the rest of the teams.
Why do you talk about BRTH’s utopia, I have given you plenty of examples, Germany, you found a problem with one of them, and BRTH told you who would be in charge, paid specialists like any business, what’s utopian about that ?
TD67
Na! I summoned all your ancestors on my Weegie (not to be mistaken for Ouiga) board and that was the consensus.
But you don’t are what anyone thinks of you so I won’t expect a reply. Obviously! Because as you say. You don’t care. :)
MWD
Well done to Hamilton Accies today wearing the France kit, a great idea!
Also great to see the Aberdeen fans outside Hampden with their banners. Hopefully more will speak out.
Not a lot of difference betwen the stats for our 0:0 draws with Hearts and Killie- this season
Hearts- 24 shots- 5 on target
Killie- 20 shots – 5 on target
In contrast, our 4:2 win against ICT saw us have only 15 shots, 8 on target
In our 6:0 demolition of Dundee, we produced only 5 more shots than we had in our 0:0 with Hearts but our accuracy of shooting was greater. In our 5:0 demolition of United we had ony 3 more shots than we had against Killie yesterday but accuracy was, again much higher.
It is the quality and not the quantity that counts when attacking and shooting.
https://twitter.com/tirnaog09/status/668413240427339777
My friends in Celtic,
No matter in what circumstance in any situation, somebody has to be in charge. It is a fact of life that there are born leaders who make decisions.
Equality of opportunity is completely different, but even from the basic street gang to the biggest organisations, somebody has to make decisions.
If we use CQN as a Barometer, can you imagine fan ownership of Celtic. ?
Like communism its good in theory, but cannot work in reality. George Orwell initally had similar thoughts.
HH.
Canamalar on 22nd November 2015 3:16 pm
I suggest you have a wee look a the ownership of Barca they are nothing like us, they have a membership scheme that owns the club.
The Rich people are put there by the members as per BRTH model when he made the analogies of mechanic and doctor so not sure if you fully understood BRTH’s post.
You then provide one German team having problems, as I said, all teams require 51% fam ownership! I. Don’t get what’s hard to grasp there or how one team in trouble negates the rest of the teams.
Why do you talk about BRTH’s utopia, I have given you plenty of examples, Germany, you found a problem with one of them, and BRTH told you who would be in charge, paid specialists like any business, what’s utopian about that ?
————-
I know the differences, it’s just not that different to what we have. If we had the Barca model or the German model, we’d still have the same issues or different issues however you want to slice it, our problem is we are a Scottish club not how we are owned.
Do we not have paid specialist in charge at the moment? If we had a membership like Barca and then a voting scheme, we wouldn’t vote in someone like DD, Bankier, Livingston??
Greenpinata,
Is that honestly what you took from BRTH’s post ?
I was more worried about the fact that the current owners can sell us to whoever that want and there’s nothing we can do about it, could that happen with supporter ownership on the German model ?
The_Huddle,
“we’d still have the same issues or different issues” eh :)
But we never have the issue that the club could be sold from under us.
As for “we wouldn’t vote in someone like DD, Bankier, Livingston??”
Are you saying that’s a bad thing ?
Me I think we could do a lot better.
BRT&H, so what next? As we discussed very briefly yesterday, what incentive is there, or can be provided for these 5 individuals who hold power, to relinquish said power?
The question is more one of why should they change our structure rather than what should the structure be?
Canamalar on 22nd November 2015 3:25 pm
Greenpinata,
Is that honestly what you took from BRTH’s post ?
I was more worried about the fact that the current owners can sell us to whoever that want and there’s nothing we can do about it, could that happen with supporter ownership on the German model ?
————-
Yep that is the the major issue with our current model :O)
Does the German model stop this though? I don’t know, surely the 49% can still be sold to anyone and chuck in a few fan shares and you then end up with DD in charge of your club
I’ve not read back, so I don’t know if johnjames latest has been posted already… A word of warning…this bloke makes BRTH posts seem like a quick read :)
Ps. There is more to read after the gaps.
