Time To Move On
Another six days yet till we see the return of some decent fitba’. I’ve said before that international football does nothing for me,that if they were playing out my back door I’d shut the curtains.
Thankfully,being Celtic supporters there is always something to talk about. And thanks to some outstanding articles by AULDHEID and SFTB,that is certainly the case at the moment. The issue of governance in the domestic game-more accurately,how that governance is unevenly applied depending on which team it is-won’t go away. It is,of course,as old as the hills. It certainly pre-dates the Farry/Cadete affair,and even the attempt to ban us from flying the Irish Tricolour in the fifties.
I’ll leave that for people who were around then to give us a few examples while I scour CELTIC WIKI for the details of the ones I vaguely recall. A drunken referee sending off one of our players springs to mind…
So it was with some degree of interest that I read the following post from BYRES ROAD BHOY on Saturday evening. Especially given,that like so many of us at the time,whe wanted to believe in the good faith of the Celtic board re events surrounding the liquidation of Rangers,and the formation of the new club,The Rangers. And our disenchantment since.
” SFTB many thanks for taking the time and trouble to set out in layman’s terms where we stand. It’s a very well written and argued piece. And many thanks to Mahe and Bobby for giving you the platform and space.
All history is open to re-interpretation. Hindsight, as they say, is a wonderful thing. So within that context may I suggest that you are being extremely lenient with our custodians above where you say:
“…The best reading I can make of their actions is that, initially, they did want something done about this gross sporting corruption but they lost all their ardour fairly quickly when two events aligned…”
You then suggest that this was due to them being “…discouraged by the very broad backing given to the Continuity Myth outcome by the rest of Scotland….” together with “…The success enjoyed by Celtic during the period of absence of an Ibrox club and the financial damage they continue to inflict on themselves in trying to stop us from setting a new Scottish record of consecutive titles has led to a growing satisfaction with where our club is at….”
With respect, I’d argue that the second part has little bearing on this loss of ardour depending on what you mean by ‘fairly quickly’. Certainly, our success has bolstered the board in its ‘do nothing’ decisions over the years but it couldn’t have had much impact by the time Resolution 12 was adjourned in 2013.
So that leaves us with the Continuity Myth backing of media, politicians, opinion-formers, etc. But what exactly did Celtic have to fear from speaking the truth? Did they fear the opprobrium of the media? Why? We’ve always been the kicking boys for media opprobrium anyway so what further harm would have been done?
Elsewhere you state; “I cannot believe that Celtic were wholly complicit in letting the corruption go nor that they were out to waffle, delay and dampen any resistance from the get go…” SFTB I have to come clean and admit that that is a view I shared until very recently.
Time to consider another view. What if it was and remains ‘all about the money’?
In this context Peter Lawwell’s ‘we don’t need Rangers’ statement in response to Alex Salmond’s February 2012 assertion that ‘Celtic can’t prosper unless Rangers are there’ becomes merely a ‘don’t panic’ statement of re-assurance to shareholders that all is well and that plans are in place. It certainly wouldn’t be interpreted as ‘we don’t need no stinking Rangers’ as, unfortunately, many of us chose to.
Fast forward to 3 October 2012 and we have our major custodian being interviewed by BBC and with an opportunity to set the record straight about The Rangers being a new club. Instead, he looked forward to Rangers’ return saying:
“Rangers is a great football club, it has a great history and it’s unfortunate that they have been relegated”, later adding “”Rangers is a fantastic football club, it is one of the greatest football clubs in Great Britain, we’ve got to acknowledge that.”
The interview took place before the LNS deliberations and the day after the BBC said this re the issuing of Duff & Phelps’ report to creditors: “…After HMRC rejected proposals for a creditors agreement that would have allowed the old club to continue, Duff and Phelps negotiated a sale of assets to a consortium led by Charles Green for £5.5m.
He has since formed a new club, now playing in the Scottish Football League Third Division….”
So the Continuity Myth hadn’t yet taken hold and they were still talking about a ‘new club’ at that very moment.
So why didn’t he say something like, “It is a great pity that such a historic institution has gone the way of Woolworths and Northern Rock taking all its history with it. But I am sure that in years to come the new club will develop a new proud history and be standing toe-to-toe with Celtic in the Premier League.”
Maybe it was because he was busy using the first suitable opportunity to promulgate Board policy and encourage the return of ‘Strong Rangers’. DD out to safeguard his investment. Follow the money.
SFTB, I feel sure that you, like me, and many Celtic onlookers took the view that he was merely ‘mouthing platitudes’ in order to avoid controversy. Many of us, myself included, continued to think of it that way for many years.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I now view this interview as a watershed moment.
But at least Sentinel Celts’ own Mike in Toronto and Awe Naw are among those who saw it for what it was a long time ago. It’s a position I now share and am kicking myself that I allowed large quantities of wool to obscure my vision. I think it’s worth re-stating MiT’s post from November 14:
“Some of my clients are guys like DD. These guys never make comments out of turn. And they know not to go off the cuff.and they certainly don’t do it on the record.
In my opinion there was zero chance that DD was doing anything other than floating a balloon. If a shit storm ensued, the club could claim he was misquoted, or was speaking in his personal capacity, or some other BS. But when Celtic fans did SFA, the game was up, as the Board then knew then that the fans would Go along with the scam.”
That’s it in a nutshell. All downhill morally from there.
He then goes on to add,in a follow-up post…
Purely as a litmus test of whether or not the board is prepared to move its position re the Continuity Myth does anyone think there is value in the following. At AGM under ‘any other business’ might it be worth requesting that henceforth the full official name of the team from Ibrox be used in press releases, match advertising etc? I see ‘Celtic v Rangers’ on the club website advertising the Dec 29 home match. It should, of course, read ‘Celtic v The Rangers’. As ‘The Rangers’ uses the same number of characters as ‘Ross County’ space can’t be a prohibitor. And who could possibly have an objection to correctness…?”
This all raises some nasty questions about governance nearer to home. Namely that when we were being assured by all and sundry that the club was keeping its powder dry,it never had any intention of using it in the first place-except possibly on those pesky malcontents who are never done with asking questions. We have gone from the dry powder scenario almost seamlessly into one where we are told that the board are powerless to effect change due to being,after all,only one club with one vote. When did that transaction occur,and why? Was it because they never at any time intended doing anything anyway,that they were happy with events and happy with Rangers old and new ignoring every regulation in the football and business rulebook?
I think we can now draw our own conclusions from that,aided by the timely refusal to support the updated Resolution 12 at the imminent AGM. In the absence of an explanation or indeed any attempt at transparency from our board,the only conclusion to be drawn is that they see our club as one half of the old firm. And if that is the case,they are not fit to represent the interests of our club. They are in position,they are in power,but they do not hold a mandate any more for either.
It is indeed,time to move on. It is time they all went.
Above article by BMCUWP,with considerable assistance from BYRES ROAD BHOY. If you want to have your say as Article of the Day,send us your thoughts and we will publish them. Mail Mahe at