There’s an old story — which may or may not be true — about Jock Stein’s attitude to the fans. The tale goes that a game wasn’t going well and Jock had chosen to drop Dixie Deans, much to the disgruntlement of many of the fans.
When Jock finally decided to make a change and told Dixie to warm up, the fans started to chant his name. At that point, it’s said, Jock told Dixie to put his tracksuit back on and sit on the bench — a strong message to the supporters that he, and he alone, decided who would play for Celtic and when.
I was reminded of this by Brendan Rodgers’s decision to berate supporters who chanted for Kieran Tierney during the win against St Mirren.
Brendan usually has his communication spot on, so it was interesting to witness the tetchiness in his response, after a solid win. You can argue that he was simply defending Greg Taylor at a time when he has still not signed the contract extension offered to him, drawing speculation that he may leave Celtic in January or at the end of the season.
Some will say that’s good management; that it’s the job of a manager to publicly support his players when there’s a perceived lack of appreciation from certain quarters. You could say that the message he is sending to the dressing room about having his players’ backs is more important than the signal he sends to supporters.
However, I can’t help feeling that Brendan has called this wrong on a number of levels and has only made a delicate situation worse with his strident comments.
Only recently, Brendan was talking about “narratives” deflecting from victories. Why, he then chose to introduce a negative post-match narrative after a solid recovery, following an abject defeat to The Rangers, only he knows for sure.
Was it partly inspired by petulance, still smarting from the defeat at Ibrox? It seemed a possibility.
Yet Brendan, along with others, has talked about the winning mentality and pressure to perform at Celtic. If fans are often over-the-top with their criticism when let down by the players, perhaps that just goes with modern football.
But Brendan shouldn’t kid himself. The tensions towards Greg have been largely driven by the player and manager themselves.
Greg has an important decision to make and he’s entitled to take his time making it. At 27, he no doubt sees that the likes of Stuart Armstrong, Ryan Christie and Kris Ajer have left Celtic to make excellent money in the English Premier League and probably feels confident that he could make a similar move to a team in the lower half of that competition.
In that sense, Greg probably feels it’s now or never for him. To sign on, I’m guessing that the main considerations are likely to be a long contract near the top of what Celtic can offer within the pay structure and that he will be a major first-team player in what promise to be exciting times ahead.
As well as these factors, is his position in the Scotland squad where he faces fierce competition and will have to be playing regularly if he is to have any chance of featuring in the next World Cup.
These concerns are all quite legitimate but, by the same token, fans tend to get restless when players fail to make the big gestures of loyalty that supporters kid themselves they’d all make in a heartbeat.
And, frankly, that hasn’t been helped by Greg’s form this season, which has been somewhat patchy. That’s something else that can come from a player having other things on their mind and, while understandable, isn’t helping anyone.
Then we come to some of Brendan’s own comments. When asked recently about Greg’s contract situation, Brendan was careful to praise his contribution to the club and emphasise that he would like Greg to stay. However, it can’t have been lost on Greg or his representatives that Brendan continually used the word, “squad”.
Any player with the concerns listed above would surely be concerned that that was code for saying that his position would be diminished in future. Saying this at the same time as the growing speculation around Kieran Tierney’s possible return was unusually tin-eared of a manager who usually prides himself on his diplomacy and media-handling.
Now, Brendan has gone one further and made the narrative around Greg being that it’s him or Kieran — which is not just crass but follysome.
Personally, I’ve always been firmly in the KT camp, though Greg deserves more recognition and appreciation than he has sometimes received. But, with Kieran still to prove that he can get over the injuries that have affected him (and that explosive power he has always carries the risk of some injury recurrence), Celtic may well go into February with a top fullback being managed into performance condition and a loan player while Greg explores pastures new.
That’s largely on Brendan, in my opinion. He is often eloquent in his managing of sensitive issues. Sometimes, however, the great communicator would be well advised to heed the words of fellow Irishman, Ronan Keating: “You say it best when you say nothing at all.”
Another international break is past, another visit to Tynecastle looms, another Champions League week to whet our appetites - and what, against a backdrop of unspeakable evil on the world stage, are we talking about? The Green Brigade.
I've expressed mixed feelings about them in the past: I've condemned them, criticised them, praised them and defended them.
And all of that is quite appropriate. Because as for Oscar Wilde, the only thing worse for the Green Brigade than being talked about is not being talked about - and that can't be allowed to go on for long.
The last two weeks have seen yet another division based on whether the Green Brigade do or don't “speak for me”. Has there ever been a precedent for a fan group that quite deliberately sets itself apart from the main, diverse body of Celtic supporters and demanded that everyone pick a side? (Of course there were other fans' groups who either faded away or lost some battle for pre-eminence as the only show in town – but we don't talk about them.)
— Hooligans.cz Official (@hooliganscz1999) May 1, 2022
There have been statements authored by the types we all know. The people who call themselves republican socialists who don't so much believe in those values as they project them like vegans declaring the heinousness of carnivores at dinner parties.
And, all the while, they get the support of mediocre academics and white, middle-class fan media commentators who see their bread being buttered on the side that exalts cosy rebelliousness from people who would have to run to the toilet if they heard a car backfiring.
To the last rebel
Rebels? Really? There's a difference between being rebels and being belligerents; modern-day Wild Ones answering, "What are you rebelling against?" with, "Whaddya got?"
The views the Green Brigade claim to espouse chime with those of fans who see our club as being born of oppression, a reaction against prejudice, racism, religious bigotry and injustice.
Yet it's possible to believe all of those things without feeling that only the Green Brigade can preach the revealed Word; just as it's possible to consider yourself a Labour Party supporter who is neither a blindly loyal adherent of Jeremy Corbyn nor Keir Starmer - and maybe feel that you preferred something about the party in another era.
Their latest show support of the Palestinians would be laudable were it not for the sheer crassness of its timing and the manner in which it was done.
