Kris Commons return to the Celtic team on Sunday was enormously welcome, even if it didn’t produce his first goal of the season. Kris has had a wretched season after arriving with a bang from Derby County in January last year.
He is not the most athletic or skilful player in the team but he has an abundance of football intelligence, well in excess of his contemporaries. The cross-field pass for the second goal against St Johnstone was a perfect example. Celtic players were rushing forward on a break, while defenders were flooding back. To the annoyance of many sitting around me, Kris slowed things down, surveyed the field and switched play to Ki on the opposite wing.
This has been a great and memorable season for Celtic but there remains plenty to do. An hour or so watching Kris Commons is enough to demonstrate the way forward.
Click here to read CQN Magazine.
Thanks to everyone who has bought a hard copy of issue 7. Order your copy for delivery by clicking on the link below for news and views from Celtic supporters.
Pay by card or Paypal.
1,244 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- ...
- 33
- »
Invercelt,
Yesterday was a bad day for this blog. Any chance you could take your wee crusade somewhere else and let people who want to move on and talk about football do just that.
I don’t know if you follow the teachings of Christ or not but either way this would be a good week to practice a bit of forgiveness.
Hail Hail.
Kayak33,
It becomes a British thing, HMRC don’t see UK borders
Even though K.C. has become a bit weightier this season,he can still throw a scare into the opposition with his skill as evidenced at the game against Rankers. I would imagine he’ll be training like a mad yin in order to be wholly fit again and ready for next season. As far as an ordinary punter like me can know I wouldn’t think he’d be sold as he’s the kind of player N.L. likes,i.e. attack minded.
I have no clue as to what team N.L. will put out aginst Killie,but I hope G.S. starts,and I hope K.C. makes an appearance.
We have a great squad right now from which to mould a formidable outfit,capable of wonderful things. We have come a long way from that pivotal 3-3 draw with Killie. On Saturday things will come full circle and we will be Champions;we can then crack on to the end of this season and make sure we finish more than 10 pts. ahead of ‘the unclean’ and deprive them of any orcish mutterings.
Mort
It must have changed recently.
The Masters used to only allow live coverage of the back 9 on the Thurday & Friday with all 18 holes on the Saturday & Sunday.
Awe_Naw_No_Annoni_Oan_Anaw_Noo on 5 April, 2012 at 12:04 said:
>>>!<<<
my best mate sounds just like you!
blantyretim :-)
Kayal33
I know what you mean, but if you think about it, UEFA and FIFA could only take up that position if the rantings of our politicos achieved their desired effect of making sure the big hoose stays open.
The SFA know this. Therefore, every time a politician sticks his or her oar in, it must make it more likely that the SFA will resist any temptation to afford Rangers any undue help.
FFP for Championship proving unexpectedly difficult and facing delays 5 April 2012
Football League proposals for the introduction of Financial Fair Play rules appear to have run into difficulty and a delay in implementing the rules looks increasingly likely.
In June 2011, the Football League (FL) announced that Financial Fair Play rules would be introduced into the Championship from the 2012/2013 season. The FL set out a schedule that would have seen the proposals circulated and then ratified at their Quarterly Meeting of all 72 clubs in February. However, the February date has been missed and clearly things haven’t gone according to plan. When contacted, the Football League advised that the FFP proposals “are still being looked-into”. As the rules will need to be circulated, ratified and put in place by the end of July 2012, all the indications are that the implementation will now slip by at least a year.
The Football League faces a number of obstacles and even legal challenges in order to implement the new rules to curb spending.
The initial proposal was for Championship clubs to restrict their spending on wages to 60% of the turnover. Conceptually, this sounds fairly straight-forward. However the devil is in the detail and some clubs are clearly not happy with the proposals – West Ham let it be known that they were considering a legal challenge as they felt the rules were unfair and would restrict a clubs ability to compete in the Premiership. Perhaps, somewhat missing the point of the FFP rules, it was also reported that West Ham also apparently “fear that transfer fees will fall in the Championship and League 1 and that ambitious clubs will be penalised”.
