Where Do You Go To,My Lovely?
Tomorrow sees us kick off the season for real on the back of an uninspiring run of pre-season friendlies. I never worry too much about them,I gave that up when we got beat 5-1 at home by Arsenal in 1987.
We all know what happened less than nine months later,May 1988-my generation’s own version of Lisbon!
No,the results haven’t bothered me. Some of the performances have though-but at least there is a clear attempt by AP to change the mindset of the players,get them playing to a format which might work,might not. That they will have to get used to-or not. To which some will be suited,while others clearly have work to do already.
These are things that this site has been warning about since last October. Well,November actually,when the club declined to use the international break to replace Neil Lennon. We are in decline,AP and DMcK have been brought in to arrest and reverse that decline. Everyone knows where the blame for that decline lies. And it certainly is not at their doorstep.
I won’t be judging them on tomorrow night,and I won’t even be judging them on the trophy count this season. I’ll judge them on whether I think there are changes and improvements,and whether I think those point towards a brighter future.
Canny be any worse than the dismal recent past,so they have a low bar!
They also have a low bar to beat regarding various other aspects of the running of the club. After all,the product on the pitch is why we are there-but what if the club treat the fans with contempt? Well known fact that every pissed off customer tell about ten pals,who each tell another ten pals. That’s over 100 people every time.
But we are Celtic supporters,as the song says. I don’t remember too many songs extolling the virtues and virtuosity of members of the board. There may be a good reason for that-and this site gave you two perfect examples over the weekend,via comments from our contributors.
I too have not renewed my season book which I have held for 40 years. The simple reason for this is I have had enough of the greed of this board.
As a corporate season ticket holder I paid £3800 last year for no access to Celtic Park.
The Club then charged me £980 for the Virtual Pass.
I complained that this was unfair to be charged double than other fans for the same product. I was told tough. Celtic had decided we would pay 25% of our annual cost as our seats were more expensive.
I’m tired of being treated as a mug. Enough is enough
And from AULDHEID…
There is an interesting article on the same club debate started on Twitter that said
” There is little doubt though that many of those who argue that Rangers are the same club would be arguing the complete opposite had Celtic gone under in 2012 and that lack of objectivity makes honest discussion difficult. It is at https://tirnaog09.blogspot.com if folks ant to read.
In respect of the honest discussion that is difficult, there is a reason for that which is what honest discussion would bring to the surface, so being me I waded in on what the same club myth creates in Scottish football. I cgaf of how Rangers supporters see the issue having being misled up the garden path on the back of the wishful thinking unicorn, but I do have concerns for its impact on Celtic which I led to after bringing in the UEFA factor not looked at in the article, not to minimise the article its very good, but to expand on the consequences of Celtic allowing it to prevail as follows:
Auldheid in reply.
Given UEFA are the ultimate football authority in Europe on what constitutes a club seeking a licence to play & they did not recognise Green’s club had been members of SFA from 1872, then the argument should end there. The Head of Club Licensing at UEFA nailed it https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9ckdxNTU4bFIyNFU/view?resourcekey=0-byE50bwoWBtYUarcKAC1Vg 2nd last para .
Traverso’s authority lies in Article 12 of UEFA FFP. It is there because to dump debt and carry on as before is unfair to clubs who pay their creditors rather than players. Same Article also debunks the idea a club and company can be separated and club continue playing under same licence. UEFA did not get asked if the 5WA, where the idea of separation was created, complied with UEFA FFP.
UEFA do recognise a football company as an applicant for a licence as long as a written contract exist between club & company. However if a company goes bust the licence to play football is lost. If you don’t have a licence you cannot play football so for example if RIFC went bust, assuming a written contract exists between them and the SFA Member Rangers FC Ltd then the latter could not continue as a football club without a licence to play football. At the end of the day Article 12 protects the integrity of UEFA competition. The 5WA removed that protection and continued the moral hazard that has existed in Scottish football in the 12 years preceding the 5WA in 2012.
You will recognise who is paying the price of the risks Rangers pre 2012 took after reading why moral hazard is important.
“Moral hazard is a risk one party takes knowing it is protected by another party. The basic premise is that the protected party has the incentive to take risks because someone else will pay for the mistakes they make.”
Celtic accepted 5WA & are now paying the price.
In response to another tweet saying
There is no legal basis for same club. No separation of club and company. It is not a debate in any shape or with merit.
I responded: Correct but there is no basis under football rules either, yet SFA/SPL in 2012 constructed the 5WA that ignores football rules that they never checked complied with UEFA rules. Problem is Celtic went along with it unless PL told the truth at 2019 AGM that he had not seen 5WA.
I remember the Celtic Company secretary saying to me at a Res12 meeting way back on the lines that ‘Celtic had done no wrong but were being treated as if they had’. I agreed but had I kent then what I ken now, I could have replied “that’s moral hazard for ye, Celtic allowed it to go unchallenged in 2012 so you are reaping what you sow”
Therefore the same club issue is NOT a banter item, it goes to the heart of the integrity of what many are prepared to pay to watch.
It also makes the job of the new manager and CEO much more difficult until the party causing the moral hazard are prevented from acting as they have been since 2000 to make themselves “competitive”, by introduction of a domestic equivalent of UEFA FFP.
No more points deduction for an insolvency that requires liquidation to partly pay creditors, just the consequences are if anyone wants to start a successor club, they start again at the bottom as any new club has to.
They should also be put on notice that acting in bad faith to fellow members is what they will be charged with (a long existing SFA rule) if they continue to act in a manner that jeopardises the integrity of Scottish Professional Football.
These are the problems which the club now faces. We know about the problems on the pitch,they had been staring us in the face for a while,then slapped us into acceptance last season. On-field problems we can deal with. Another line from the song referenced above tells you that-
We’ve done it before and we’ll do it again.
Our biggest problems at the moment are off the field. AP has a mountain to climb,and we know that. Most of us will cut him the slack that he needs and deserves-as long as we can see signs of progress. Players too will do the same if they believe that his coaching is developing them as players,and the team as a whole.
DMcK has a much more difficult task. He has a whole business to reform,and a business ethos to change. There can no longer be a Lord God Almighty or The Great Panjandram deciding everything-including the purchase of paperclips-and instead there has to be a chain of command delegated all the way down and up. But how to do that after 18 years of non-delegation,that’s an impossible task to do overnight.
When no-one has been allowed responsibility in their role,no-one knows anymore how to exercise that.
Each of those men have taken on the role at our club for reasons of personal ambition,let’s make no mistake about it. But each of them also realises how much of a task they have undertaken,to the extent that failure could ruin their professional career.
Bearing in mind what they have inherited,I think they are very brave men indeed.
If we can say in a year’s time that comments like the one from STEPHEN are a thing of the past,that supporters are valued as they should be,that will be progress. If in say three years time,AULDHEID is happy to report a resolution to the resolution problems-!-that will be huge.
I won’t bet the house on it-but I’m confident that in that time Stephen,AULDHEID and myself will be happier under the new regime than the old one.
Above article by BMCUWP