Succulent Lamb 2015
by sitonfence
“He was about to take in another mouthful of the most succulent lamb – anyone who knows Mr Murray shouldn’t be surprised to learn he is a full-blooded, unashamed red meat eater – when he put down his knife and fork. It was like a statement of intent and looking directly across the table to make sure I hadn’t yet succumbed to the wine, he said:”Bring on the next 10 years, there’s more to come for Rangers.”
A man puts down his knife and fork, and in doing so it’s interpreted by the most obsequious man in the room, James Traynor, as a statement of intent.
Lapsed Rangers fan, Graham Spiers, who also attended the dinner at David Murray’s Jersey estate, later wrote:
“Succulent lamb journalism means a culture – and I hold my hand up here too – a culture of sycophantic, unquestioning, puff journalism that went on around Rangers generally and Sir David Murray particularly. It’s like making a pact with the devil if you like. You get thrown the best scraps. You get something for the back page or whatever. But there’s a tacit deal. You don’t dig too deep. You don’t cause any trouble.”
At this fateful dinner in November 1998, no-one present was aware that Mr Murray was planning to buy success by pushing the tax avoidance envelope. For the next thirteen years he implemented two illegal tax avoidance schemes to attract the best players and managers to Ibrox, safe in the knowledge that the Scottish print media were eating from his hands. HMRC would take issue with my use of ‘avoidance.’ When RFC directors denied the existence of side letters, they were engaging in tax evasion. There is no other name for it.
David Murray knew he was pushing against an open door. Journalists in Glasgow might pretend to follow St Mirren or Falkirk or one of the provincial clubs, but the reality was that they supported Rangers. Nothing much has changed in the ensuing seventeen years. The criteria for selecting journalists on the Sports Desks was predicated on which school you attended. Those whose Alma Mater was St Aloysius need not apply.
When David Murray decided to extricate himself from £52.5m in tax avoidance/evasion and £18m in debts in 2011, many were correct to assume that the cloying sycophancy would continue. The following is an e-mail from James Traynor, providing Craig Whyte with the right of veto and approval of his copy:
14 July 2011 14:49
“Hi Craig, as agreed the following is what I think would cover the Sunday Mail piece. You’ll notice I start with the £15m but also that I haven’t quoted you on that amount. There might be one or two minor alterations between now and the deadline but these would only be cosmetic and grammatical once I’ve had a final look.Thanks, JT.”
Mr Traynor later asked Craig Whyte for a position in the Rangers press office. Mr Whyte’s successor, Charles Green, chose to employ Traynor on Whyte’s recommendation. Mr Traynor is now engaged in promoting King. The £15m to be spent on players as specified in the e-mail never materialised. Fast forward four years, and we have King promising £30m, which never materialised. King and Whyte are cut from the same cloth.
When Traynor eventually left the employ of Trinity Mirror, his sign-off was a bitter rant at the rise of the internet and sites such as The Rangers Tax Case and Mr Mac Giolla Bhain.
He also had a pop at our award-winning sports journalist and former colleague, Keith Jackson. Mr Traynor described Mr Jackson as a ‘man child.’
Initially Mr Jackson embraced and welcomed Whyte with the reverence he he reserved for all Real Rangers Men. Mr Jackson represented Rangers as a thirteen year old. He attended the right type of school. His gilt-edged provenance as a Rangers supporter is beyond reproach.
However Mr Jackson started following the output of The Rangers Tax Case and that of Phil Mac Giolla Bhain. I can see many parallels in their output and Mr Jackson’s reportage. When recently challenged on plagiarising a third party’s article. Mr Jackson was unrepentant.
One of the reasons why I admire Mr Jackson’s work is that he represents a filter to the output of Mr Mac Giolla Bhain. One of my recent contributors, who made a comment on the FBA awards article, stated that he read the Scots Irish journalist’s articles, but that he found some of the comments to be anathema to him. In my opinion, Mr Jackson is influenced by the output of Mr Mac Giolla Bhain. He follows him on Twitter. I can see numerous occasions when Mr Mac Giolla Bhain broke a story, with Mr Jackson running with the same story within a week. Mr Jackson does not write as eloquently as the original auteur of the article, but then he probably dumbs-down for his target audience. Mr Jackson must have his copy approved by his editor and his legal department. Rangers fans who are not prepared to visit Phil Mac’s account, can rest assured that Mr Jackson studiously shadows his output.