The consultation process faces a number of challenges – one of them has been identifying who to actually consult. Owing to relegation and promotion, turnover in the Championship is high (25% of teams leave the Championship each season), making it difficult to effectively consult. Potentially, the top half of League 1 and the bottom half of the Premiership should be involved in the consultation process. However this would dilute the input from the existing Championship clubs and, somewhat uncomfortably, allow clubs not in the Championship to have input to the rules of the division.
And then there is the thorny problem of how to punish clubs that break the rules – the initial proposal was for errant clubs to face a transfer ban as a first sanction, with possible points deductions for major offenders. As I outlined in the 4 April article, it will be difficult to impose fair and consistent sanctions when financial targets that can be missed by one pound or tens of millions of pounds.
However as club accounts are produced retrospectively (i.e. they always relate to the previous season), there are difficulties in using historic figures as a deterrent. In addition, any club living under a transfer ban for previous high wage-spend in the previous year might find itself shackled to their high-wage-earning players and unable to bring in cheaper replacements. As an example of how complicated this issue is, it is worth looking at high-flying Championship club Southampton. They recently announced their results for last season (i.e. when in League 1). They ran a wage-bill of 93% of turnover and lost £11.5m. However, this season they have increased their TV and Commercial income, sold Oxlade-Chamberlain and will probably come fairly close to Break-Even. Southampton also appear to be heading for the Premiership, where seemingly no punishment could be applied. It would therefore be extremely hard to implement an appropriate and timely punishment system for a club like Southampton based on a rigid formula that could also applied fairly to Championship clubs and clubs relegated from the Premier League. The issue of how to handle clubs relegated from the Premier League highlights other problems, as Sports Lawyer, Daniel Geey explains, ” it would be a very brave regulator to sanction clubs for breaching the FFP regulations for accounting periods when they were outside of the Championship”.
There is also concern that the timescale for implementation has been too ambitious. Clubs in the Premier League were aware in 2009 that FFP rules were coming (the final rules being issued in 2010). There is an appreciation that Championship clubs may need a similar time to adjust to the new financial restrictions (especially given the potential complexity of the rules).
It is important to remember that strictly speaking, no FFP rules currently apply, as such, in the Premier League. UEFA’s FFP rules only apply to any club wishing to apply for a license to compete in UEFA competitions. Clubs are therefore not obliged to comply. Indeed it is entirely possible that the owners of some clubs will baulk at the rules requiring them to inject equity to cover club losses and may choose to rule themselves out of UEFA competitions. The UEFA competitions are very much the ‘icing on the cake’ for Premier League clubs -the situation is entirely different for Championship clubs who face potentially complicated restrictions that will apply to their ‘bread and butter’ activity.
All this makes it difficult to envisage how the Football League can easily take FFP forward in the Championship. A more straight-forward approach may be called for, perhaps one that simply requires owners to convert losses to equity (or face a points deduction). This approach would not be an entirely satisfactory solution as it would not address the issues around the wealthy-benefactor model and ‘financial doping’. However, this alternative would at least impact on general spending levels and recent events suggest that increasing debt, rather than an excess of owner funds is the more pressing issue outside the top flight.
Rubicon – you have hit the nail on the head. There is great danger to Celtic here – many Celtic supporters will turn their back on the club which would let Rangers off the hook. In essence we may as well watch wrestling if it comes to that.
We need to tell the Board that this is what will happen to ensure they “harden” their views.
So in a strange way all of this could harm Celtic more than Rangers – oh and dont expect the “we need a strong old firm” nonesense from the media then.
NA
.
Ivercelt..
Btw your Nome de Plume is NotaCelt in iPhone ..
Move on Son.. Go for a Walk or Phone Antifa..