It's no exaggeration to say that when I woke up to the shock of the Hamas attacks, my thoughts were firstly with the people harmed and in terror; followed by a sickening anticipation of just how brutally Israel would inevitably respond and then, “I wonder what the Green Brigade will do to make it about them?”
Centre: Green Brigade banners and (l) Sideshow: Celtic players
They didn't disappoint.
Do people have a right to fly Palestinian flags at games or elsewhere? Yes. Is there a wider context? Also yes - more than one, in fact - but they are not easily conveyed with a spray-can.
But it would be unforgivably dishonest to ignore the fact that the Green Brigade's actions (at Celtic v Kilmarnock!) were justifiably interpreted as an expression of a palpable glee that Hamas had launched such an audacious attack and that many Israelis had been killed, wounded, kidnapped or terrified. There would have been no reasonable room for doubting that even without the “Victory to the Resistance” banners and – as appalling as it was ludicrous – Hamas-ispired flags.
(There have been risible claims that the green flag with white writing in Arabic saying "ultras Celtic" just coincidentally evokes the style of the official Hamas flag. They belong with excuses that the Totenkopf flag with "936", flown at Ibrox, was just an unfortunate choice of clipart for an ICF flag - in the bin.)
Let me make it clear. I can very easily relate to why many Palestinians, abandoned by what purports to be the civilised world, choose to support Hamas or, even if they don't, refuse to be drawn into condemnation of them. Equally, I can relate to the many Palestinians who are opposed to Hamas, tolerate them distrustfully or even suspect them of actively working with the other side. (Despite what some would have you believe, all of those views can be found by both Palestinian and Israeli individuals.)
As if we did not know! Netanyahu: Money to Hamas part of strategy to keep Palestinians divided | The Jerusalem post https://t.co/V1CdsOMBg4
Let's also be clear: there can be no false equivalency between the plights of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples. It should also be understood that death, suffering, fear, and grief are universal experiences, felt as keenly by all, regardless of nationality, culture, or beliefs. Decent people should recognize that the victims of war have an equal right to compassion. This is a truth often understood by war survivors but scorned by armchair warriors for whom battle is merely televised entertainment.
And, just as I would never dare to condemn any Palestinians – whose connection to the horrors that are ongoing now, and who have been suffering persecution and injustice since their land was taken from them – for how they see their plight best expressed, neither would I presume that they must share my perspective of the issues that affect them viscerally.
And, yet, with their typical sledgehammer understanding of politics and war, that's just what the Green Brigade did with those Hamas banners.
They conflated Palestinian solidarity with support for a group that is in direct opposition to the Palestinian authority and many of its people. A group that controls Gaza, largely thanks to Israel's blockade.
It's as egregious an error as conflating Judaism with the state of Israel, Protestantism with the Orange Order or Irishness with the Provisional IRA – and we know where the Green Brigade stand on those positions.
But worse – far worse than that – is the irreparable harm that flying those banners will have done to Palestinians themselves. Why? (Perhaps this was being profoundly pondered as the spray cans hissed and the delicious prospect of being shared by Ultras social media channels was being drooled over).
Because the major excuse Israel has given for blockading Gaza and intercepting aid on innumerable occasions has been that it may be a front for smuggling weapons.
Aid worker Mohammad El Halabi was alleged to have funnelled $50m to Hamas
Right now – without exaggeration the Mossad will be paying close attention to everyone involved with the Green Brigade's “fund-raising efforts for Palestine”. Of course they are – you have a group that continually sings about the Provos, who were closely affiliated to the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, another organisation that Israel and its western allies deemed terrorists. Naturally, the majority of the political sages in the Green Brigade are too young to remember the PLO's iconic leader Yasser Arafat, and most of them weren't born when the Provos officially disbanded.
The facts that Arafat was able to win admirers through his efforts to make peace with Israeli governments that considered him a terrorist or that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness understood that ultimately peace must be negotiated would be of little consequence to the Green Brigade because cheering on the fight from a safe distance is more fun.
And this “football fans'” organisation which embraces low-level criminality as a cultural tattoo believes it can swirl all these issues into one big pyro sing-song and have their charity to Palestine waved on without a raised eyebrow from the Israeli security services.
Has anyone stopped to ask if the flying of the Hamas flag would be worth one aid package to Palestine being blocked? Of course not.
It's worth noting that while many Palestinians interviewed in the Western media avoided criticizing Hamas, others did distance themselves from the attacks and express sympathy with the victims. Few expressed enthusiasm for the events celebrated so vibrantly by the Green Brigade.
To require the Green Brigade's delinquent expressions as thought-leadership is both intellectually lazy and morally vacuous. (I await the charge of being a “snowflake”.)
In recent years, some fans have rightly complained about outrageous harassment from special units of Police Scotland. It's almost comical to think that some of the very same would be thrilled to be elevated to the status of a security threat by Mossad.
Calling on the Green Brigade to consider their values is a futile exercise; they take such entreaties as personal affronts. But any fan has the right to say the Green Brigade speaks only for themselves, not for the club or its supporters as a body.
Yes, they bring banners; yes, they bring noise and yes, they bring colour. But there are those who believe that should give them carte blanche.
Admittedly, they have done well in the aforementioned charity drives for Palestinians and others. Equally, the Celtic Charity Foundation raised £400,000 from one dinner this month and, across the world, countless fans have and still do raise money for charity - large amounts and small.
Charity is part of Celtic's identity and all of it is to be welcomed but it didn't start with the Green Brigade and it certainly won't end with them.
The Green Brigade have been given privileged status by the club and, with that has come a sense of entitlement. They seem to feel that they, and only they, have the good of the club at heart and that, coincidentally, is always what raises the profile of the Green Brigade themselves.
Many say people don't understand Ultras culture, as if we are all too insular to see how football fans organise in central and eastern Europe. We do – ultras culture is most often associated with the far-right that the Green Brigade so despise. It's also associated with the “not here to take part; we're here to take over” culture more often linked with clubs of a nationalist/imperialist agenda.
Green Brigade's IRA-themed Brendan banner
Several of their banners have been out of order, not least when Brendan Rodgers had to criticise them for attaching his image to political messaging he had good reason to wish to eschew.
