Hazard Pay

All footballers up north deserve it for having to put up with additional occupational risks in the form of bent bigotted referees, but that’s not the type of hazard pay Im writing about today.
The news that we will tie down our new keeper long term and on much improved terms is music to my ears.


Not only is he a fellow Ulsterman, a very fertile breeding ground with regards to Glasgow Celtic, but he has the raw ingredients to go far in the game.
For starters at 6’6” he has the right size for a keeper, at 22 he has the world at his feet, plus he has displayed a tendency to be vocal and brave in his box, something so very missing under our Greek keeper.


Although hard to miss I must tip my hat to whoever discovered and initially signed the bhoy, and now Stevie Woods has a proper challenge on his hands.
His task is not only to turn this kid into our long term keeper, but to ensure he fulfills his potential.


Neil and Stevie did one hell of a job on big Lurch in this regard, stated by Lenny to be one of his biggest achievements. They took him from Newcastle reserves to being the England keeper, which all can rightly be proud of, so no wonder it hurt getting turned down for a subs bench.


The challenge is to repeat that with Conor now, but then keep him once matured. Northern Ireland is far from blessed with great keepers, and I dont rate the Republics that highly either. Being number one at Celtic would more or less guarantee he is selected for one of the national team’s, he has chosen the right team in that respect.


Considering he broke through younger than Frazer, is an actual Celtic fan, and stands just an inch smaller than Lurch, the potential is clearly there to surpass the Englishman. In fact at his age in possession of the jersey, there’s not many goalie records he couldn’t smash with us given time. And time being on his side, plus being young enough to eradicate the flaws, it really is no exaggeration stating he could make that jersey his for the next decade. That should be his aim.


However, much credit must go to Lenny for actually throwing him in between the sticks. Unlike KT and David Marshall, there was no shortage of available bodies, just a shortage of competency. Its nice to stumble upon someone sure, but that points to a blindness to potential.
In deciding to forget the pricetag and experience under the belt of not one but two others in order to give Conor the nod, Neil took a very brave decision that could well have backfired. The fact he wasn’t forced into this decision, but felt strong enough to make the call and follow his heart bodes well for us all.


At a mere 22 years young, this weekend offers the opportunity of a dream start to his Celtic career. To not only break into the team, to not only sign a new bumper contract, but to start collecting winners medals all in the space of one month, why that would be very very special indeed. Can’t think of a better start to be honest, hopefully cementing a lifelong love affair.
As you can probably tell, I would start him.
And tell him go break Hearts Conor.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 17, 2020 12:31 am

Night All


December 17, 2020 1:02 am

Auldheid…as the most vocal proponent in both Res 11/12 and handing the baton to the CST is there mileage in preparing standardised document/letters that can be downloaded and forwarded to Celtic. The docs would take the form of a resume of the Res12/11 issues followed by the supporters’ intent to withhold renewal until satisfactory actions had been taken to resolve the issues
If the CST want take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them (hey you don’t get Shakespeare quoted on many blogs) I’d be happy to do the arming.

Making Celtic keep their word to shareholders given in the AGM notice would be a very valid starting point if you look at what shareholders asked. The Boards statement re engagement was also their justification for saying Res11/12 was unnecessary. They said:

Board Response
” As stated in 2013, the Board is committed to protecting and promoting the interests of the Company, having regard
to, among other things, the principles of fairness and sporting integrity. Having first raised these matters with the
Scottish FA in 2011, prior to the 2013 Resolution being presented, and having continued to engage with the football
authorities over the following years, Celtic continues to have regard to those interests and principles. Celtic has
consistently called upon the football authorities to ensure that fairness and sporting integrity are at the heart of
football governance.
The Board of Celtic will continue to seek to ensure that these principles are safeguarded and shall continue in
constructive engagement with the Scottish FA, the SPFL and UEFA to that end. The Board has taken, and will continue
to take, appropriate steps to protect and promote the interests of the Company. The football governance
environment has developed substantially over the past 10 years and the Company will continue to monitor the
application and effectiveness of these systems of governance.
The Company was disappointed when the Scottish FA declined to investigate the issues referred to and was surprised
when the Scottish FA determined not to continue with proceedings, which it had itself opened. In respect of the
particular issues now raised, the Board has engaged with the requisitioning shareholders and will engage with the
relevant authorities as appropriate in the interests of the Company, providing an update when possible. In the
circumstances, therefore, the Board considers the resolution to be unnecessary and recommends that you vote
against it.
In the circumstances the Board considers the resolution to be unnecessary and recommends that you vote against it.”

The relevant part of the shareholders statement from the AGM Notice was this:

” The shareholders concerned therefore request that Celtic PLC and its board raise these matters with UEFA as
requested in Resolution 12 from the 2013 AGM, and in so doing:

1. take all reasonable measures to engage with both the Scottish Football Association, UEFA and any other
relevant authorities with a view to ensuring that in future all football rules are administered and openly
and evenly complied with and processed without fear or favour and in a proper legal manner, and

2. take all reasonable steps to reassure shareholders in Celtic PLC that their financial and emotional
investment in Celtic PLC will not be further undermined or devalued by continued compliance and
Governance failures on the part of the Scottish Football Association.”

