Scottish football is posed for the most momentous stand-off in its history. The battle lines are clear:
Money v Morals, TV money v Season ticket money, Bank of Scotland v Fans
In 12 days the SPL clubs will vote on resolutions which will enable a new club to parachute straight into the SPL following the liquidation of Rangers without having to apply for entry to the Scottish Football league and rise through the pyramid. Five clubs can block their entry – for a few days anyway. Six, a majority if one member is liquidated, would be enough to ensure Rangers Newco SPL entry is blocked.
According to the SPL Fan Survey fans would overwhelmingly like to see any Newco football club enter the Scottish Football League, a position supported by a large number of Rangers fans, but the voices of fans are more easily discarded than that of the Bank of Scotland, who a large number of clubs depend upon to keep their own clubs out of administration.
In short, unless clubs can demonstrate to the Bank of Scotland that they will lose more money from disaffected fans by voting for Newco than they will by voting to retain the custom of Rangers fans, with accompanying television and sponsor money, Newco FC will be voted into the SPL.
Celtic will vote against Newco but fans from Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen, Dundee United, Inverness, St Johnstone, Motherwell and St Mirren have to do more to make their case directly with their clubs. Irrespective of fan views, I reckon Dunfermline shareholders would rather relegate their own team than Rangers. Don’t even ask about Kilmarnock.
The Gang of 10 may speak as one. If they get rid of Rangers they will be able to out-vote Celtic and have a unique opportunity to change voting rights, allowing them to capture long-term money currently going to Celtic. This, together with overwhelming fan pressure, might be enough to persuade some, but this issue is more complex.
Despite initial opposition to changing the voting rights, Duff and Phelps may vote with the Gang of 10 on voting rights as part of a deal to allow them to sell a place in the SPL. Yes – trade votes in order to sell a place in the top league. Sporting integrity dismantled forever.
Since we first raised the alarm on this vote back in October I have been convinced Newco would be ushered into the SPL but the weight of opinion from fans from other clubs is stark. Over half of respondents to the Survey say they will not attend SPL games if Newco is voted straight into the league.
Even the Bank of Scotland would have to recognise the business sense in siding with the fans if this view is made firmly enough.
Truth is, no one knows which way this one will go, but this is a once in a century opportunity for fans to make a stand.
Bids for the original canvass painting of Neil Lennon by US based artist, Joseph Gormley, has topped £600! Keep an eye on the auction, which ends tomorrow, here.
Buy a hard copy of CQN Magazine, issue 7, by clicking on the button below. You can read online here.
879 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- ...
- 24
- »
fanadpatriot
Oh well, next time;)
HH
Auldheid
There was something interesting in a link that Big Nan posted earlier today. It was a report on Jock Stein’s reaction to the referee in a SC match against Dundee. Big Jock on the pitch confronting one Bobby Davidson, Orange Lodge member of the lowest order, and Rangers supporter. Davidson of course had been referee back in the Scottish Cup Final against Aberdeen in 1970, an exercise in bigotry. Anyways, the aforementioned match took place in November 1972, and yet according to the report, it was only the third time Davidson had refereed a Celtic match since the infamous Cup Final. In over two and a half years. Dont think Jock liked him much.
Courtesy of RTC Twitter.
Not surprisingly there has been very little analysis by the Scottish mainstream media of how other football clubs have dealt with administration where HMRC have been a major creditor. Portsmouth Football Club, on a factual basis has a significantly similar back story to Rangers and their current ‘predicament’. They both have an owner that bought the clubs for a £1. Both clubs had an owner that owned 80-90% of the shares in the business. They both had potential debts of £135-£140 million. The major difference is the percentage of the debt that was owed to HMRC. Another difference was that the Premier League paid funds to the clubs owed funds by Portsmouth. And there was court action by HMRC to prevent the CVA…
As the early stages of the 2009–10 season progressed, the finances dried up at Portsmouth and the club admitted on 1 October that some of their players and staff had not been paid. On 3 October, media outlets started to report that a deal was nearing completion for new owner Ali al-Faraj to take control of the club. On 5 October, a deal was agreed for a non exeecutive director named Al Faraj and his associates via BVI-registered company Falcondrone to hold a 90% majority holding, with Al-Fahim retaining 10% stake and the title of non-executive Chairman for two years.
