This angst goes back at least as far as Jimmy McGrory, the highest goalscorer in the history of British football who was awarded just seven international caps – scoring seven goals.
Many will hark back to the era of Jimmy Johnstone and deciding to turn their back on the national team after hearing Scotland fans boo a man who was acknowledged as one of the finest players in the world. Others will point to the absurd – the surprise omission of Kenny Dalglish from the Scotland squad coincidentally preserving the consecutive caps record of former Rangers player George Young.
Sit in any company of Celtic fans and each will have his favourite story of a Celtic player overlooked for selection (Harry Hood being a decent example) or abused by the Tartan Army at Hampden (too many to name – let's plump for Brian McClair).
Yet somehow, today's Scottish football hierarchy has contrived to scale new heights in alienating the Celtic support, discarding all honour in their efforts to assuage the ire of Rangers fans – within and without the Scottish media.
In the interests of accuracy, it should be noted that honour – or even basic fairness – have never been attributes highly valued by the SFA. In the 1990s – when Rangers were riding high and Scotland still occasionally qualified for tournaments, the period was remarkable for the national team's ability to reach the latter stages despite sudden call-offs from certain Rangers personnel who were almost invariably fit for their club's domestic and European encounters.
Far from being criticised for their repeated acts of disloyalty, the practice was almost invariably either dismissed as bad luck or seen as some sort of virtue: to lead the charge for Rangers but let the country fend for itself. There were no worse offenders than the future Scotland and Rangers assistant manager, Ally McCoist and the terrorist-supporting criminal associate Andy Goram, who were nevertheless reinstated without question when the glamour matches came around.
However, even in those days – when Celtic fans had more pressing worries – there was rarely the level of unqualified anger that has surrounded the relationship between the Scottish football establishment bodies and their favourite team.
Ever since the media clamour to sack the incumbent Berti Vogts and replace him with Walter Smith (with then media pundit Gordon Duffield Smith the vanguard Bear), the SFA has flitted between accommodation and capitulation to the interests of Rangers FC, regardless of the conduct of their officials or rabble element amongst their players.
Walter Smith, who had been out of work as a manager since his sacking by Everton 18-months previously, had clearly briefed pundits such as Duffield who were able to say that they “knew” he was willing to take the job.
For this salvation from football's scrapheap, he rewarded his employers by abandoning the country without notice at a vital moment in a Euro 2008 qualifying campaign. David Taylor claimed to have been very unhappy about the whole show yet compensation was never pursued, Smith was praised in the sections of the media that would like to claim to be impartial and the interests of Rangers were seen to be still paramount in 21st-century Scotland.
Back at Rangers, and far from having any sympathy with George Burley, (who had replaced another former Rangers manager at the national team), Smith's players continued the policy of his previous period of tenure – some selective withdrawals added to loutishness and malice to the point of sabotage. Some, like Kenny Miller and David Weir, continued to support their nation's cause on the football field.
But the scurrilous behaviour of Kris Boyd, Lee McCulloch, Barry Ferguson and Allan McGregor would have appalled any Scottish fan who cared about his country. It appeared neither to worry Walter & Ally nor Gordon & George (Peat), who made occasional rumblings about behaviour being unacceptable before making Burley the scapegoat for all the episodes. Is it a coincidence that all the issues of conflict or ill-discipline in Burley's Scotland came from players of the club whose players withdrew from squads most regularly?
Given that Duffield and Peat admitted to meeting with Rangers officials to change the date of the Scottish Cup final to give Rangers an advantage in their SPL campaign and announced this to the Daily Record without consulting their members or the other finalists, it might have been thought that the Ibrox hierarchy would feel a personal debt if not one of national allegiance.
But the story of Scottish football remains that the Rangers manager is untouchable – by the authorities or the reporters like Darryl Broadfoot, well-known Murray and Rangers lapdog, who finds himself appointed as a media professional by the SFA.
Duffield and Smith are adopting old-time policies in a new media age, which makes their reinstatement of the Ibrox four all the more apparently an act in the interests of Rangers over Scotland. Their control over the referees seems only to extend to supporting decisions that have clearly disadvantaged Celtic and in the process silently abandoning the much-vaunted anti-diving campaign that, if implemented, would have robbed Rangers of the services of Kyle Lafferty and Nacho Novo along with Miller and Boyd.
In the face of media complaints – from hacks close to the Rangers manager – Celtic players are disciplined retrospectively with the SFA refusing to define the rules of procedure when Celtic wish to appeal. When Lafferty carries out one of the worst fouls seen in Scotland in recent times on Andreas Hinkel, there is silence. When Boyd elbows a player, the definition of offence is altered by the referee to obstruction, allowing him to avoid suspension, though a direct free-kick was awarded.