Unlike most of the Celtic supporters, they have declared Brendan irredeemable, not so much because he left as because they produced a typically childish banner after his move to Leicester from which they cannot step back. Because they can never step back: they lack the maturity for introspection and self-criticism, never mind accepting any from outsiders.
And outsiders are everyone who doesn't worship at their altar. Many do. Many have come round to the board's idea that Celtic is about atmosphere and being loved abroad before fielding a competitive team.
The sort who constantly post selfies in their latest Adidas kit – and doesn't it go well with the latest Stone Island range? The people who boast about how much they spend on merchandise and join in the modern football selfie culture. “Look at me – I'm at the game – amazing atmosphere – goosebumps!”
The irony shouldn't be lost on anyone that Celtic continually tolerate and try to work things out with the Green Brigade because they're a useful marketing tool, who the club uses like a minstrel show. It's one of those tawdry, unspoken deals that serves the interests of both parties – until it doesn't.
The board of directors have acted, with abysmal timing that appeared tin-eared as Israel's bombardment of Gaza escalated. This can be attributed to a "jobs for the boys and girls" culture within Celtic that often renders their media and PR activities amateurish and counter-productive.
The board was partly motivated by the understandably hurt words of Nir Bitton and concerns for Liel Abada, who found himself in an invidious position. Unlike most Celtic fans, both are directly affected by the Hamas attacks and the ongoing war and they have every right to express their feelings robustly during this emotional time.
Due to Celtic being, as ever, behind the curve, events have brought so much misery to the Palestinian people have worked in favour of the Green Brigade. Most fans are no admirers of the board, and the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza has solidified their support for the Palestinians. So, being asked to pick a side has had predictable results.
Green Brigade banned by Celtic for away games amid rising fine fears @NCCeltic This has been a long time coming. I was bullied out of my seat last year in Madrid. Unacceptable behaviour goes a long way back https://t.co/2CrbCG0Bex
However, reports of fans being bullied out of seats, ticket forgeries, and attempts to rush gates and burst open fire exits, among other transgressions, may leave the club with no choice but to take long-lasting action against the Green Brigade, irrespective of the fall-out for their show of support for Hamas.
It is their very determination to live up to the "last rebel" image that evinces the reality that they will never keep to an agreement. It's against their identity and recidivism is inevitable.
If that happens, and Celtic do draw a line, expect fan anger and a flurry of statements from performative rebel socialists. But the club will survive, fans will sing again, and perhaps energies will be refocused on the team and the football.
It's that time again - and it will probably last for three months.
It's the time when every loon, attention-seeker and "in the know" tosser gives their tuppenceworth on who should be the next permanent manager of Celtic.
Many of the would say that I know little to nothing about football. But I would counter that that makes me as qualified as the most successful football pundits in Scotland, so why not share my wisdom?
(Rather depressingly, many of the names below have been literally copied and pasted from a previous article on this site, at the end of the Ronny Deila era.
So, here goes:
Neil Lennon
Like the vast majority of Celtic fans, I have admired Neil as a player and coach since he was first signed by Martin O'Neill.
That said, I was against his appointment first time round (due to his inexperience) and I wasn't convinced that he would be a huge success when he left us.
But his time with Hibs seemed to demonstrate that he had far greater tactical knowledge than I had given him credit for.
Perhaps being with Hibs, not Celtic, he was more likely to be questioned on what happened in games than pressed for a big headline or perhaps he has just developed but he seems to have shown that he can evolve as a coach, which is a vital quality.
He has also, of course, won three titles and experienced the best and worst that the job can bring.
My personal view: still tending against it but softening somewhat (more on that later.
John Kennedy
There have been rumours that Kennedy is highly regarded by both the players and the board. But is he ready for the big job right now? Probably not.
Marco Rose
One of the more intriguing suggestions. He has worked wonders with Red Bull Salzburg, who took maximum points from our Europa group.
Salzburg also work with a limited budget in a minor league, but with world-leading facilities.
It would be a huge coup but the Bundesliga surely awaits him very soon.
Roberto Martinez
Has been linked before and heavily touted as a candidate.
After a very successful World Cup with Belgium, his stock is high and would be a candidate for any number of top clubs.
Still, he has Shaun Maloney in his coaching staff.
Mark Hughes
The English football pundits' idea of a football manager.
That's why he should manage a team in the lower half of the Premier league or the Championship.
Doesn't know how to smile.
Steve Bruce
See the entry for Mark Hughes above.
Jack Ross
Doing a solid job with Sunderland having been Scotland's manager of the year, last season.
He certainly talks the talk but would be a huge gamble.
John Collins
Absolutely not. Collins has the air of a self-annointed aristocrat of football. Rumours of him rubbing people up the wrong way seem all too credible because he just exudes smugness.
Plus, we must be careful of making white teeth and a permatan a tradition in our managers.
David Moyes
Moyes might well do a good job but he has spent the years since leaving Everton, for the most part, making his own club's supporters cry. I don't think so.
Gordon Strachan
It seems that Gordon probably has no appetite for the intense pressure of the Celtic job again. So, that rules him out.
Martin O'Neill
No doubt he could deliver titles again and may even be tempted to leave the bright lights of Nottingham but it would be very much back to Martin's way, which is not going to progress the club.
Plus, he would bring Roy Keane.
Roy Keane
Let's hope not! The man punches people who ask for his autograph.
In his second autobiography (because one is never enough) he stated that going to Ipswich was a mistake because, having taken the job, he discovered that he couldn't motivate himself to put his heart into a team in blue.
He should be in a secure unit on an island somewhere.
Mick McCarthy
Good old mick. I have a soft spot for him and he gives the impression that he would nut a lamppost if it caught him on a bad day.
I'm not sure that's what the coaching blend needs right now.
Henrik Larsson
Not this again! We all love him and respect him utterly. Let's keep it that way.
Alan Stubbs
He'll reckon he could do the job but recent evidence is that he's a far better pundit than a manager.