In December 2009, it was announced that the club had failed to pay the players for the second consecutive month, on the 31st it was announced player’s wages would again be paid late on 5 January 2010. According to common football contracts, the players then had the right to terminate their contracts and leave the club without any compensation for the club, upon giving two weeks notice. Despite the financial difficulties, Grant’s time as manager was initially successful. He gained two wins (against Burnley and Liverpool) and a draw away at Sunderland from his first five games. The only losses inflicted on Pompey in this period were by eventual double winners Chelsea and the previous season’s champions, Manchester United. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) filed a winding-up petition against Portsmouth at the High Court in London on 23 December 2009. In March 2010, this winding-up petition was dropped, leaving Portsmouth with a nine-point penalty for entering administration.
On 17 June, the CVA was formally agreed with creditors with a 81.3% majority; Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), Paul Hart and the agent of Pompey midfielder Tommy Smith were the only ones to reject it, but HMRC appealed against the CVA due to the reduction of their considerable debt. On 15 July 2010 HMRC appealed against the proposed CVA on the last day before it would be formally agreed, the case was originally going to take place in October 2010, but after an appeal from the administrators at the club it was set for 3 August at the High Court in London. The case was heard by Mr Justice Mann from 3 to 5 August where, having heard submissions from both sides, he turned down HMRC’s appeal on all five counts put forward by the revenue service. HMRC decided not to appeal against the verdict, leaving Portsmouth’s administrators to formally agree the CVA and bring the club out of administration.
HMRC applied to the court asking them to revoke/suspend the approval of a CVA. HMRC also appealed against the decision on the amount of its debt to be allowed for voting purposes at the CVA meeting. HMRC sought to vote in the sum of £37,768,387, which included a sum of about £11 million of tax for “image rights” payable to players which the club claimed were not taxable but HMRC claimed were a sham. The chairman of the meeting (one of the administrators) permitted HMRC to vote only in the sum of £24,474,435, having rejected the whole of a claim of £2,947,468 and placed a value of £1 on the sum claimed in respect of the “sham” image rights.
Under the Football League’s insolvency policy a club was required to exit administration by an approved CVA, and that all football creditor debts had to be paid in full or fully secured. Football creditors were other clubs (to whom sums might be due for transfer fees), players (for remuneration) and various football authorities and organisations.
The issue here was that the Premier League had paid funds to other football clubs during a period of administration out of the moneys it would otherwise have paid to the club. There is no suggestion that the SPL/SFA have paid any of the money due to Dundee United, Dunfermline, or Hearts, all clubs that are owed funds by Rangers Football Club.
As mentioned earlier, HMRC sought to vote in the sum of £37,768,387, but was only permitted by the chairman to vote in the sum of £24,474,435. The CVA proposals were passed by more than 75 per cent of the creditors. The Revenue brought its application and appeal under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.6 and the Insolvency Rules 1986 r.1.17. The Revenue contended that the CVA unfairly prejudiced its interests because it would result in the loss of valuable claims under s.127 of the Act and had approved payments past and future payments to football creditors in full. It submitted that allowing football creditors to vote amounted to a material irregularity as they, unlike the other creditors, would be receiving payment in full. The Revenue argued that if the football creditor votes had been disallowed then it would have had more than 25 per cent of the vote and would have been able to block the CVA.
On 17 August, Balram Chainrai completed his takeover of the club and passed the owners and Directors F&PPT. During the 2009–10 season, it had become apparent to the new owner that Portsmouth were approximately £135m in debt.
This makes clear that HMRC has a precedent for seeking to block a CVA when unsatisfied with the percentage on the pound offered by the administrators. What is different in Rangers case, is that if the ‘big tax case’ goes against RFC, then HMRC will likely be the majority creditor. Payout is limited by however much money is on offer and is distributed by creditor class/negotiation, with threats of liquidation & security interests complicating matters. What the Portsmouth case shows us is that HMRC will be tough, tough customers. There should be no expectation that HMRC will do any favours to Rangers when there are 100M worth of assets sitting on their books…
If HMRC was willing to sue to seek to block a CVA on a debt of £25 million when the total debt of Portsmouth was £135 million, then what will they demand when the business is in debt to the tune of up to £140 million and over 75% of the debt is owed to Her Majesties Revenue and Customs?
I wonder if the “two Bills, Miller and Ng” have done their due dilligence…
traditionalist,
Then I can’t be a real supporter in your eyes. I have nothing but respect for our manager. But I do NOT think it at all appropriate that we sing rebel songs at football matches, a completely different issue,imo.