In effect the Board are saying they will take all reasonable steps to reassure shareholders (and supporters) that governance failures by the SFA which led to the suspension of the SFA’s own judicial process are or have been remedied, but with no timeframe set how will supporters know without being told in good time, what the remedies are before they commit to purchase and if there is no remedy how can Celtic offer tickets for sale?

If they do not keep to their word and demonstrate that they have by say end March 2021 I don’t see how they can justify offering ST’s for sale

This approach puts the onus on Celtic to do what they said in the AGM notice but in a timeframe (which Bankier refused at the AGM whilst going off script from the AGM Notice response) which assures supporters the SFA will do their job and apply their own rules .
Without some evidence the SFA have been approached as a most relevant authority by end of March, CST would be justified asking shareholders and supporters alike to seriously consider not only what they are they buying into but also are they enabling the continuation of an issue of poor governance that angers them almost every game they watch.

If supporters take a tough line that of itself will make it in the interests of the Company to honour their word.

in short CST tell Celtic if you do not keep your word in AGM notice before ST renewal, we would have to alert supporters to consider at least delaying renewing until Celtic can provide credible assurances of applied governance including reopening the aborted judicial process to covering all of events in 2011, setting aside the 5 Way Agreement if necessary and also oppose offering STs to those on any waiting list before assurance’s of remedies have been sought.

I’d been thinking on those lines but your question helped put a bit of meat on it and anyone with other thoughts weigh in. It needs tidied of course and subject to CST thinking but you get the drift.

December 17, 2020 1:09 am

Angel Gabriel
Auldheid .
Thanks for the posts clarifying some details.
I’d forgotten they didn’t charge CW with non payment only the penalties.
One question.
Can you confirm that Campbell Ogilvie gave evidence at the LNS ?

On another matter. Bazza Ferguson should chuck his fitba predictions . Invincible my arse
He did but forget to mention the unlawful nature of the DOS ebts or clarify/correct before LNS Decision published . He would have seen a copy of the draft one would imagine.

His partner in crime Andrew Dickson gave written testimony that also swerved DOS if my memory serves me. You should read what the FTT thought of his testimony to them. (They clearly didn’t believe him)

December 17, 2020 1:16 am

Auldheid… thanks for the detailed response,as always! I’m not quite sure I made my point as clearly as I had intended which was a downloadable standardised document or letter that EACH INDIVIDUAL SUPPORTER could access and either send to Parkhead directly or preferably through the CST who would then be absolutely sure of how many people were prepared to stand against the PLC on this matter.
No need for a reply, it was just a clarification on my part.
And by the way, Auldheid, your breadth of knowledge and recall on Res11/12 is astonishing…for an auld heid!😉👍😁

December 17, 2020 1:18 am

Good night all, should really have been sleeping hours ago but that result tonight had a similar effect to trying to get to sleep on Christmas Eve!! HoHoHo!!🤣🤣🤣

December 17, 2020 1:31 am

Auldheid @ 11:10 pm,

Yes, once again more important detail in the sham – thanks.

Yet I wasn’t very clear in my response, let me try to be more specific… this is telling for me…

“My comment: Of course you were unaware, NAEBODY TELT YE (although even then I have suspicions based on an earlier meeting between Regan and LNS on the Judicial Panel charges against CW where CW was NOT charged with non payment of the wee tax bill but was for non payment of VAT and PAYE. Did Regan not mention that to LNS in Feb 2012 when they met?”

So during this February 2012 meeting Lord Nimmo Smith was asked to undertake an enquiry, the results of which he put in a report (before the SPL “Commissioned” their enquiry).

It is that report I refer too, not the LNS Commision report. Now, this report was presented to the SFA Board, it was to be made public, the SFA brought charges to Craig Whyte and Rangers “supposedly” on the strength of that reports findings.

Now then in the following Judicial Protocol Discipliary Tribunal, headed by Gary Allan QC (later known as “who are these peepel” AMcC;) stated in his written verdict…

It is remarkable that throughout the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal Process there has been repeated, and regrettably wholly misconceived reference to the Report of Lord Nimmo Smith. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Judicial Panel hearing this disciplinary matter was at no time presented with the report, as evidence or otherwise, nor was it presented with any of its findings. No member of the Tribunal has had sight of it. The report was not mentioned by any party at any time in the course of the proceedings. The determinations which were reached, therefore, were reached entirely independently of any view at which any other person, however senior or eminent, may have arrived in fulfilment of his remit prior to the disciplinary hearing.

Now, as you are aware it is incredible, that a QC would use the phrase “it is remarkable”. He is making a very strong point.