I also admire Mr Jackson as he has been banned from Ibrox and continues to be banned from Celtic Park. I would have thought that his colleague Gordon Waddell (a ‘Falkirk Fan’) who has been much more excoriating of CFC than Mr Jackson, would also be banned, but this is not the case. Mr Jackson has been critical of CFC’s manager. However the real problem is a regime that bloods non Scottish players for subsequent sale at a significant profit to our wealthy neighbours south of the border.
His recent exclusive on how Ashley played King for a fool at Shirebrook was not picked up by anyone. I broke the news that King had been spotted at Glasgow Airport. Mr Jackson followed up with the Ashley sting operation.
I also admire Mr Jackson’s ability to joust and parry with critics of Twitter. When faced with ‘your a fud’ Mr Jackson counters that should be ‘you’re a fud.’ For those not from Glasgow, a fud is a pejorative term derivative of vagina.
Mr Jackson is a real journalist who is not thin-skinned. By contrast, his junior colleague Mr BS Cooney, has none of Mr Jackson’s presence, intellect,gravitas, charm or humour. I have little doubt that these failing are reflected in his 26th of the month BACS credit.
When proven to be
in regard to King’s current contempt of court conviction, he resorts to legal threats. For the avoidance of doubt I did not stray from the facts. Mr Bryson attempted to authoritively dismiss the facts, and when I exposed him as a fraud, he chose to threaten me with legal action. I’m expecting to hear from a solicitor. If this is the case, my counsel will vigorously apprise him of the facts and the ill-founded remarks from a client who engaged in the internet equivalent of a ‘hissy fit.’
Is this the action of a confident, self-assured journalist? I had a look at his Google page. There is nothing there save a few photos that would not have been out of place in a 1950s barber’s shop, and his poor spelling of actionable. Mr Bryson’s low profile has been elevated by his spat with me. A man who cannot even spell actionable is best ignored.
Instead the club website – now controlled by Ibrox press boss James Traynor, attacked the media en masse, accusing them of being “at such a damning low”: “…it has become clear Rangers cannot rely on basic honesty, decency or integrity from enough of the country’s media…”
It struck many appropriate that Mr Traynor should issue such a rallying cry in defence of Rangers. For he stands as one example of the curious Glasgow concept of “succulent lamb” journalism:
SECRET FEAR THAT DRIVES ME TO WIN; 10 IN A ROW
(Daily Record – November 19, 1998)
Exclusive James Traynor
Rangers chairman David Murray opens up on the highs and lows of his decade in charge of Rangers and promises that the best is still to come…”
So ran Mr Traynor’s now infamously sycophantic article on how Sir David Murray would conquer the world with Rangers, building to those fateful lines:
”
There certainly was more to come from Rangers: sold for a quid, put into administration, liquidated and lucky to be playing fourth-tier football.
And that “succulent lamb”? Well it’s so engrained as a concept in Glasgow’s media culture that these days it even has its own Wikipedia entry.
In the light of this, Channel 4 News can now reveal exactly what “succulent lamb” journalism means, from the hand of the RFC press supremo James Traynor.
Let’s go back just a short time to when the current Ibrox director of communications was football writer at The Daily Record and its sister paper the Sunday Mail.
Back in July 2011, there were searching questions to be asked of Rangers. Like just who was Craig Whyte? What was his business record and just what was really happening inside Ibrox?
But far from it.
In fact, at times, so unquestioning of Mr Whyte was Mr Traynor that we know of at least one occasion when he actually sent an article to Craig Whyte for prior editorial approval before it went into the newspaper.
July 14th is the day the French celebrate the overthrow of deference. But not in Glasgow where, on that day in 2011, James Traynor submitted an article due for the Sunday Mail, to Craig Whyte, with the following message:
He then submits his Sunday Mail article to Craig Whyte in full, for Mr Whyte’s approval, quoting the Rangers boss on grand plans in the transfer market and writing about the £15m to be spent buying the best.
Much of the article in fact is simply a string of quotes from Mr Whyte on his vision for Rangers after just a few weeks in the job.
The next day, Craig Whyte replies to Mr Traynor saying he’s satisfied the article can go in the paper, subject to a change:
Date: 15 July 2011 10:47
Subject: Re: Sunday piece.
