Two weeks ago we spoke about the fine margins which determine results in the Champions League. Last night’s share of the points was a great example. While Borussia Monchengladbach were the better team at Celtic Park last month, they relied on two defensive errors to settle the game. Had Celtic stayed error free they may have won.
Last night we were error free (you could nit-pick about the Gladbach goal) and got a better result. A result which surprises on the upside or downside has the potential to overshadow an actual performance, but our point was deserved.
It didn’t look that way early on. Although Celtic defended comfortably for the first 15 minutes, we were unable to hold the ball. The abiding memory of that period is Tom Rogic with three black shirts around him the moment the ball arrived at his feet. Even long balls to the later-impressive Moussa Dembele were offering no relief.
We didn’t create anything the first time we got possession inside the Gladbach box, but this was the most important passage of play in the game. We retained possession for more than 20 passes, allowing players to settle, and perhaps giving Borussia more defensive duties to consider. At no point thereafter were we pinned back inside our own half.
Dembele had no right to get around the defender and into a shooting position at the penalty. He knocked the ball to the defender’s left and ran past him on his right, in the middle of the box. It took craft and strength. It’s been a while since we’ve had a striker who would have been capable of this kind of move.
Honourable mentions to Scotts Sinclair and Brown. Sinclair clearly worried the Gladbach defenders, who could only outnumber him when he drove deep into their half with the ball tied to his feet.
The most striking aspect of the performance was how we performed defensively. With squad players Emilio Izaguirre and Cristian Gamboa at full back and Mikael Lustig partnering Erik Sviatchenko in the middle you would be forgiven for worrying we might see the kind of disorganisation witnessed at the Camp Nou on match day one.
Instead we looked well-rehearsed, while Craig Gordon was back at his best.
Callum McGregor’s should have won all three points with a gilt-edged chance near the end. That could have made the difference between third and fourth in the group, but a win would have flattered us.
354 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- »
High Court says MPs to have vote in Parliament before Article 50 can be invoked to ‘brexit’.
Did they have Sandy Bryson in there??
May, you live in interesting times.
Interesting!
“They think it’s all over. . . It isn’t now!”
An Eton mess.
Guy who brought the legal challenge voted for ‘Brexit’.
Lincoln’s Inn, Gray’s Inn and the Temple echoing to the sound of ‘Ker- Ching!!’
Government hiding behind the judiciary?
Sorry, news cut from a report to a live interview. . .guy I mentioned was reading a statement from someone else.
Gina Miller now on, appears it was she who made the legal challenge.
Thetimreaper
They can either appeal to the Supreme Court within 4 weeks, or go for a quick vote in Parliament on triggering Article 50, daring MPs to defy the referendum vote, as they will present it.
Thanks to the quite remarkable efforts of Canamalar, Auldheid, Morrissey and BRTH on pulling Resolution 12 through a muddy field of obfuscation, much light has been shed on the accomodations that were made for Rangers FC during the period from 2011 to Liquidation.
While the focus of the Resolution was to address suspected shortcomings at the SFA as regards the application of UEFA’s Club Licensing rules, one outcome from the process has slipped somewhat beneath the radar.
In the letter from UEFA dated 8th June, Andrea Traverso – UEFA’s Head of Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play – states that:
“…the new club/company being ineligible to apply for a licence to participate in UEFA competitions from 3 seasons..”
and
“…the new club/company… was not able to play in UEFA competitions for three years in any event.”
The talk in cyberspace (note: There has been radio silence on this matter from mainstream media outlets) has focussed on the “new club/company” aspect of these statements, and with good reason: Here, after all, is one of UEFA’s top executives quite clearly debunking the “continuity myth” so painstakingly fabricated by the SFA & SPL in the 5-way Agreement. That’s a story right there.
There is though something of an oversight, and that oversight speaks to the legitimacy of the 5-way Agreement in the first place:
It is Article 12 to which Traverso is referring when he states that the new club/company was ineligible to apply for a licence to participate in UEFA competitions from 3 seasons.
According to Article 12 of UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, the very Regulations that Traverso is responsible for implementing:
1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions which either:
a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league (here inafter: registered member); or
b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (here inafter: football company).
2 The membership… must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years.
Central to the 5-way Agreement was the “transfer of the Scottish FA membership between Rangers FC (In Administration), and Sevco Scotland Ltd”, without which, Sevco would have been unable to field a team in regulated matches. No membership: No particiaption.
It is quite clear from the foregoing that, whatever the SFA did with Rangers’ membership in 2012, UEFA simply don’t accept that it was ‘transferred’ to Sevco Scotland, otherwise the “membership” would have lasted considerably longer than the minimum 3 consecutive seasons.
And if there was no legitimate “transfer of membership”, well, right there, the 5-way Agreement is fatally flawed.
It’ll be appealed – all the way up to the European Court in Brussels….
;-))))
Referendums are not legally binding, especially those won on false information. The government needs to fully consult parliament on the way forward as the government has no mandate on deciding the exit process. Correct decision by the High Court imo.
Or, are higher powers conspiring here?
Beatbhoy
Parliament wouldn’t be voting on brexit, they are arguing on exit process. MSM would portay it differently.
TBB
That is the kind of post for which CQN was created. Well done.