Steven Gerrard
On the plus side, he both knows Rodgers's methods and has experience of breaking his heart.
Negatives (too numerous to list) include the fact that he thinks £1m is an eight-figure sum.
Derek McInnes
When hell freezes over.
Michael O'Neill
No doubt his name will crop up again and I wouldn't put it past the board. He's good at what he does with meagre resources but it would be suffocating football.
Malky Mackay
A name only suggested by a mainstream media pundit to stir things up. He would be a PR disaster and has a reputation for liking to spend on players.
But you can bank on his CV already being in.
No.
Steve Clarke
A popular choice who has apparently said that he doesn't want another job in Scotland.
Probably would be very successful and has excellent credentials.
Steve McLaren
Just the sort of tosser Celtic plc would like to foist on us, accompanied by a puff piece on a well-known blog, telling us how smart a move it is.
Paul Lambert
That guy who will always believe that he is a much better manager than he is. He should be managing Aberdeen or a club of similar stature.
Owen Coyle
Would bring all that Bolton and Raith Rovers experience - and appoint someone like Lambert as part of his "dream team".
Jose Mourinho
Made a comment about Rodgers having left at the wrong time and started an Internet rumour in the process. It's one of the more fun rumours but a non-starter.
Arsene Wenger
Let's stick with the silliness. He can certainly coach players, has big-time experience and might even see Celtic as a stepping stone to Leicester some day.
In reality, he'd probably prefer to manage a French or maybe Belgian club and there would be no shortage of offers.
China or the MLS would also be more likely than Celtic.
So, that's just a few of the people who probably have no chance of being the next permanent Celtic manager.
But, going back to Neil, there is a possible scenario in which his appointment works.
I hope for a management team that can retain the best elements of the Rodgers reign but with greater tactical flexibility, the ability to compete in Europe while entertaining without being kicked off the park.
Having worked with Rodgers for two-and-a-half years, John Kennedy will have retained the knowledge of the good things he did - top-level training/coaching, analysis, etc.
But Neil is probably better tactically, equally good at motivating players and has the experience of being in the firing line but delivering a winning team.
So, maybe the Lennon-Kennedy partnership could work for, say two years, with a view to readying John for the big job.
Shaun Maloney might also be enticed to join, bringing his experience of working with Roberto Martinez.
Why not develop a high-tech "boot room" combining all the elements that a modern club - but identifiably Celtic - needs?
If Neil were to agree to step aside in May 2021, the next man to join the group could be Scott Brown, with the hope of three-to-five successful years under Kennedy to prepare him for the job.
The downsides could be that it would look like "all Lawwell's men" and that these plans are never guaranteed to succeed.
However, I'm convinced that we need the above elements and we are unlikely to recruit someone who brings all of them.
So, to quote a famous advert, "It's a long shot but it might just work."
I have never met Peter Lawwell. And I don't care to.
This is unlikely to cause him sleepless nights.
I somehow suspect that there would be a minimal interface between our values but that doesn't matter a jot.
I have no desire for titbits from the top table, the kudos of being considered "in the know" or being able to humble-brag about landing a high-profile interviewee.
As a minor blogger, I have little of substance to offer and, as a Celtic fan, my importance is inconsequential. Easily-dismissed, barely missed and of negligible cash value.
Like you – or at least the vast majority of people who may take the time to read this blog.
(I hope you will not feel insulted by my being so presumptuous as to lump you in with me.)
But, as someone with no traction within the Celtic support to offer, there are other reasons why I suspect that Lawwell and I would have little in common.
To do with Celtic – in terms of ethics, vision and values.
I should start with my caveats. I don't believe that Lawwell is incompetent or unethical in the sense that would debar him from other executive positions.
He's no Craig Whyte, Charles Green or Dave King.
I don't believe that he would break the rules or bend the law in the manner that people at some clubs have done and do. And nor, I am sure, would he sanction such practices.
But there are other values, ethics and even professional practices that are anathema to me and which I believe will continually hobble Celtic unless they are rooted out.
And that, I believe, will only be possible when Peter Lawwell takes a bite of one of those sweet, fat cherries that we are continually told are regularly dangled in front of him and brings his expertise to another club.
Apparently, there are many to choose from.
Now, there are many Celtic bloggers, including some which you and I know are "close" to Peter Lawwell and the board of Celtic plc.
These are popular as their adherents like to believe they are close to the inside track at Celtic. By being on first-name terms with some blogger, they may boast about "one degree of separation" from the head honcho at Celtic Park.
Many of these like to bring their own knowledge of the business world and the complexities that naive, plebeian fans could never hope to appreciate.
It's not "the economy, stupid", as William Clinton used to say, it's "asset-management, idiot", in case you didn't know.
Because, you see, there are things at football clubs that lowly football fans can never understand.
You may think that football players' primary value relates to their performances on the pitch.
Oh, how you are to be pitied – with as much kindness and understanding that will allow you to recognise your foolishness but not alienate you to the extent that you will stop investing in the club.
Let me delicately tell you that footballers – Celtic-players, if you wish – are like property (real estate, as our American cousins might say).
It doesn't matter how nice or impressive they look, and far less how well they perform their notional function.
No, you see – and don't be embarrassed (because a lot of fans are as misguided as you) – football players are assets to be bought low and sold high.
Stay with me.
Take Scott Brown. One major Celtic blogger, who campaigned against buying players from Dundee United and Hibs, considers the signing of Scott to be a disaster.
For years, the said blogger was advocating selling Scott.
Don't feel stupid if you disagreed – even the smuggest blogger in the Celtic blogosphere regularly boasts about thinking that Scott was a great signing.
But don't you see why signing Scott was an abject failure?
Yes, I know. In your innocence, you probably think that signing a young Scottish footballer with huge potential, one who went on to captain his country and our club to a historic double-treble was a success.
11 years of outstanding service, blah, blah. Taking his place amongst the Celtic all-time greats, yawn.
Have you no idea of how much money Celtic could have made if we had sold Scott Brown before he reached his peak?