To: jxxxxxx@xxxxxX
Hi Jim,
Only one thing – I’d rather not be quoted being critical of a particular player, ie. Danns. Other than that it’s fine.
Best,
Craig
Just four minutes later Jim Traynor is emailing Craig Whyte straight back to assure him the offending quote will not appear in the Sunday Mail:
From:
Date: 15 July 2011 10:51
Subject: Sunday piece.
To: cxxxxxx@xxxxxxx
No problem Craig. It’s out. Thanks. JT.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what’s known as the “succulent lamb” in the world of Glasgow journalism.
In goes the article to the Sunday Mail, all about Mr Whyte’s £15m transfer treasure chest and all the rest of it.
Crucially, the glowing piece came after several months of doubt about Mr Whyte’s financial clout and willingness to invest his own money into the club.
The big spending promised in the article, approved by Mr Whyte, never did materialise.
One small episode in a greater scheme of things where – across all sections of the mainstream media – too few searching questions were asked about Sir David Murray and then Craig Whyte – successive owners who ultimately brought the club to its knees.
But there’s more.
Far from probing the probity of Craig Whyte, James Traynor was actually going on to probe him for a job at Rangers.
And here, for the first time, is your proof.
It comes in a series of text messages exchanged between James Traynor and Craig Whyte just a few months later in January 2012.
By now of course, the mounting problems at Rangers would have been more apparent and fans needed to know the full scale. But Mr Traynor had other things on his mind – a job under Craig Whyte. Here’s the text exchange:
6 JAN 2012 11.43
Hi Craig, haven’t been sacked, haven’t resigned despite all the rumours. However, I’m almost certain I can get out within weeks if I insist. Do you want to talk? JT
6 JAN 2012 16.07
Hi Jim, I’m back in Glasgow next Friday. Let’s meet up then and discuss. C.
6 JAN 2012 16.32
Okay, see you then.
Of course, there’s nothing wrong in looking for a new job – we all do it all the time. And of course we don’t know the preamble to these texts, but the curio here is merely the context that an experienced journalist should apparently be seeking a job from Mr Whyte, should want to be part of his Rangers operation. Channel 4 News understands they did indeed meet and discuss a job at the club. One month after that text exchange – one year ago this week – Rangers filed legal papers at the Court of Sessions to appoint administrators.
Did James Traynor simply not know things were amiss?
Craig Whyte was banned by the Scottish football authorities from the game for bringing it into disrepute after Rangers ended up liquidated. They fined him £200,000.
So there you have it. What so many fans long suspected is laid bare. James Traynor has since made it to Rangers under the new Charles Green regime on a reported six figure salary.
Today Mr Traynor, through channels at Ibrox, issued this statement to Channel 4 News: “These suggestions are malicious and misleading. Anyone who knows anything about events at Rangers knows that James Traynor, in his capacity as a journalist, was instrumental in exposing the activities of the Craig Whyte regime which are currently subject to criminal investigation.”
First, I am writing this imagining that one or two people outside Glasgow use the internet, so I might make some observations familiar to Clydeside surfers.
Second, this arises from my continuing investigation into Rangers which is still in early stages. That is to say, I am not investigating Celtic. If I were, rest assured RFC Bears – they’d get just the same treatment.
I’d expected the paranoia, insults, spin etc – hey – this is “fitba” after all and I welcome it good, bad and ugly, from fans within and without Glasgow. Indeed I’ve gone out and asked for it.
What I didn’t expect were the insults (and in at least one case a direct physical threat) not from fans but from Scottish journalists.
Sarajevo, Mogadishu, Kabul, Islamabad, Tripoli, Baghdad…I could bore you with more – in none of these places have I ever got this interesting reaction from local journalists.
Only in Glasgow.
So something’s up. Something’s different.
Something about asking questions about RFC clearly angers some in the Glasgow media in a way I’ve never seen in 25 years of global reporting.
Equally, a number of fine Glasgow journalists have been incredibly helpful, encouraging and agree there has been something deeply wrong for far too long in the culture of reporting RFC.
They know who they are, male and female, working in papers, radio and broadcasting and every single one has encouraged me to dig around in an area many cannot, will not or are prevented from, exploring.