Edward Woodward statue for me: The Liquidiser.
Hawkwind statue for me [ -/+ the statuesque Stacia] -Liquid Len and the Lensmen.
Ulysses mcghee
If i can be of help with your ikea problem, get my e mail address of paul 67 , i was in ikea this morning, i am only 20 minutes away from the belfast store
Parkheadcumsalford
That wasn’t my point though, if you read it carefully. I wasn’t alluding to the songs debate- I said the so called Celtic fans who are slating Lennon tend to be the same one who say we are AS BAD AS THE HUNS for singing a few rebel songs.
Whether rebel songs are appropriate is a DIFFERENT debate altogether- but if you believe we are as bad as the huns for singing a few rebel songs then I agree with your first statement,
HH
Strand
ewingcourt9@sky.com
Cheers
U
Fholks,
Here is a suggestion, call me mad or a genius! We buy Portsmouth and clear their debt £100m. We apply to join the Football League replacing them, playing the Football League £150m as an entry fee. We give Portsmouth and all their facilities to their fans with £20m giving them control of their club, capital to start again and facilities to ensure they have somewhere to play.
Mad or farfetched I suppose but the bottom line in English football is trhat money is king. By paying substantial amounts to the FL I cannot see any chairmen turning us down as they’d want a slice of the money. While Portsmouth would be mad at the start by paying all their creditors and gifting the club to the fans it would soften the blow. Our dear leaders would have to stump up a lot of money but if we as fans agreed to help via another share issue i’d happily pay a couple of hundred quid to get out of Scottish football. Also it would set the bar too high for them in administration to join us :-)
Time for my medicine!
,
neil Lennons “actions” over this season and past have irked some, Neil Lennons words appear to have irked even more,
Its a pity that the actions and words aimed directly at Neil lennon (and indirectly his family) to the extent that his very existence was threatened over the same period never resulted in the same mock outrage.
Shaming the Club as some would have us believe?
Its the Country he lives and works in that should be ashamed for what this man and his family have gone through, its the inaction of those who govern the country who should be ashamed, its those in the media and other outlets who have exacerbated the situation with their continual demonising of the man who should be ashamed,
Neil Lennon has never shamed me nor brought embarrassment upon me, either as an individual or as a Celtic Supporter,
Neil Lennon has been and continues to be far more restrained under the circumstances than the rest of us could ever hope to be, the problem is the majority of this Country cant understand that and never will, they dont see Neil Lennon as a person, as an individual,
they see Neil Lennon as a symbol of things that they are bred to hate.
Lets be clear,
In Neil Lennon, they see us.
Shoulder to Shoulder with Lenny
Hell Bent
The guy thought it was personal and couldn’t be ignored
He had tried the normal avenues, he even had implored
It soon became apparent that nearly everyone was deaf
Establishment turned a blind eye and on match days the ref
How could it be personal in this democracy we have got?
The world looking from the outside, can’t help but see the rot
It soon becomes apparent that nothing is as it seems
In the land of ‘Succulent lamb’ with lashings of ‘Jelly and ice cream’
Why would it be personal when lots of others do the same?
Ask questions and make comments about officials of the game
It soon became apparent that it was personal and ill meant
As they try to stop our manager, in that they are ‘hell bent’
Che on 18 April, 2012 at 15:29 said:
I echo that I could never had wrote it but certainly agree with what you write.Well said m8
Som mes que un club on 18 April, 2012 at 15:13 said:
Thanks for posting that. It sort of shoots a cannonball through the idea a CVA is possible but it all depends on how much theFTT decision adds to what HMRC are owed but they look to have the upperhand in blocking any CVA. I suppose D&P have to go through the motions (and I use that word deliberately) but it is going to be liquidation and if the football authorities do not listen on what happens next then its Matthew 10:14. for me.
“And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.”
.
ulysses
e mail sent to you
What price can we put on Morality (capitalised for affect)?
Integrity is a priceless commodity in a world bedevilled by unregulated greed & opaque corruption…maybe Scottish football can lead the way into a brighter future for planet fitba.
Scottish fitba really needs to shake itself out of its present slumber or risk dying. No one is saying its a zero risk game but we need to leap forward into tge light.
Right now we are stuck in weltschmerz…right now this present crossroads leads right to the promised land or left to an oblivion of discredited irrelevance.
Then again.
There has been a lot mentioned lately about a thing called The Celtic Family.I really like this notion and the feeling that I am a part of it.