Now, I know you aren't stupid enough to have thought that, because Brendan Rodgers clearly wanted to sign John McGinn (painfully great debut for Villa), that spending about a third of the fee that we recouped for Stuart Armstrong would have been good business.
McGinn was already a Scotland International and 23 – so not a young player – and so there may have been a limit to his growth potential as an asset.
These are just a few examples of Lawwell-omics, the view that the playing squad is simply a collection of assets to be managed –bought low and sold high – which conveniently makes Peter Lawwell the most money.
Is this in any way compatible with building a team and gradually improving, year-by-year?
Of course not!
Continually seeking performance improvements is literally inconsistent with managing an asset portfolio based on buying low and selling at peak value.
You see, ideas that you may have of seeing promise in the team and looking forward to getting a little better the next season – and again and again ad infinitum – simply show you to be a fool.
Like me.
A few days ago, I noted that no Celtic manager since John Barnes had been sacked but neither had any left for a better job,. That's pretty damned amazing.
Equally amazing is that none of these managers have uttered a bad peep about their time at Celtic.
There are various possible explanations for this phenomenon.
1. Everything was just peachy and these guys left for reasons unconnected to the activities of the board.
2. No outgoing manager since Barnes wanted to rock the boat (Wim Jansen did a bit of boat-rocking but only criticised Jock Brown. )
3. They all sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of their contracts with Celtic and therefore can't say that all in the garden is not rosy.
Think about the times we have had – the managers who have come and gone – the times of great hope that were followed by deep disappointment due to the quiet policy of managed decline.
What are your values, hopes and aspirations with regard to Celtic?
Mine are to see a team of players on the field worthy of carrying our tradition as one of the great clubs in world football.
I want the best players to be encouraged to stay with us in their best years.
I want to see us building on success, in a sustainable manner, and believing that the next season should be better than the last.
I want to see us supporting Brendan Rodgers in every way, particularly in his club-building efforts, and never undermining him.
I want to see us focusing on football, not obsessively on finance.
One of the biggest weaknesses we have, in my opinion, is the fact that we do not have football people by any measure working with Brendan Rodgers but, instead, have one of the best coaches we have ever had working with a specific form of capitalism.
You see, in my world, there is more than one type of capital.
For example, the people who buy season tickets, merchandise and plough their money into the club in various other ways, invest more than money.
To me, those fans who invest money – often more than they can afford – are also investing a kind of capital.
Sadly, it's the most easily-scorned form of capital, and yet the purist. It's the emotional capital of hoping that their investments in the club's vision will bring pride, joy and lasting memories.
But, as with the boiler-room scammers who robbed countless pensioners and other vulnerable people of their savings, Celtic's Peter Lawwell Capitalism cares nothing for those who staked their real money on an unreal dream.
And that is the problem for Celtic supporters.
The evidence of Peter Lawwell's entire tenure as Chief Executive points to a supporters' experience of constantly building hope, investing their money and being disappointed when things were really looking up.
Every tantalising dream results in frustration.
Again and again and again.
Would it be so bad if – this time – we kept our exceptional coach, Brendan, and experimented with a new Chief Executive, and one who doesn't make money out of selling our best players?
It could be win-win for everyone.
Peter Lawwell gets the money his talents apparently deserve; Brendan Rodgers has to deal with a "Head of Recruitment" he believes in and the club formulates a plan that sees continual improvement on the field as a good thing, rather than a reckless ambition.
After a trying week for Celtic, one piece of news with the feelgood factor was the return of Emilio Izaguirre as cover for Kieran Tierney at left-back.
It's not at all hard to love Izzy and most fans do.
A player who is never gave less than his all (as he noted himself) those years of flying down the left wing have not been forgotten by the fans and he left to real affection and well-wishing from the supporters.
That's all well and good and I'm happy for him as he seems so pleased to have made his return.
From a football point of view, however, I'm not sure quite what this tells us about recruitment policy at the club.
Those who remember Izzy's early days will recall the expectation that those exciting early displays would lead to big-money bids from English clubs (with speculation that Manchester United were considering a move).
But, such is the power of social media that before long the wise amongst us were mostly agreeing online that there was a problem with his positional sense.
For my part, I predicted that Izzy would leave as, fine player that he is, I couldn't see him fitting into Brendan Rodgers's style of play.
His running and crossing can be excellent - he could easily have found a place in Martin O'Neill's Celtic teams - but I didn't think his touch was quite right for the quick passing that Brendan favours.
So, what has changed?
Was it a blunder to let him go and did Brendan really rate him and want to keep him? (He will have made good money in Saudi Arabia and good luck to him for that.)
Or is there more to the move than meets the eye?
Calvin Miller has looked promising but, at 20, is perhaps not considered ready to be considered as reliable cover for that 21-year-old veteran Kieran.
That's fair enough and if the Izzy move is to take pressure off Calvin while Kieran remains as our left-back, then we can all breathe a sigh of relief.
But let's be clear about something.
Having Izzy supporting Kieran is fine. Bringing back a popular player because, for example, Kieran might be sold is not fine at all.
We can all make mistakes and reversing a bad decision (if that's what letting Izzy go was) is smarter than ploughing on, rather than admitting a mistake.
But two days after Brendan expressed his displeasure at missing out on John McGinn, there is room for scepticism as to whether bringing Izzy back is a move that Brendan really wanted or an admission that Peter Lawwell and the board have no intention of supporting Brendan in terms of developing the squad.
So, who signed Izzy - Brendan or Peter?
And, if the answer is the latter, then no amount of love for Izzy is going to bring us much joy in the time to come.
--
Too often blaming the mainstream media gives an easy out to Peter Lawwell and the Celtic board. We could lose Brendan Rodgers
Commodities
I once watched a documentary about craftsmanship in which a man proudly showed off one of his greenwood chairs. (A traditional method of woodworking using the natural moisture of the wood to create strong joints without glue or metal.)
"That costs £700," he told the shocked person who inquired.
