Moral Hazard-Concisely Explained
You might have noticed,but the general ethos of this site-and of its members,for which our grateful thanks!-is one of a rather cynical opinion of the direction that our board has been taking for around two decades now,and our thoughts on the reasons why that should be the case.
Many have our own suspicions as to the reasons why this has been happening,even if those suspicions form a type of fear within us. That it cannot possibly be true that Celtic-minded people,especially those with the means and power to act as agents of change,are hell-bent on preserving the status quo.
Or The O** F***,if you will. But events,dear Bhoy. These events have surely made even the most innocent and naïve of us stop and think. That it can’t be so,but in the absence of any reasonable explanation we must apply Occam’s Razor. That indeed those suspicions are true,no matter how abhorrent that thought is to us.
And so it is that I read a post from AULDHEID on Tuesday night which not only puts it all in a very brief nutshell,but explains it in all its detail-no matter how much the thought sickens us. It is very difficult to argue with a word of it,and that hurts. Not that AULDHEID is right,but that he has nailed it!
“Also, The Celtic Trust’s revised version removed any reference to “moral hazard” which is of topical interest given The Rangers’ ever-increasing losses. The Rangers’ ‘win or go bust’ debt policy creates a moral hazard for Scottish football in general and Celtic in particular. A moral hazard is a risk one party takes knowing it is protected by another party. The basic premise is the protected party (The Rangers) has the incentive to take risks because someone else (Celtic) will pay for the mistakes they make.
Its exclusion has the same effect as dropping the Recital, i.e. Celtic do not have to explain their position on moral hazard to their shareholders.”
There will almost definitely be more to come on this subject very soon,but those two short paragraphs are enough,I think,to have us all questioning the way that our incumbents are running our club.
I defy anyone to read it and give me an adequate rebuttal. Even down to rather questionable managerial appointments or signings over the period in question. Or our apparent distaste for supporting our players by complaining about their inability to go about their jobs in the safe manner which should be accorded them by law,as well as the laws and regulations of the game.
The club/board will proudly give us a soundbite,that we are not half of anything. But actions speak louder than words. Except that those few words from AULDHEID explain those actions over the years from the NeverCelts who are paid by us but who treat us with total contempt.
Football? Bloody hell…
Above article by BMCUWP