Among the many things I associate with being a member of a family is the comfort of knowing that,even in your darkest hour,when it seems the rest of the world is against you,you know you can rely on your family to support you.
You also know that,just like “real” family,if you screwed up,there would be strong words (or,in my case,something perhaps of a more physical nature in my younger years) said or done in private.
In my family,like just about everyone else’s, we sometimes faced significant challenges.At times they appeared to be insurmountable,with the only thing keeping us going was the knowledge that the family stood tall and strong against allcomers.
Last week we were all proud to stand beside a family member in his moment of triumph.
If we are,truly,a Celtic Family,we should be proud to stand beside him in his moment of adversity
My dear,dear,dear,friend.. Kojak @ 15.05
Hiya, Palomine?
Nice tae Meet and Greet.
Ah hiv nae Idea why The Singing Detective his Deigned tae No Correspond wi’ Yer guid Sel.
Although, Ah am sure the He Hauds Nae Animus Agin ye,pal.
He is No Like That..
Fur…
Ye know that He is ..Pixilated,Doncha???
Yep.. Jis like You and Ah.. are Pixilated. tae.
and.. we Guys who are Lucky enuff tae be.. well.
Pixilated..
Ayewiz, see . Eye tae Eye..in.. well.. Everything!
Thur ur no Miny Guys oan here who are Pixilated, as weel..
Some May Say..
“Thank, Godot , fur That!”
Anyway..
Keep oan Truckin’. Pally.
Kojo
yer pal.who thinks ye’re Swellegant.
Still Laughin…of .. Course!
Auld Neil Lennon heid
its Matthew 10:14. for me.
“And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.”
Canny see that post by Matthew por cierto :)))))
There is a lot of concern on this site and elswhere being raised by fellow Tims over NL’s demeanor with the establishment- maybe they should be asking themselves about the three MIB’s hand picked for the three recent high profile losses. Each with a history that didnt include Celtic minded leanings- or even fairness in their dealings with the club. Maybe we should be asking questions of those who choose these puppets. NL is putting his head above the parapet in highlighting the influence of these clowns- do you want to back him in this- or remain a second class citizen?
A nice little winner in the 3.45 at Chelt.
Hectors Choice
;-)
Big fat and able enough to speak for myself and I don’t restrict that to a blog
Were some of you not able to do that for yourself before Mr Lennon became your spokesman
If the other SPL clubs vote Newco straight into the SPL I will be sickened. They spend years winging about the dominance of the old firm and then once it is proven that one half of that ‘old firm’ has cheated it’s way to dominance over the last 25 years they appear willing to admit this club back into the league to resume the status quo?!? If Newco are voted back in it will show a distinct lack of ambition on the part of the other SPL clubs which would be consistent with the backwards mentality of Scottish football which exists from the grass roots up to the very corrupt and incompetent disgrace of a football association which we must deal with. If this proves to be the case I would welcome any alternative to continued participation in the Scottish Leagues. Even if this means a vast drop in income for a prolonged period of time. Any alternative is preferable to a Scottish Football who allows Newco back into the to tier with such minimal punishments.
If Newco is allowed to parachute whatever minimal integrity Scottish Football has left will be surrendered and our footballing future shall be doomed.
traditionalist88,
Sorry. I misread your statement but we shouldn’t be going in for equivocation or whataboutery. That’s for them. We are better than them, a whole lot better but we don’t need to bring up anything which divides the support, when we are concerned with a matter which should see us standing shoulder to shoulder with our manager.
Mickebhoy- do you have as high a profile as that of the Celtic manager in your standing up against ludge influenced bias?
Hi All,
For a number of reasons I think Neil Lennon needs to be taken seriously to task by the club.
1) He punched an opposition coach – sorry my mistake – it was Craig Brown
2) He twice manhandled a ref – no wait – that was Madjid Bougherra
3) He sent bombs (or should that be received? – I get so confused)
4) He abused a mainstream journalist with a televised foul mouthed tirade – no that was Walter Smith
5) He asked what the point of turning up at Ibrox was because the referee was so biased – Nope. That was the CURRENT Scotland manager
6) He didn’t pay taxes on all his earnings. Och Alright – Neil Lennon ; Campbell Ogilvie – similar names. you can see how I could easily get mixed up
7) He has overseen a club whose players have inflicted serious injuries on their main rivals – Och no – that was Ally McCoist – you know .. the funny one !