As justification, he said: "Well, I like to try to pay myself £10 an hour and it takes me 70 hours to make one chair."
Fair enough but when you can get a functional chair from IKEA for one twentieth of that price - both of which will support your backside quite acceptably, it's a tough sell.
But for some, only the greenwood chair would do while others will shell out even more for the one-off designer seat that captures their heart.
Now before you kindly offer help in recovering my marbles, let me say that I do realise that footballers are different to chairs in a number of key ways.
Firstly, they are people, not commodities, though the archaic transfer system might lead you to think otherwise.
Secondly, they have minds of their own and are capable of making their own decisions.
But, as a third point, footballers have something in common with any other item for sale - they are worth whatever someone is prepared to pay for them.
It is not clear that Peter Lawwell or the Celtic board recognise any of these key points. And that's a problem - perhaps a big one.
The John McGinn saga is one of the sorriest Celtic affairs of recent times, though by no means
without precedent.
Steven Fletcher and Kevin Thomson both spring to mind as players who the manager clearly wanted but who Lawwell either thought surplus to requirements or that he had a better-value alternative on hand.
With McGinn, you have read many unqualified opinions on the player's ability or lack of it - including from this blogger.
But a more expert opinion was apparently scorned - that of our manager Brendan Rodgers.
And, even if you have already declared McGinn of insufficient quality to get a game for Celtic, that should give you cause for concern.
The pluck of the Irish
I have already put my hands up to the fact that I was totally wrong about Brendan Rodgers before he took the reins at Celtic.
I could make excuses but the fact is that I didn't rate him as a candidate. And that causes me embarrassment. Because I really should have informed myself better, with a more open mind, and recognised just how good Brendan was and is.
We are extremely lucky to have him at Celtic and the shakers and movers at just about every switched-on club in Europe see that, too.
We have had a lot of excellent coaches in many ways but, in terms of being at the cutting edge of top-level football knowledge, I have no hesitation in saying that Brendan is our most outstanding manager since Jock Stein.
Anyone who reads this blog (and, if we can get the numbers, we might get a five-a-side team going) will, I hope, realise that, while not shy with my opinions, I rarely indulge in hyperbole.
But, as an admirer of Martin O'Neill, Gordon Strachan, Neil Lennon and - yes - Ronny Deila, I have seen a level of coaching at Celtic that we would have been highly unlikely to have enjoyed had we not been a magical club who just happened to have a real Celtic man - a genuine one of our own - amongst the top tier of coaches.
The media will conveniently forget that the fantabulous Steven Gerrard, having played under Houllier, Eriksson, Capello and many more described our Brendan as the best one-to-one coach he had ever worked with.
But now, I fear, that's under threat.
3-5-7
When Brendan took over at Celtic, I listened to his interviews and he talked of having been "in a hurry", as young men usually are, in his earlier coaching career.
It was wonderful - let's not forget that he was made the bookies' second-favourite to be the next England manager within a couple of weeks of signing on at Celtic.
So, that, logically, brought the numbers of 3, 5 and 7 to my mind.
If true to his word, he saw the Celtic job as lasting a minimum of three years - anything less would be consistent with a "man in a hurry", itching to get his next big opportunity.
As a coach and manager who has a reputation as seeing himself as a club-builder, five years would seem a more likely period in the job.
And, as Brendan has also said that he expects to be a coach for more than 20 years, a productive five years at Celtic seemed a solid prospect. Club-building, you see, involves player development with a view to the future.
To leave a club with a solid foundation for the future and to lay the groundwork for replacing a legendary captain over the next three or four years. Leaving something lasting.
For example, signing the player who Scott Brown himself praised to the heavens just a couple of weeks ago. Less secure players than Scott might have felt threatened by efforts to recruit a footballer who is so often compared to the great man himself.
But Scott signalled that there would be no tension between himself and John McGinn.
Can you see just how much McGinn was wanted by the football people at Celtic?
(For my part, I'll say that we might just have lost the captain of Celtic in 2021-2025).
My expectation was for a three-to-five-year tenure of Brendan. My wildest dreams were of seven years.
I dream of that no more.
Language, Timothy!
Now, while the search facility offers copious evidence of my complaints against the Celtic board and Chief Executive - the vast majority of which I stand by - I am as sceptical of and hostile to the mainstream media shills who often do, in fact, mischievously sow the seeds of grief amongst Celtic supporters.
I've slagged almost all of them and, again I stand by almost all of it.
This week, the BBC's Chris McLaughlin was getting it for saying that the board were unhappy with Brendan's comments on the transfer window activity.
But, while I am decidedly NOT one of those "in the know" bloggers with impeccably-placed sources, dear reader, I do know a few things beyond the fiduciary duty of other clubs' executives (I know you read it, guys, because you parrot it occasionally with never a "chapeau".)
One of my interests is in the art of coaching, to which end I have read several biographies and autobiographies of football managers.
A recurring theme that I have noticed, from Alex Ferguson down (in the modern era) and from all the great Celtic managers is the importance of psychology.
And I can say, without fear of reasonable rebuke, that there is no manager in football more aware of the weight that his words carry than Brendan Rodgers.
(Trust me - you'll see this in other blogs, claiming that they always knew this.)
Now, remember that I don't know Brendan. If I did, I'd surely have trumpeted him from the heavens as the next Celtic boss.
But I do know, for example, that Brendan has studied neuro-linguistic programming for several years.
If you aren't aware of NLP, it can be roughly summarised as a practice attempting to achieve positive results through managing thought patterns through specific techniques, with a strong emphasis on language.
For example, when you make a silly mistake, do you say to yourself, "I'm so stupid", or something similar? Many of us do.
NLP theory says that the first voice we hear is our own and that we undermine our own confidence by using that language to ourselves.
Instead, why not say: "I made a mistake so I'll learn from it and do better the next time"?
Do you remember Jack Hendry after the Rosenborg match? (I don't believe that Brendan is educating players in NLP, but that they are echoing his positive language).
How often have you heard Brendan criticise the team or say anything negative about them?