I refer of course to “succulent lamb”. Graham Spiers, seasoned football writer in Glasgow was there the day it happened.
He and other reporters dined with Sir David Murray – then RFC owner, in the Channel Islands. Murray – as ever – was talking big on the Rangers dream-theme, laying out plans for the club that seemed to go well beyond the mere limit of the sky.
There duly appeared copy praising the “succulent lamb” that was eaten – the “fine red” that was drunk.
The food and drink were taken – so was this man’s dream of Rangers – all without much question in some quarters.
I make and imply no criticism at all of the reporters present – what intrigues as an outsider is how many people years later around Glasgow happily talk about “succulent lamb” journalism.
So Big Dave’s dream was shouted across Glasgow. Fans loved it. It shifted papers. Everyone (in blue) wanted in, needed to believe.
So it went on – year after year. On one side the directors at Scotland’s football “governing” bodies didn’t ask much. On the other, large sections of Glasgow football journalism declined to delve.
How else to explain Ibrox’s boom to spectacular bust?
How else to deal with the fact that when Craig Whyte took over it was stories of a “billionaire” with “off the scale riches” that were pumped out?
Ten minutes on Google or in Companies House could’ve ended that. But no. It was dreamland the fans wanted, dreamland much of the media bought into and a club already financially crippled was about to be further injured.
Legions of fans sold out again, as it would turn out.
Succulent lamb culture has permeated to a degree that, as one prominent Glasgow tabloid journalist put it: “The press -a really critical check and balance in the normal way of things, had been more or less destroyed in Glasgow.”
So are things any better today? Is succulent lamb off the menu – replaced with humble pie?
I leave it to others to judge if that succulent lamb cozy Glasgow football culture has really gone away.
sitonfence | November 22, 2015 at 2:02 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p6L11Q-lf
Comment See all comments
And I have to ask this, as I have no answer.
It’s not like they need to cash in their shares.
DAMO LENNON on 22ND NOVEMBER 2015 1:46 PM
Right on comrades!
http://danieloconnel18.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/celtics-socialist-roots.html
******
This supports the theory espoused on here a few years ago, by a poster, not Paul,that Celtic were founded on Socialist and Humanist principles.
You couldn’t make it up! No, wait.
Canamalar on 22nd November 2015 3:30 pm
“we’d still have the same issues or different issues” eh :)
But we never have the issue that the club could be sold from under us.
As for “we wouldn’t vote in someone like DD, Bankier, Livingston??”
Are you saying that’s a bad thing ?
Me I think we could do a lot better.
———-
Same shit different day etc No matter the model we’d still be up shit creek because we play in in the SPL.
I’m saying if Celtic fans had voting rights and the CVs put in front of their noses were DD, Bankier and Livingstone then Celtic fans would vote them in.
Clyde news report that celtic lead in the spfl was reduced by a point today – really ?
I thought hearts were second last night and still are second 6 points behind us today.
They can’t help them selves – hurting zombie Bassas
Canamalar,
I honestly dont know, but what I do know is that German and Scottish football are on different planets and to make comparisons or draw conclusions will be deeply flawed.
Anyway with absolutely no disrespect to anybody on here, if posts remain within acceptable parameters of the blog, I treat each individual poster’s opinion as exactly equal of any other, deserving of the same respect and consideration. No matter if they are a Doctor or a Mechanic .
HH to you.
The_Huddle,
I did say the rules in Germany require 51% fan ownership, no ?
I’m sure I said that, try and keep that in mind.
Now Barca you might have an argument, however I expect like rules in the Plc about taking too many shares that require you to buy them all, a min percentage could be set in the club constitution say 75% must agree to allow ownership to be transferred away from supporter majority.
I’m no really sure whT your driving at, I have given you the examples you asked for and you moved the goalposts, what exactly is your objection to fan ownership ?
Fans running a Club would be a disaster, Fans think with their hearts, you need the cold calculating bassas to make ends meeting.
Canamalar on 22nd November 2015 3:41 pm
I did say the rules in Germany require 51% fan ownership, no ?
I’m sure I said that, try and keep that in mind.