My only criticism of Neil on Sunday? He ran onto the pitch like the young bull instead of taking a deep breath and walking on like the old bull.
For those who are lining up to criticise our manager (a member of the Celtic family) after all he has been through? Enjoy Superscoreboard tonight and the Daily Record tomorrow. You deserve each other.
Hail Hail
Che on 18 April, 2012 at 15:29 said,…
Well said my friend. Agree with everything you wrote.
From; http://web3dlaw.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/a-look-at-portsmouth-for-guidance-on-football-clubs-and-creditor-voluntary-agreements-25/
http://web3dlaw.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/a-look-at-portsmouth-for-guidance-on-football-clubs-and-creditor-voluntary-agreements-25/
Not surprisingly there has been very little analysis by the Scottish mainstream media of how other football clubs have dealt with administration where HMRC have been a major creditor. Portsmouth Football Club, on a factual basis has a significantly similar back story to Rangers and their current ‘predicament’. They both have an owner that bought the clubs for a £1. Both clubs had an owner that owned 80-90% of the shares in the business. They both had potential debts of £135-£140 million. The major difference is the percentage of the debt that was owed to HMRC. Another difference was that the Premier League paid funds to the clubs owed funds by Portsmouth. And there was court action by HMRC to prevent the CVA…
As the early stages of the 2009–10 season progressed, the finances dried up at Portsmouth and the club admitted on 1 October that some of their players and staff had not been paid. On 3 October, media outlets started to report that a deal was nearing completion for new owner Ali al-Faraj to take control of the club. On 5 October, a deal was agreed for a non exeecutive director named Al Faraj and his associates via BVI-registered company Falcondrone to hold a 90% majority holding, with Al-Fahim retaining 10% stake and the title of non-executive Chairman for two years.
In December 2009, it was announced that the club had failed to pay the players for the second consecutive month, on the 31st it was announced player’s wages would again be paid late on 5 January 2010. According to common football contracts, the players then had the right to terminate their contracts and leave the club without any compensation for the club, upon giving two weeks notice. Despite the financial difficulties, Grant’s time as manager was initially successful. He gained two wins (against Burnley and Liverpool) and a draw away at Sunderland from his first five games. The only losses inflicted on Pompey in this period were by eventual double winners Chelsea and the previous season’s champions, Manchester United. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) filed a winding-up petition against Portsmouth at the High Court in London on 23 December 2009. In March 2010, this winding-up petition was dropped, leaving Portsmouth with a nine-point penalty for entering administration.
On 17 June, the CVA was formally agreed with creditors with a 81.3% majority; Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), Paul Hart and the agent of Pompey midfielder Tommy Smith were the only ones to reject it, but HMRC appealed against the CVA due to the reduction of their considerable debt. On 15 July 2010 HMRC appealed against the proposed CVA on the last day before it would be formally agreed, the case was originally going to take place in October 2010, but after an appeal from the administrators at the club it was set for 3 August at the High Court in London. The case was heard by Mr Justice Mann from 3 to 5 August where, having heard submissions from both sides, he turned down HMRC’s appeal on all five counts put forward by the revenue service. HMRC decided not to appeal against the verdict, leaving Portsmouth’s administrators to formally agree the CVA and bring the club out of administration.
HMRC applied to the court asking them to revoke/suspend the approval of a CVA. HMRC also appealed against the decision on the amount of its debt to be allowed for voting purposes at the CVA meeting. HMRC sought to vote in the sum of £37,768,387, which included a sum of about £11 million of tax for “image rights” payable to players which the club claimed were not taxable but HMRC claimed were a sham. The chairman of the meeting (one of the administrators) permitted HMRC to vote only in the sum of £24,474,435, having rejected the whole of a claim of £2,947,468 and placed a value of £1 on the sum claimed in respect of the “sham” image rights.
Under the Football League’s insolvency policy a club was required to exit administration by an approved CVA, and that all football creditor debts had to be paid in full or fully secured. Football creditors were other clubs (to whom sums might be due for transfer fees), players (for remuneration) and various football authorities and organisations.
The issue here was that the Premier League had paid funds to other football clubs during a period of administration out of the moneys it would otherwise have paid to the club. There is no suggestion that the SPL/SFA have paid any of the money due to Dundee United, Dunfermline, or Hearts, all clubs that are owed funds by Rangers Football Club.