McGregor is involved in an “incident”, which he declines to report until it has been reported in the media, and Fraser Wishart – another former Rangers player involved in “fixture-gate” – decries an “assault” on a footballer “just for the jersey he wears”. He should be called as a witness as McGregor allegedly told police he did not know what happened or even where, frustrating their efforts to examine CCTV footage.
When the naked bias only involves tabloid headlines, we can choose to ignore it. But the insidious relationships at the heart of Scottish football are now blatantly undermining fair competition. For too long Celtic players have carried the immigrant's burden – having to try harder to show loyalty in order to earn an acceptance that is often grudged and rarely translated into “equality of esteem” as our ASBO neighbours might call it.
Amongst Celtic fans, it is always a contentious issue with many thousands born in Scotland every bit as passionate about their country as fans of any other club. However, the SFA-RFC-SPFA axis (with dishonourable mention to the SPL, led by another former Rangers player) has shown itself to disdain all normal rules of fair competition. The only pressure Celtic can exert is by boycotting the games – at least as fans. In the meantime, some of those hard-nosed executives and directors at Celtic should make their own voices heard in the corridors of power.
The inescapable conclusion seems to be that you can now support Celtic or Scotland – not both.
--
14 comments:
The SFA did receive compensation from the huns for Walter. David Taylor stated this on Sky Sports News in January 2007. Here is the report from the Herald:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-428946/SFA-agree-Smith-compensation-Rangers.html
It was supposed to be in the region of £400,000.
I am a Celtic fan who had not bought into the conspiracy theory, but could be persuaded...but you will have to use facts to do that.
and as for the comment "The inescapable conclusion seems to be that you can now support Celtic or Scotland – not both."
I will never agree with that. I am Scottish and proud of it and want my Nation to succeed. I might not like everything about my country, but I will support it, shout for it and fight for it until the day I die.
I will also work to improve it, but I will NEVER turn my back on it.
azjohnnymac: Do you have a link to a "fact" about the SFA actually receiving the amount, rather than allowing it to remain outstanding?
Oh FFS....Sorry, fogot I was dealing with a friggin conspiracy addict.
Yes and 45 people were involved in the shooting of JFK, they never went to the moon, he twin towers were brought down by explosives planted by the CIA.
Oh yeah....and there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentaveret, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows.
The five people are: The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, & Colonel Sanders before he went tits up. Oh, that Colonel with is wee beady eyes! And that smug look on his face, "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!"
One Star Means More:
To answer your "question", no I do not have a link to their actual bank statement to "prove it".
azjohnnymac:
You can always tell when someone has steam coming from their ears while they post when they have to answer every post with two of their own.
So you have no evidence to refute claims that the compensation remains unpaid but "could be persuaded" that the SFA isn't playing fair with Celtic.
It's interesting that you had no comment to make on any of the other facts in the piece that you seemed to miss.
Too much Irn Bru, son.
Richie:
Succintly put!
One star means more...prove to me it wasn't paid.
Richie...What Hypocrisy are you refering too?
As for the rest....is the usual stuff on all Celtic boards....everyone hates us...everyone is against us.
I don't by into the conspiracy, but I could be wrong. My argument is simply against reporting something as fact when you have no idea if it is or not and that is what the statement below does:
"David Taylor claimed to have been very unhappy about the whole show yet compensation was never pursued, Smith was praised in the sections of the media that would like to claim to be impartial and the interests of Rangers were seen to be still paramount in 21st-century Scotland."
Clearly compensation was pursued and neither of us know, for a fact, if the money ever hit their bank account.
azjohnnymac:
When you are so idignant about one point you believe to be inaccurate that you go on a multi-post rant, the burden of proof lies with you.
As to semantics, someone agreeing a fee for a job, service or settlement is not the same as pursuing payment.
Sorry to rain on your parade with that one as a Celtic fan who thinks the club is treated fairly at all times in comparison to others.
I've obviously touched a button with Mel Gibson CSC.
So, you can't prove it either.
You stated they did not pursue compensation which the clearly did. So then you ask for proof of payment, which is impossible.
You made the statement, it is up to you to prove the fact or loose credibility.
That is not semantics.
Cheers.
Proud member of the melgibsoncsc.
azjohnnymac:
First, let me say thanks for contributing. No, really - any feedback is good feedback and a few steam jets from either ear never did anyone any harm.
Secondly: Well, aye, if you want to object to any statement in an article, you can either politely request support and clarification or irately disprove it. Otherwise, every bampot Hun (which I don't claim you are) can require me to "show's yir proofff" of every item I post. (It's why I have to insist on people posting comments to be at least registered with someone. When I don't, within minutes I get comments to the basic effect of: "Wha-ha-ha-ha-haaa!" accompanied by mis-spelled expletives, which I cannot abide.)
Would you? Wudga? Wudga?