Summa
UEFA publishes their 8 punishments for breaching FFP rules 4 April 2012
At the UEFA conference in Istanbul, UEFA ratified three more disciplinary measures for clubs that breach FFP rules. As I outlined in my article on 7 Feb, five measures had previously been agreed at the Nyon Conference in January. The full menu of punishments now reads:
Reprimand / Warning
Fine
Deduction of Points
Withholding of Revenue from UEFA competition
Prohibition to register new players for UEFA competitions;
A restriction on the number of players that a club may register for UEFA competitions
Disqualification from a competition in progress
Exclusion from future competitions
Although the European Commission recently announced their approval of the Financial Fair Play regulations, there is a requirement for the rules and punishments to be applied in a fair and consistent manner. Deciding which clubs receive which punishments and determining the severity of the punishment for all transgressions is likely to prove extremely problematic for Platini. The FFP rules contain a huge number of potential transgressions, raging from overspend, to failure to have an under-10 youth team. Even the financial requirements are wide-ranging and UEFA will be challenged when comparing rule-breaking such as overspend, failure of an owner to inject equity and failure to be up-to date with taxes. And once the relative seriousness of the crimes are evaluated, there will be issues be determined within each crime. For example, should a club overspending by £1m be punished the same as one overspending by £50m? Exclusion isn’t an easily scalable punishment. And if the problem isn’t difficult enough, UEFA has advised that it is keen to phase-in FFP over the next few years (presumably increasing the severity of the punishments). When considering this potential minefild, UEFA needs to be mindful that it faces a potential legal challenge if the punishments are not applied fairly and consistently.
Platini has achieved a great deal and surprised many by getting the FFP rules this far – perhaps the hard part is only just beginning.
I`m not really bothered with golf but I remember seeing on TV that the Masters course has interesting wildlife. :-)
Last week was an truly excellent week for Platini and saw him secure approval from the European Commission to the Financial Fair Play rules. Platini has been concerned that any excluded club may challenge the legality of the punishment (hence he recently bolstered his legal dept) (see article from 16 March). Approval from the European Commission was essential for Platini as he has now closed the door on any legal challenge. He must have been delighted to see that they didn’t just confirm the legality of the FFP regulations but went a step further and said that they supported the rules; “I believe it is essential for football clubs to have a solid financial foundation” said Joaquin Almunia, vice-president of the EC. As the attached article explains, any club wishing to complain about their FFP punishment has to take their grievance to ….. the European Commission.
Platini would have been aware of Commission’s intention to approve the FFP rules when he gave his interview to AFP a few days earlier. The statements from Platini are probably the toughest and most forthright pronouncements on his personal project:
” There’ll be no backtracking”,
“We (at UEFA) probably won’t be popular but we have to do it, otherwise football will be destroyed”,
Platini said he was prepared to be in the firing line if clubs that transgress were banned from European competition but he said the rules were “important for the legitimacy and popularity” of the game
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/platini-wins-ec-backing-for-financial-fair-play-regulations-7580682.html
http://www.football.co.uk/manchester_city/fair_finance_vital_for_football_-_uefa_s_platini_rss2146563.shtml
Rubicon on 5 April, 2012 at 11:55 said:
Paul,
“I’ve noticed a number of CQN posters take the view that if RFCIA Newco is granted immediate entry to the SPL, they will have no more interest in Scottish football.”
There have been posters here and on RTC who have wondered about Ragers season ticket sales …. when will they be sold, who will buy them and the consequences for them if sales are substantially reduced.
I am wondering when our tickets will be released and when will be last date for renewal.
I tend to renew promptly but I will be taking my time this year unless the RFCIA /Newco situation is resolved.
If it is resolved in a way that shows our game to be tolerant of corruption and be devoid of sporting integrity, then I may not renew, at all.
God bless Alex Thomson!
Without getting all “Godwin’s Law” on you, I wouldliken AT to a column of American tanks rolling in to liberate us from Traynor, Peat, Leckie, Salmond and all the other “guid neebors” who would cover their craft, while we happy Tims throw flowers at him as he passes.
From previous thread,re can Duff and Duffer sell the huns without Whyte’s approval.He told Alex Thomson he wants £30 mil for his shareholding.I doubt if any “bidders” have included that in any Business Plan.I think wee Craigy Bhoy has also transferred Poundland to another of his companies.