Now Barca you might have an argument, however I expect like rules in the Plc about taking too many shares that require you to buy them all, a min percentage could be set in the club constitution say 75% must agree to allow ownership to be transferred away from supporter majority.
I’m no really sure whT your driving at, I have given you the examples you asked for and you moved the goalposts, what exactly is your objection to fan ownership ?
—————
Ideally I’d rather we were fan owned, I’m just arguing that I don’t think it would solve our problems as you still need someone in charge.
Not moving goalposts, Barca or German clubs in the SPL league would face the same problems that Celtic face, lack of money.
Lack of money would probably lead to we need to ditch our fan owned model and get an Abramovich in :O)
The posts by BRT & H and One member One Vote today fit in, I believe, with my post yesterday about why I am not too engaged with AGM drama.
Just like defeating the SFA, it takes a fair bit of organisation, leverage and power to overturn the vested interests and natural biases of a Board who represent major shareholders primarily. That is why I commended the Celtic Trust or the Celtic Supporters Association as natural vehicles for representing a shared and compromised (in the sense that no individual gets all their own viewpoints supported) representation on the way we present as a club.
Occasionally an individual can make a difference but it is rare. I believe that the Mr. Kelly who spoke at this week’s AGM on the £50 ticket being continued, put forward a convincing argument that won hearts and minds, because he used charm, wit and eloquence in his submission rather than a frontal, name-calling approach designed to alienate and antagonise rather than convince. However, I wonder if Mr. Kelly would have been successful, even with this approach, if the Board had been looking at a fan base with 55k SB holders and a waiting list to get into the ground?
We have myths about our founding and our ethos which need to be faced squarely. We were born out of Brother Walfrid’s vision and there is lot of good to be proud of in that true fact. But the period of Bro. Walfrid’s influence was brief and it was not true for long that we were a club set up primarily to feed the poor. It is more honest to say that we were a club who, very quickly, became a means of promoting our community identity as a successful football club representing the Irish-descendant and Catholic community of Glasgow. We were not exclusivist any more than the original rangers were as a 19th century football club, but we did have a Catholic and immigrant identity and it would be dishonest to downplay that.
Our business, our USP, our raison d’tre, from 1892 onwards was to be a successful football club that we could be proud of, rather than to be a fund-raising venture for charity, using football as the vehicle. That vision left when Bro. Walfrid left. We remain proud of our charitable history and instincts but it is not our primary function, otherwise more would go into the Celtic Foundation budget and much less into player’s pockets, and that has been the case for 123 years of our 127 year existence. Neither were we a sporting organisation dedicated to Socialist principles ( I found Daniel O’Connell’s article genuinely humorous) and Irish Home rule, though both schools of thought were heavily represented in our support and in many of our custodians. However, it was never a reason to exclude anyone from Celtic because they were Tory or indifferent to Irish politics (certainly, Scottish republicanism and Independence was never a badge of our support until very recent years, it is one of our Ploughman’s Lunch traditions).
We cannot have and never have had a large group (the supporters) being consulted about the running of our club. We, as a support, handed it over to successful businessmen and football specialists like Maley and Kelly, because that was the route that was most likely for us to be successful as a club, our primary aim from early on.
I recognise the disconnect that has occurred in the modern era, from the 80s onwards where football wage levels have taken these heroes out of our community’s reach. It has brought some of our heroes, McAvennie, Nicholas and McLeod, for example, to represent values which are not shared by many in our support. Yes, we do have Tories on our terracings but the proportion is much higher in our team of players. Thus, the disconnect.
There are no easy solutions to this issue. Hard questions were posed today by BRT & H and by OneMemberOne Vote. I htink our representatives, CT or CSA, need to have our input and our views. Those are forums more like;y to be in tune with a democratic representation of our shared views. Certainly, more so than a Boardroom or AGM, which only wants to weigh your votes and knows that the scales are already heavily weighted on their side.
I’ve often thought the reason why some are against fan ownership are those who don’t believe the fans/members are able to look at a prospective chairman or directors manifesto (for want of a better word) and make a sensible decision to vote for or against.
Celtic family ih?
Not for plebs.