Come on, if you really object to the assertion I made, which I believe to be true, then disprove it. Actually, I know the source which could definitively prove or disprove the assertion - and it wouldn't require reference to anyone's bank statements - but, if you don't, then you were clearly in no position to pick up on this as the target for that firework that seems to have been lodged in your anal orifice, just waiting for a moment like this.
Seriously - all this to defend the SFA? The other one has an electronic chime that plays Rule Britannia on church bells.
And sorry, but you are completely wrong on the meaning of "pursuit of payment". It's what people do when they are owed money that has not been paid. Look it up - and put a Grouse in that Irn Bru next time on me - in a virtual sense, natch!
I do understand wanting people to register. One hundred percent, seen too many bampots posting on other boards. Mind you, on reading the BBC forum today, it is clear that even getting folks to register does not stop the loonies. FFS the huns are embarrassing themselves on there today (more than normal).
So, you "believe" it to be true, but are clearly unable to prove it. If you were able to do so, you would have done so in the article or in subsequent back and forth comments, but no. And as for not having the right to a position because I do not know of alternative source of corroboration is simply a childish stance of someone who can not prove his side either. I am at least man enough to admit my failing.
I am in no way trying to defend the SFA.
You said they have never persude compensation. The first part in pursuing compensation was negotiating the fee.
You did not say "Payment" in your article at all. So now you are changing the context.
Clearly this whole conversation is pointless, because you can not prove what you were asserting and are now having to resort to the throw the Hun innuendo.
Your website, your prerogative. I made the assumption that you wanted adult debate, clearly not and that was my mistake.
I am a Celtic supporter (have been since I was a wee boy), season ticket holder (although my Dad uses it in my absence), International subscriber to Channel 67, a member of my local CSC (ffs, I have to be at the pub at 5:30am on Sunday to watch the game) and a proud supporter of the Scottish National Side (in all sports). If that is something that is not acceptable in your mind, that is your problem and I will leave you and your little webpage to those that can only agree with you.
Seriously, mate, I'm glad you commented. However, I don't think you have much of a case. When I said I didn't think you were a Hun, I meant it. I took you for someone very passionate about Scotland who got riled at this sort of comment. I have no problem with that.
My information is that the compensation is not yet paid. I could be wrong, I grant you. On the other hand, if you really wanted to disprove it, you could think of where to look in publicly available documents that I cannot be bothered to search just because someone blows a fuse at me when I say something on an issue close to their heart.
I suspect that if you look back on your comments, you would understand why I took the approach I did. But, in all seriousness, I have no problem with a bit of invective directed at me or my scribblings. It's fair game when you make comment to get comment back.
I won't reiterate my point on the semantics of "pursuing" compensation. To me, it looks like the issue is one that gets you vexed (as it has most of us one way or another) and so you were looking for something to attack.
I think I can appreciate your sentiments and always have more respect for people who believe in something, rather than nothing.
It was not the happiest day of my teens when I concluded that, much as I would like it to be otherwise, Scotland "didn't want me". Many times I wrestled with the dilemma of wanting to be part of supporting the nation of my birth, thereby being a part of it, and the continual reminders that my kind, it seemed, were not wanted.
You could call it paranoia, you could call it being disloyal or, perhaps, an unfortunate by-product of the cultural values of Scotland. As time goes by, I feel less vexed about my place as a Celtic supporter within Scottish culture and more comfortable about making choices based on my experiences, without the burden of accusations of "treachery" or even "Plastic-Paddyism".
I know many Celtic supporters who have not recognised the experiences I have; who have claimed to have suffered no prejudice for their faith, family background or football team. I have known many more who have felt that they have been expected to pay fealty to people who consider them their cultural inferiors.
I don't know how old you are, my friend - and I say this only because I wonder what experiences we might have shared as fans - but the first time I really felt I belonged anywhere was when I was in the Jungle at Celtic Park. For the first time in my life, I felt a sense of true affinity - of acceptance by and belonging with a group of people who were united by something stronger than anything that could possibly divide us.
I guess, although I might not have articulated it so then, that this was my nation. It gave me confidence and a sense of identity. I never wanted to be any better or worse than those people who surrounded me, whose faces I came to recognise, though I knew nothing about them and they of me.
If you were there in those days, you will know what it felt like to have total strangers grab you by the neck and shout in your face to share the immediate joy over one moment on the field. These were people who cared nothing of class, religion or national distinctions - only the commonality of being Celtic fans. If you weren't there, trust me at least on this.
In a sense, those people were a nation and if they felt scorned, then I wished to be scorned with them, rather than delude myself that a Scottish establishment that showed me, them and our like contempt had a higher claim on our allegiance.
Years on, the "modern enlightenment" has done nothing to make "one nation" of a Scotland
without social and cultural hierarchies. Clearly you feel no discomfort with that - or perhaps even a consciousness that this mezzanine nation exists. Good luck to you - I may even envy you.
Perhaps you will one day understand the feelings of the low-born in the nation you lionise.
Post a Comment