JJ
THETIMREAPER on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 10:51 AM
Referendums are not legally binding, especially those won on false information. The government needs to fully consult parliament on the way forward as the government has no mandate on deciding the exit process. Correct decision by the High Court imo.
Or, are higher powers conspiring here?
————————————————————–
I agree it’s the correct decision – for the reason you note. If the ultimate decision is that parliament must vote, it will be interesting to see the position taken by the various MPs! :-))
Morning
https://youtu.be/EsozpEE543w
The pound has bouncebackability…
NATKNOW on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 10:58 AM
The SNP will have to respect the will of the Scottish people. Oh the irony.
Thetimreaper
There’s no brexit without Article 50 being invoked.
So, effectively, they are.
THETIMREAPER on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 11:03 AM
NATKNOW on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 10:58 AM
The SNP will have to respect the will of the Scottish people. Oh the irony.
——————————————————
LOL! There’s will be lots of contortions! Think of all those MPs in England whose constituents voted Brexit but who themselves voted Remain…! What to do…???? :-))
If each MP was to respect the will of their constituents it wouldn’t necessarily mean that they would vote for brexit. There are 650 constituencies in the UK. How the 17m v 16m vote actually worked out in terms of proportionality is a different matter. There would have been disproportionate vote leave percentages in the south of England.
Joey Barton has completed an almost seven weeks suspension! Wow! That must have been some crime he committed. It`s a shame I don`t read /listen to the MSSM because they must be all over this story.
On another topic. Are the SFA saying that if anyone doesn`t like The Rules, they can just ignore them?
JJ
thetimreaper on 3rd November 2016 11:12 am
If each MP was to respect the will of their constituents it wouldn’t necessarily mean that they would vote for brexit. There are 650 constituencies in the UK. How the 17m v 16m vote actually worked out in terms of proportionality is a different matter. There would have been disproportionate vote leave percentages in the south of England.
————————————————————————————————————
Good point. Also, an MP represents all constituents…even the ones that didn’t vote in the Referendum. How does an MP gauge what they want? They should also act on behalf of those ineligible to vote, such as children.
If Brexit is not guaranteed, what are the odds of it not happening? Are we talking hypothetically or is staying in a very real possibility?
JJ
MacJay
Yes SDM must have done a deal with the Devil given the evidence that exists of his chicanery. It’s astonishing the inaction of the authorities and lack of commitment to bring him to justice. As you suggest, the (insidious) power of the masons.
Hot Smoked
If MP’s do vote against invoking article 50 then that is not to say that the process stops there. They may not vote against it because UK gov’t is not ready yet. They could vote again later to say “Ok, we’re ready now.”
However, if they do vote against invoking Article 50, and there is a big fuss about “going against the will of the people”, should there be a General Election? Thus delaying Brexit further?
I know which way the DUP will vote in Parliament + 3line whip from Tories. Be interesting to see what May will give DUP in return.
HH
Up the hoooops
HOT SMOKED on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 11:26 AM
If Brexit is not guaranteed, what are the odds of it not happening? Are we talking hypothetically or is staying in a very real possibility?
JJ
———————————————————
I think the real problem is that it’s not clear what it even is. If you ask 10 people you’ll get 10 different definitions. “Brexit means Brexit” actually explains nothing.
TBB @ 10.59
Well well well, – that post puts pressure on the five way agreement, Celtic, and the SFA
But not in any particular order.
HH
Inrersting times.
‘Suzanne Evans ✔ @SuzanneEvans1
How dare these activist judges attempt to overturn our will? It’s a power grab & undermines democracy. Time we had the right to sack them.’
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/nov/03/article-50-high-court-ruling-high-court-set-to-rule-on-whether-mps-should-vote-on-triggering-article-50-politics-live?page=with:block-581b1e93e4b029b92ca45163#block-581b1e93e4b029b92ca45163
######
‘Mishcon de Reya had written to the court in relation to a significant and outspoken amount of abuse and threats that it had received following the publicity around its role in a potential claim. The court noted this, and said it took this matter extremely seriously. Justice Leveson said that some of the abuse may have been criminal, but the civil courts would treat very seriously any threats intending to interfere with the course of justice in this matter, and such interference may well be contempt of court.’
https://www.mishcon.com/qanda
An Tearmann on 3rd November 2016 9:00 am
Maybe the posts about the mysterious missing posts mysteriously disappeared as well!
twighlightzone CSC
KTF
TBB@10.59
Excellent. The extent and the breadth of knowledge on this blog never ceases to amaze. It’s the inability to translate this knowledge into some form of remedial action that continues to frustrate.
HH
Yes, i’ve had few posts that have v
‘GG on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:02 AM
Indians score 2 runs on a wild pitch. 5-3 with 2 out bottom of the 5th.
Cubs have Lester pitching on short rest. 2 days I think.
After 5 it’s 5-3 Cubs.
Game is finely poised.
******
I’ll need to take that to the chemist and get him to make it up for me!
Maybe it’s time to stop having referendums on stuff – it just upsets people…
NatKnow
Maybe it’s time to stop having referendums on stuff – it just upsets people…
——————————————————–
Choices do make people unhappy…
Secretly we all yearn for a set of overalls and an apartment in a building that smells like boiled cabbage…