So, this is the “SFA” original LNS report, that was presented to the SFA Board by the Compliance Officer Vincent Lunny.

Now, this report, that was supposed to be published, presented as evidence in the ‘prosecution’ of Rangers and Craig Whyte disappeared – into a safe at Hampden no doubt, why? Why wasn’t it published as stated? Why wasn’t it’s contents made known and Why wasn’t it used during the JPDT?

I suspect as you mention, Stewart Regan “over” brief LNS during their February meeting, as we know, Mr Regan had a great of knowledge of what was going on at Rangers. The visit of the Sherrifs to Ibrox was public knowledge and fresh in the mind.

For a long time I have suspected that, that particular SFA report contains information they wanted to suppress, what events and who did it cite – the WTC?

If the SFA as part funded by the public purse has a document that they intended to publish, is it possible to compel them to produce a copy – unredacted?

Hail Hail

December 17, 2020 1:32 am

David Low was elected as Chairman of the Celtic Trust in January 2020, following the untimely death of the previous Chair. So, current circumstances are unrelated. I was not aware of the Rangers Trust factor, and that should certainly be clarified imo.
and Chairbhoy in response to his post I have answered in instalments
The narrative re David Lowes arrival as CST President is that Fergus McCann not happy with the way the power at Celtic has ended up with two main shareholders, one of which a hedge fund so no emotional connection that DD can claim. It also makes us vulnerable to takeover/

So doing what was done similar to 94 to increase the number of shares held and encourage all the unsophisticated shareholders (a recognised term for those who made an emotional investment) to vote whether by proxy or as themselves was an approach to take.

The flaws are obvious as in how long and how many before before CST are in a position of strength?

However supporters can join and so increase CST member numbers and if those members pay into Celtic then they have buying power. It has always been there but has never been harnessed so join up. It is a democratic body with formal constitution so subject to change as it grow. Forget anyone on the Board, what is needed is power to change what is in the Company’s interests and just knowing what that is would be a start.

The logic that the only way supporters/shareholders can wield power by winning a vote is ok correct in theory but in practice not only is it a long way off it makes any resolution on any matter the Board oppose ineffective, well maybe not if any shareholder is daft enough to keep at it for 7 years.

So my remedy is keep using some income to buy up shares, use some of it for getting legal advice on for example shareholder rights and Director responsibilities, a route I would advise CST to do based on Res12 experience and use supporter buying power in a sensible manner if a cause is just (which Res12 was/is) to do the kind of thing I’ve suggested in response to McCaf but I see he was thinking of something different that I’ll respond to.

December 17, 2020 1:38 am

Auldheid… thanks for the detailed response,as always! I’m not quite sure I made my point as clearly as I had intended which was a downloadable standardised document or letter that EACH INDIVIDUAL SUPPORTER could access and either send to Parkhead directly or preferably through the CST who would then be absolutely sure of how many people were prepared to stand against the PLC on this matter.
No need for a reply, it was just a clarification on my part.
And by the way, Auldheid, your breadth of knowledge and recall on Res11/12 is astonishing…for an auld heid.

Its fair bursting tonight.

Point taken but they would have to go via CST and even then might end up in the bin. Shareholders sent over 50 to AGM e mail point for an answer which only addressed one point and it was no.

It has to be done via processes like the AGM or even an EGM that require answers, honest ones preferably.

speak softly wield big stick.

Margaret McGill
December 17, 2020 2:22 am

Anyone know any good smoke and mirrors companies in Scotland I can invest in?

December 17, 2020 2:22 am


The Shenanigans around LNS involvement in Feb 2012 in the SFA case against Craig Whyte were covered on E Tims at


asking did LNS get any information about the wee tax case.

LNS himself then addressed the issue which again was covered on E Tims at http://etims.net/?p=13411

where his reasons why wee tax case was not relevant to the upcoming Commission are repeated.

Comments against his reasons are in red and the report to Special Committee to the SFA gets a mention as in it was never published as you said

I get your direction of travel in that before SPL Lawyers started asking for evidence on 15 March 2012 of Rangers the SFA had pre knowledge of the unlawful ebts and dishonesty but buried it in that report.

They of course would have got that knowledge from Campbell Ogilvie who set up the first DOS ebt (but no side letter) with Craig Moore in 1999 and of course Andrew Dickson who was in the room in 2005 when HMRC asked MIH about the De Boer/Flo ebts whose existence Rangers denied. Whilst the letter was addressed to and replied by MIH, testimony to the FTT by Dickson shows he was responsible for players files from 2004.

What we seem to have here is not just the biggest scandal in football anywhere but covering it up on an even bigger scale.

Have a read at the 2 blogs in order posted here and let me know if I’ve got your point.

I’m knackered now and off to bed.

Oh when the Saints
Go Marching on….

Mike in Toronto
December 17, 2020 2:41 am


I could sell you a few Celtic shares…or if you want something less morally questionable, I could sell you some shares in a cigarette company

December 17, 2020 5:25 am