How many times can you recall him saying, for example, "We didn't finish well enough" or "We didn't defend well"?
They are both negative statements, whereas "we could have scored more goals" and "we can defend better" are the sort of positive statements Brendan usually prefers.
On top of that, having been at one of the richest clubs in Europe, Brendan has had top-level media training.
That's partly why he is so adept at sidestepping the booby-trap questions that the media throw at him.
And the point of all of this is that Brendan is fully aware of the impact of his words.
So, when he chose to speak so negatively about transfer activity on the day his side had a vital Champions League qualifier with AEK, you better believe that he really is angry and that's not just another media fabrication.
I am confident that he will remain with us until the end of the season. Because, apart from anything else, he is on record as saying that managers should take new jobs before the season starts.
And, of course, in May he will have completed the minimum three-year period of a man not in a hurry.
Que sera, sera
But, dedicated to Celtic as Brendan is, he is also clearly conscious of his reputation and future aspirations.
For example, never mind the English Premier League, he is known to aspire to some day work in Spain.
He will not be so loyal to Celtic as to see his own reputation damaged due to the "Plan" of Peter Lawwell, who - let's not forget - gets a player-trading bonus each year and is therefore incentivised to favour selling over buying.
And the sad fact is that I doubt that Lawwell cares.
He has increasingly been allowed to run Celtic as he sees fit, seeing managers come and go, and using friendly "independent" Celtic bloggers to tell us that's just how it had to be.
He also knows that Neil Lennon and Steve Clarke would both likely jump at the chance to replace Brendan.
It's a remarkable fact that the last Celtic manager to be sacked was John Barnes.
It's equally remarkable that no Celtic manager since Barnes has resigned because he was lured away by a better offer.
Every single one has chucked it for different reasons that were never really made clear.
Time and time again, Celtic fans have thought we were on the road to something special, only to find that some unforeseen change had set us back.
Peter Lawwell and the board can keep Brendan Rodgers for the key five years and maybe longer if they want him.
But that will involve supporting him in his vision of building a strong Celtic for the future, not just pocketing the tens of millions of pounds that he has already made them.
So, do they want Brendan to remain at Celtic, continually building supporters' hopes in a manner that requires funding or do they want someone to make the most money out of the least possible investment while doing deals between Lawwell and his son, Mark, at Manchester City?
You're already fed up
hearing about Kieran Tierney leaving Celtic and so am I – but some
issues need to be addressed.
Many, in recent days
have recalled the time when Kenny Dalglish – King Kenny, as he was
known by then – was sold to Liverpool on the eve of the 1977-78
season and the disastrous impact that had on morale.
Mike Maher conveys much
of the atmosphere at the time, in the excellent Celtic Star Mag:
The estimable David
Potter, writing for the same site, makes references to the issue in
two articles, which are somewhat odd as the first reads to me as a
crudely sarcastic attack on fans who are upset at the
prospect of selling Kieran (I struggle to believe that Mr Potter
believes that the double treble would be rendered meaningless or that
The Rangers would be likely to win the Scottish Premier League). A
second piece seems to demand that Kieran be kept with sincerity.
(Perhaps a rethink by Mr Potter.)
Kieran, already the
Prince of Celtic Park, has no less potential than Kenny to assume the
status of an all-time icon, though the circumstances of Kenny's
departure were somewhat different.
As Mike Maher points
out, losing Kenny was very clearly a sign that Celtic could no longer
keep the best players and there have been few exceptions since then –
Henrik Larsson and Scott Brown being two of a small number.
But this is the reality
we have lived with since that summer's day in 1977 when Jock Stein
was reported to have said, “Kenny, is there anything I can say to
change your mind?”, before Kenny uttered a simple, “No,” and
signed the contract.
Well aware of the coup
in replacing Kevin Keegan with an even better player and the blow to
Celtic – albeit for a British record transfer fee of £440,000 –
Bob Paisley famously said: “We'd better get out of here before
these people realise what we've done.”
(Accounting for
inflation, that fee would be approximately £1.9m today.)
But the conditions at
Celtic are very different today.
One fact almost lost in
the annals of time is that, just prior to 1977-78, Celtic were the
bookies' favourites to win the European Cup. Today, we are by no
means certain of qualifying for the group stages of the Champions
League.
Losing Kieran would
make that extremely difficult task, a whole lot harder, particularly
as he is the only defender in whom we can all be confident in the
most vital games against quality opposition.
On the other hand, the
rumoured £25m fee, would go a very long way towards compensating the
club for any failure to reach the group stages of Europe's top
tournament so it is likely that Peter Lawwell would consider a sale
to be a “no-brainer”.
We all know what that
money could do for Celtic – buy several more sets of fancy
floodlights, for example.
But, seriously, huge
money is tempting for Celtic as we operate on a very different
financial level from clubs in England.
There would also be the
potential added bonus (not the one that goes into Peter's bank
account – that one is guaranteed) that players like Moussa Dembele
would see the move as encouraging and tempt them to sign on,
confident of being released for a big-money move in the future.
That's all very well
and, in some regards, positive but what does it really say about
Celtic as a football club?
To my mind, it says
that nothing has really changed. That the prevailing ethos is to keep
just ahead of the domestic competition and see Europe as an
occasional windfall.
But what then of
Brendan's stated aim of making Celtic a side that can compete in the
Champions League? Though we did make it into third place last season
for one Europa League round, it is clear that there was little, if
any, progress on the European stage.
In fact, you can make a
very strong case for saying that Celtic finished last season a weaker
side than 12 months previously as the league tables showed.
So, does Brendan want
to sell Kieran (and the sincerity of his comments that a club has a
moral duty to young players is a given, and his track bears that out)?
There are, as usual at
Celtic, more questions than answers.
If the rumoured
discussions are true, that can only be because:
a. A release clause has
been activated, allowing Kieran to talk to other clubs
or
b. Because Celtic gave
other clubs permission to talk to Kieran.
By the rules, there are
no other circumstances under which direct contact could be made
between the player, who is under contract, and any other club.