A FRAGMENTED FUTURE? ENGLISH FOOTBALL BROADCAST RIGHTS AND THE CHALLENGE OF GOOGLE AND APPLE
Posted January 10, 2012 in Media by Gary Andrews
Google and Apple may not exactly be the first names that spring to mind when looking for alternatives to challenge Sky’s dominance of sports broadcasting in Britain, but it should be no surprise that two of the giants of the tech and online world are eyeing up sport as a way to lure consumers into their new offerings. It was, after all, a key part of Rupert Murdoch’s strategy as he battled to establish his satellite broadcasting operation in Britain at the start of the 1990s.
In the past few days, there have been rumours that Google and Apple are both considering a bid for the broadcasting rights to the Premier League when they come up for renewal later this year. They remain just that – rumours – and it seems likely that Apple won’t bid, while there is nothing to indicate yet that Google may consider making a sizeable investment in English football broadcast rights. But with both companies expected to move further into the TV and broadcasting industry, it does show other leagues and sports that it may be worth thinking outside the traditional broadcasting methods. Indeed, for some, it may be the only way to grow and survive.
Under the current broadcast rights deal, Sky is paying around £1.6bn to show 115 live Premier League games per season, with ESPN broadcasting the final package of games. Under a deal with the European Commission, the Premier League had to ensure that the six packages were divided between more than one broadcaster. That deal has now expired, although the Premier League is unlikely to risk another legal battle by awarding all games to Sky (or, more unlikely, another broadcaster).
The amounts of money involved are quite staggering and few broadcasters can afford them. Even lower down the English league pyramid structure, where rights are nowhere near as expensive, the cost of producing live games or even highlight shows are still high enough to be questionable in terms of cost-effectiveness. Due to budget cuts, the BBC opted not to show Football League highlights during the recent festive period, despite a full set of fixtures, while in non-League Premier Sports opted to pull out of screening Darlington versus Barrow last season rather than risk sending a crew to a game that stood a possibility of being called off.
And yet with the growth of the internet and the willingness over the past few seasons for broadcasters to snap up as many sport and football rights as possible, fans have been treated to a proliferation of football across a range of platforms to the extent that it’s almost expected that non-Premier League games and highlights will be if not free, then at least readily available. Never mind that football has had its fingers burnt twice in the past with the collapse of both ITV Digital and Setanta, the expectation is there.
This, however, overlooks the fact that if non-Premier League football was thought to be profitable for broadcasters, they would be rushing to show more of it. Ratings for ESPN’s foreign league coverage are low in the UK, while the expense involved for lower league games is high. That none of the commercial broadcasters other than Sky have made a serious play for these live matches in recent years tells its own story. Only the BBC, with its public service commitments, could make a sensible argument for broadcasting lower league football, and with their proposed Delivering Quality First cuts – especially around local radio commentaries – even Auntie appears to be scaling back lower league coverage.
This, then, is the state of football broadcasting in the UK at the moment. Rights for live Premier League games are so expensive to bid for that only a small handful of broadcasters – Sky, ESPN and, given their recent acquisitions of French rights, probably al-Jazeera – are able to offer the vast sums required, while the lower leagues are too expensive to produce to make a serious challenge to Sky for the rights (or, in the case of Premier Sports and their deal to broadcast non-League football, hardly enriching for the clubs involved).
Which is why looking outside of the traditional mediums could be seen as a good thing. For the Premier League, should Apple and Google, two companies with the financial clout to challenge Sky, decide to bid then it could herald the much-needed shake-up of the current near-monopoly on top flight rights. For lower leagues, exploring non-linear options are, quite simply, a must if they are to at least stand a chance of reaching existing fans and new audiences. A new generation of internet connected app-friendly televisions are on the way powered by familiar OS and Android platforms. While it may be a tad hyperbolic to proclaim these will change the way you watch TV forever, we’re already seeing the current generation of IPTVs having a slight shift on the way we consume our television. The world of streaming, tablets, phones and TV is amalgamating as one.
Of the realistic options, Apple appear to be the most curious of those rumoured. The tech company already has a deal in place with Sky to show archive footage through iTunes, while Sky’s successful Sky Go mobile and tablet apps currently offer a slick Premier League broadcasting experience on the iPhone and iPad.