BRTH,
A good post but Fergus had to sell to a billionaire due to RBOS
Doc,
A good question in response. The answer is. Stop giving them money and buy shares instead. Where have you heard that before,
SFTB,
I disagree. CQN has been tabloid since the 5 way agreement. All the juicy stuff that was not reported in the MSM with regards Rangers’s eventual collapse got out there and under the respectable cloak of non lazy journalism. Since the 5 way agreement it has been distinctly tabloid. Whatever suits the current situation. I will leave you to decide why the change n tact i.e embracing lazy journalism wholeheartedly since the 5 way agreement was brokered was deemed necessary.
HH
Aw_Naw, if I stop giving them money, I have to stop going, unless someone wants to lift me over the turnstiles!( good luck with that one:-) and that isn’t going to happen.
I enjoy going to games, even when we don’t win like yesterday’s game, far too much to give it up.
I disagree with holding financial support would lead to the desired outcome either, it would just diminish the club.
I’m not against BRT&H’s idea, it’s a sound principle.
I am just questioning how we achieve it?
Mostly because I have no idea how to force or persuade billionaires who don’t want to give something away to do so.
Or could it be that they don’t trust the majority to vote the way that they would?
I liked Gary Neville’s comment about players coming back from international break, “quite often your head is full of mince” that’s my excuse for yesterdays performance :O)
Doc,
I fully understand. I am not happy about my stance either but I do feel better about it with every board utterance.
HH
SFTB
Not surprised at the similarity between yesterdays game and Hearts at Celtic park.
Posted during the game yesterday that it had same result as Hearts all over it.
Ronnie has talked a good game but now it’s time for performances to reflect this.
He has now been in charge for 18 months and i cannot fathom the purpose of his very limited playing system?
If possession is his purpose then he is doing well.
Possession without purpose though is another matter.
Defensively he gets low marks as we really are poor in this area.
The amount of shots is misleading as many yesterday were long range hopeful efforts after passages of sideways and backwards passing led to opponents being defensively set so long range effort was only choice.
The hopeful punts/crosses are also a result of our pedestrian build up.
When Ciftci came on yesterday i also posted to it being pointless as the system provided no service.
I do not know if he is as bad a player as seen to date because our service to strikers is sparse and awful.
Not playing Tierney cut out any chance of service from left side.
Izzy is a wonderful trier but his ability to find a team mate is non existent.
Armstrong is not a winger so he struggles in that area also.
Simunovic looks very good and if given time will form a good partnership with Boyata.
Was disappointed that Lustig never really got forward to support Forrest as this was our onl threatening area.
The central midfield area is a problem no drive no forward movement.
We receive a pass .control.hesitate and then play another sideways or backwards pass.
Worrying as the engine room plays with no forward purpose which is the real reason we go round in circles.
So to summarise Ronnies system
Forward movement-Very little
Threat-Negligible
Possession-Lots without purpose
Defense-A work in progress
System-Unfathomable
Published on Sunday 22nd November, 2015 by Celtic Trust
Following the disgraceful remarks made by Ian Bankier, Chairman of Celtic PLC to the Celtic PLC AGM on Friday 20th November, the undersigned organisations feel it necessary to express our anger at these allegations.
Mr Bankier’s claim that fans opposed to the re-election of Mr Livingston to the Celtic board have engaged in ‘criminally racist’ social media postings is an unforgivable slur on the Celtic support. For him to then evoke the name of Brother Walfrid to justify his unfounded assertion is utterly shameful. We are now, since the AGM took place, aware that there were some postings on social media which we condemn and we would support the club, and Mr Livingston, should they take action against those individuals. None of this is a justification for the generalised smearing of the Celtic support and, in particular, those of us who voted against Mr Livingston’s re-election. Mr Bankier committed an error of judgement and showed a complete lack of control at the AGM and this is not acceptable in a Celtic Chairman.
We would like to publically condemn his unprofessional behaviour and the subsequent attempts to suggest that his words had been taken out of context, as this patently was not the case.
We call on all other members of the PLC board to denounce these comments.
Ultimately, we are of the belief that Mr Bankier is no longer able to redeem himself following this attack on the Celtic support, and his failure to retract and apologise immediately afterwards, and we call on him to give serious consideration to his position as Chairman of Celtic PLC.
The Affiliation of Registered Celtic Supporters’ Clubs
The Celtic Trust
The Green Brigade