As mentioned earlier, HMRC sought to vote in the sum of £37,768,387, but was only permitted by the chairman to vote in the sum of £24,474,435. The CVA proposals were passed by more than 75 per cent of the creditors. The Revenue brought its application and appeal under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.6 and the Insolvency Rules 1986 r.1.17. The Revenue contended that the CVA unfairly prejudiced its interests because it would result in the loss of valuable claims under s.127 of the Act and had approved payments past and future payments to football creditors in full. It submitted that allowing football creditors to vote amounted to a material irregularity as they, unlike the other creditors, would be receiving payment in full. The Revenue argued that if the football creditor votes had been disallowed then it would have had more than 25 per cent of the vote and would have been able to block the CVA.
On 17 August, Balram Chainrai completed his takeover of the club and passed the owners and Directors F&PPT. During the 2009–10 season, it had become apparent to the new owner that Portsmouth were approximately £135m in debt.
This makes clear that HMRC has a precedent for seeking to block a CVA when unsatisfied with the percentage on the pound offered by the administrators. What is different in Rangers case, is that if the ‘big tax case’ goes against RFC, then HMRC will likely be the majority creditor. Payout is limited by however much money is on offer and is distributed by creditor class/negotiation, with threats of liquidation & security interests complicating matters. What the Portsmouth case shows us is that HMRC will be tough, tough customers. There should be no expectation that HMRC will do any favours to Rangers when there are 100M worth of assets sitting on their books…
If HMRC was willing to sue to seek to block a CVA on a debt of £25 million when the total debt of Portsmouth was £135 million, then what will they demand when the business is in debt to the tune of up to £140 million and over 75% of the debt is owed to Her Majesties Revenue and Customs?
I wonder if the “two Bills, Miller and Ng” have done their due dilligence…
RTC pointed us in the direction of the blog above on his twitter feed.
Che and Back to Basics……
Fine posts.
“None so blind as those that will not see.” Matthew Henry (1662-1714)
Back to Basics – Glass Half Full on 18 April, 2012 at 16:09
Terrific post. Brings home the point that his actions are no worse than his peers.
Back to Basics – Glass Half Full on 18 April, 2012 at 16:09
Amen to that.
Yes to Neil Lennon.
No to cheats.
No to newco.
mickbhoy1888
On the issue of cheating match officials do you agree with Neil Lennon’s decision to confront it head on?
Back to Basics – Glass Half Full
Post of the day.
HH
Che
Another great post regarding our manager.
Back to Basics – Glass Half Full can get the jelly and you can get the ice cream.
HH
Che 15:29:
Here. Here.
A word form of how I feel.
HH.
A great number of people in Scotland dislike Celtic FC. They occasionally try and wrap up this dislike by linking it to a distaste for the ” Old Firm ” but when the surface is scratched it is Celtic,pure and simple,that is the focus of this emotion.
Over the years I have known a significant number of people who did not support Celtic or Rangers but I think it is fair to state that ,if pushed,they were virtually all neutral about Rangers but held antipathy to Celtic.Some have been very honest and admitted that this had been an inherited dislike which they had never really questioned.In their time there had been The Troubles and with the Celtic support naturally taking the side of Nationalists against British Loyalists(and the British Army ) those sentiments were reinforced- unless,in the very rare case of them having political awareness of the struggle in Ireland they would have a more nuanced position.
And so to Neil Lennon.He clearly reaches deep down inside some people and touches something that lies buried usually under a veneer of respectability.The straight right-on bigots are there for all to see but there is another segment of Scottish society who are equally reactive,albeit in a different manifestation,to being touched by Neil Lennon.
What we are witnessing is the death throes of Rangers FC ( currently in administration,but soon to be liquidated ) and the marshalling of forces to their defence.Part of that defence is their emotional and irrational attack on Celtic FC. As Seamus Heaney once famously wrote ” if you say anything,say nothing ” but for the current generation of Celtic supporting people that won’t wash.The old prejudices have surfaced big time against the club.There can really be no denying of this.The question is what to do about it.John Reid ( love him or hate him ) called it correctly when he advised all who would listen ” those days are over ” and so we either stand with Neil Lennon ( of course he has a few warts,who hasn’t ) or we appease cheats,liars,bully boys and the manipulators of the truth.
I know where I stand.
If the Singapore deal is completed is this the new Rangers song? “hello hello we are the lady boys”
Retweeted by Caoimhin Og
Tweet Hee Hee