Bidding for expensive UK Premier League rights would also represent something of a risk for Apple, given football’s standing in the US, although globally, given the Premier League’s appeal, it could prove to be a sound piece of business, especially in the long term if it secures the US rights to the competition given the growing appeal of the “EPL” on that side of the Atlantic. But any movement on this, if it were to materialise, would as likely depend on the offerings of Apple TV, how it develops and whether it becomes a mass-market product.
The search giant Google, however, would seem to be much more of a natural fit for broadcasting rights. They already own YouTube, which signed a two year deal to broadcast the Indian Premier League cricket. Under YouTube’s stewardship, the channel racked up a cool 50 million views. In comparison, current rights holder Times India’s channel, which is produced in conjunction with Google, has just under 15 millions views. The appetite and familiarity with well known sporting brands is, it appears, present online and is not discouraged by a non-traditional media company owning the rights.
For Google, the infrastructure (including Android), not to mention the money, is in place, although one complication may be the ongoing copyright dispute between the Premier League and YouTube. Google have also recently shed many extra projects as they get behind their core offerings (while continuing to innovate), and the video Hangouts on Google+ raise an interesting possibility of shared viewing experiences between friends or fans of clubs through special individual channels. There are so many possibilities for sports broadcasting on Google – be it TV, apps, online or social network – it would be easy to spend a whole article speculating on what these may be, but suffice to say the barriers offered by traditional broadcasters would be broken down should the leagues be willing to do so – itself a big sticking point.
It is also worth, briefly, considering Facebook. The social behemoth may not have been mentioned thus far but they have already shown that, on a smaller scale, they can very competently handle sports broadcasting. Budweiser and the FA’s streaming of the Extra Preliminary FA Cup Qualifying tie between Ascot United and Wembley FC may have been a one-off novelty but was a smooth, entertaining and enjoyable experience. Liking Budweiser’s page was a small price to pay for a professional broadcast and the online viewing figures of 27,000 were more than even ITV4 gets for some Europa League matches.
I hope AT tells us which member of the LL threatened him.
Could the American bidders for Rangers be Dick’s?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17621761
Mort
Bada bing,
Hopefully he has recorded it
canamalar-If he is having a go at exposing the LL tonight,he might throw his name in.
Afternoon bhoys, a bit cooler today on the hun free mountain.
So the tax man is going after a bunch of referees, they are innocent, they are men of integrity and honest transparancy, how dare the tax man do this.
canamalar
I see you are adding memers to your fan club :>)))
Kayal33 on 5 April, 2012 at 12:02 said:
A price worth paying for justice, and for Establishment Conspiracy
05/04/2012 at 11:32 am
3 0 i Rate This
Dear Sirs
The Rangers Football Club plc (in Administration) (“the Company”)
Company No. SC004276
In accordance with Rule 2.25D of the Insolvency (Scotland) Rules 1986, notice is hereby given that with effect from 5 April 2012, the Joint Administrators of the Company will make available on the website http://www.rangers..co.uk, documents relating to the Joint Administrators’ First Report and Statutory Proposals and the first meeting of creditors of the Company to be held by
correspondence on 20 April 2012 at 12:00 noon. If you are unable to download these documents, copies of any of the relevant documents will be provided to season ticket holders and bond holders who contact the Joint Administrators on 0207 487 7240 to request them.
As the business of the meeting is being conducted by correspondence, there will be no attendance required in person and no physical meeting will be held.
For the avoidance of doubt, if you wish to vote you must visit the website and download the Joint Administrators’ Report and Statutory Proposals document, then follow the instructions outlined in the covering letter. Please note that if you choose not to vote, it will not affect your right to make a claim against the Company at a later stage.
Please note that as the exit route chosen for the Company will be largely driven by offers received from prospective bidders, the Proposals have been drafted to provide the Joint Administrators with the widest range of options to best secure the football club’s future.
The Joint Administrators are Paul John Clark (IP No. 8570) of Duff & Phelps Ltd, 43-45 Portman Square, London WH1 6LY and David John Whitehouse (IP No. 8699) of Duff & Phelps Ltd, The Chancery, 58 Spring Gardens, Manchester M2 1EW, appointed by the Court of Session to the Company.
The Joint Administrators will continue to correspond with you by email unless you call 020 7487 7240 or email rangers@duffandphelps.com to advise that you have revoked that consent in accordance with Rule 2.25C of the Insolvency (Scotland) Rules 1986.
For and on behalf of
The Rangers Football Club Plc
Paul Clark
Joint Administrator
The affairs, business and property of the Company are being managed by the Joint Administrators, Paul Clark and David Whitehouse, who act as agents of the Company and without personal liability. They are both licensed by the Insolvency Practitioners Association
Guys if anyone is sending me celtic shirts can they put their CQN name in with the package please, Not only to thank you individually but i might also get the names printed on some of the shirts for photos. HH
Kayal33 on 5 April, 2012 at 12:02 said:
alex thomson@alextomoReply
Talking to EUFA abt MSP/FM involvement with RFC.
This could affect us more than them. Political interference will lead to all scottish clubs barred from europe and the national team kicked out of world cup qualifiers.
HMRC are a UK department English, Welsh and Norn Irn clubs and international teams would also be affected if State Aid was given. English media, FA & Premier League will be over the moon with MSP/FM involvement.
McNair is the greatest
Good point. Scotland is not a nation in the eyes of the law. It is part of the UK and as you say HMRC are a UK body so ramifications, if there are any, should be for all parts of the UK.
If Celtic of SFA are banned, as a member of the European Clubs Association we have avenues to take this further.
Mort
!!Bada Bing!! on 5 April, 2012 at 12:19 said:
Whatever the preferred bidder pays for rfcia, 85 percent will go to Whyte
Paddy McCourt cannot get a league winners medal!!!!
Is it still the casde that you have to make a minimum of 10 appearances to win a medal.
Paddy has been on the bench 10 times but no league appearances according to soccerbase.com with only 7 games left this is a terrible shame.
Can anyone confirm?
can i just say that a independant scotland is for the whole of scotland not just the SNP
Other players and required appearances from the remaining 7 games
Lustig needs 8 can’t make it
Izzi needs 6, lets see a lot of him.
Loovens needs 2 should be OK
Zaluska needs 7 every game, sub on Saturday maybe.
Finally managed to read the latest the latest CQN glossy mag. Got a couple of hours to kill waiting for my last job in a bright and sunny Glenrothes.
Well done Paul,James F and the various others who contribute to the mag.
HH
kittoch
I’ve not been on the pitch either – can I get a medal :-}
Kitalba
We are judging every second of the day, its a survival instinct.
On cognitive judgement which is what you describe then that is best done over time (as you describe ) again almost as a survival mechanism in choosing who to interact with and at what level.
I think my position is better explained if I replace judgement with condemnation.
When I see views I disagree with I prefer/choose to wonder why on earth would they think that, what about their experience has caused or reinforced their belief?
There is also so much more to folk who are a sum of their experiences I think it would be wrong to condemn them without having that bigger picture.
Finally even when I think condemnation is justified I try to separate the behaviour I dislike from the person. Love the sinner hate the sin stuff. There is always the possibility that in not condeming the person being so judged might be encouraged to look at their behaviour and what lies behind it and so change it. The benefits of being able to deal with others in a non judgemental/condemnation are part of my experience and so part of my truth/reality.
The best guy ever at it in human history eggs us on to take his approach and it is not easy to reach his standard but life gives us the opportunity every second to practice.
Kittoch on 5 April, 2012 at 12:43 said:
10 appearances required for a medal, Paddy has made 10 so far this season. He’ll get a medal.
Tamstered
Can you answer this question honestly?
Would the huns have been more or less likely to get away with their skullduggery in an independent Scotland?
It has taken an English journalist and the UK tax agency to bring any kind of rigour to the situation.
Kittoch on 5 April, 2012 at 12:45 said
Dylan McGeoch needs another 6 apperances for a medal. Sub appearance on saturday then a run in the last 5 games?
Never seen the point of getting totally smashed BEFORE a game…what is the point? Never understood these casuals that get involved in choreographed violence whilst using their football club as an excuse for anti-social behaviour. It just reflects badly on the club. And sometimes innocent bystanders get hurt in the chaos that ensues- why can’t these people just grow up like everyone else does?