If the answer is “a”,
we can forget any fanciful talk of the fee going any higher as every
club will know that to be the maximum they have to pay. It will also,
though, be the figure agreed by Celtic when Kieran extended his
contract, signing a six-year deal while just 12 months into an
existing five-year contract.
If the answer is “b”,
then Celtic are actively trying to sell a player who has only ever
indicated his joy at being a Celtic player and his desire to remain.
So let the insinuations
against Kieran, leaking from supposedly “in the know” Celtic
people and apparently emanating from the club, end now.
Kieran has been an
exemplary Celtic player in his years at the club. No amount of
accusations of “greed” or claims that Brendan is “disgusted”
change that and some of those issuing them should hang their heads in
shame.
As a stupid football
fan, I want Kieran to stay but I will wish him well if he leaves and
hope that he collects the biggest gongs that football has to offer.
He deserves everything good that the game can give.
This is not some
Islam-Feruz-type of situation and nor has he, for example, signed a
one-year deal before promptly opting for a hernia op to ready himself
for a move elsewhere, while Celtic paid his salary.
This is a young man who
has dedicated himself to his sport and to Celtic but, to some cynics,
that counts for nothing when the aim is to protect certain executives
by directing fans' ire at the player.
If we do get £25m to
add to the £7m for Armstrong and the tens of millions from two
Champions League campaigns, we can be fairly sure that a small chunk
of that cash will go towards more diamond-mining, hoping to uncover
the next mega-profit player as we struggle for respectability in
Europe.
Some of those will
flop, as several signings have done, and the few gems will be
polished up to realise their full market value.
Celtic will continue to
tread water in Europe while, hopefully (but not certainly),
dominating in Scotland, prompting ironic questions of, “What more
do you want?” and continued derisive remarks about our Scottish pub
league.
As Hiram Johnson once
said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth.” The same
can be said of transfer speculation.--
I missed out on Lisbon. I was too young to appreciate nine-in-a-row. I had to make do with stories, pictures and films telling of the legendary Lisbon Lions and how they took on the world and won. Of the Quality Street Gang who helped Celtic dominate Scottish football from the late 60s to mid-70s.
Having gone through good times and bad, my favourite Celtic memory had been the centenary double – thirty years ago, this year – when Billy McNeill came back as a saviour and delivered us the league and Scottish Cup.
That will always remain in my heart and be tied to the names of true Celtic greats – Bonner, Aitken, McStay and, of course, the peerless Tommy Burns.
That season was special, not just for the victories, but because a club as great as ours surely deserved something tangible on our 100th birthday. We have won doubles since, but none have ever mattered to me quite as much.
But time has taught me to try to appreciate success as it happens. To value the special people while they are with us.
While celebrating our glories, we never quite know what lies ahead and we must take each and every one on their own merits, while never ceasing to hunger for more.
So, firstly, we must remember that seven titles in a row is a monumental achievement in itself and not merely a component of something bigger.
And, secondly, when we have won two consecutive domestic trebles, we should enjoy the fact that our players, manager and staff have brought us our own “Lisbon moment”.
We could rhyme off the players who have put in stellar performances over the last two seasons and further back over the seven titles.
But none come close to Scott Brown in terms of what he has achieved and given to Celtic since he arrived from Hibs all those years ago.
All these qualities have taken him on the long journey from a dynamic midfielder with great promise towards taking his place amongst the all-time great Celtic players and captains.
Just as in 1988, it seemed that the footballing gods had shone their light down on us to grant us a glory we deserved, those same powers seem to have delivered a fitting accolade to Scott in his testimonial season.
Celtic seven-in-a-row and double-treble-winning captain.
From one fan to all our people but especially to Scott Brown – thank you.--
I have been wrong before but this move just doesn't add up
I do not like The
Rangers Football Club. I don't dislike them with the same intensity
that I did Rangers and I got a great sense of closure when Rangers
were liquidated.
But any club
emulating what I have always believed to have been a uniquely
objectionable sporting institution is worthy of similar derision,
though the stakes are less high for me, simply because we won.
Nonetheless, the new
neighbours who moved in are noisy and do their best to be vexatious
and even (especially) offensive. So, while, on a competitive level, I
am much more concerned with Motherwell (for obvious reasons), Hibs,
Kilmarnock, Aberdeen and, next season, St Mirren, the happenings at
Ibrox are still worthy of comment.
I am not objective,
as my first statement acknowledged. I'm biased, and speaking from a
position of ill will towards The Rangers.
But, thus-declared,
I have my own observations to make about the appointment of Steven
Gerrard as the six-year-old Ibrox club's seventh manager.
The Player
Firstly, due
respect: I liked him as a player and acknowledge that he was the best
English midfielder of his generation and an all-time great English
footballer.
But I have never
believed that he would make a great manager because he always seemed
to have a working-class sense of humility that, while endearing, was
born of self-doubt whereas Frank Lampard exuded such confidence, displayed
as smug arrogance, as to be guaranteed to rub me up the wrong way.
Don't get me wrong -
I have always respected Lampard. In fact, I have always believed that
he could make an excellent manager, which I have never believed of
Gerrard.
Time will vindicate
or condemn my superficial assessments but, amongst the undesired
outcomes at The Rangers, Steven Gerrard taking over as boss has never
registered.
Age-old Theme
For film buffs and
those of a certain vintage, the last six years have been reminiscent
of the Hollywood classic, Sunset Boulevard, in which an ageing
"once-was" refuses to accept the realities of time and
progress, surrendering any last vestiges of dignity in the process.
How Do I Look? Have I still got it?
Her increasingly
desperate attempts make for compelling, if sometimes uncomfortable,
viewing.
The Rangers
demonstrate similar delusions, though the constantly-changing,
increasingly-ridiculous storylines could have been churned out by the
scriptwriters of River City.
McCoist, McCall,
Warburton, Murty, Caixhinha, Murty, Nicholl, Gerrard. Between them,
they have won League Two, League One, the Scottish Championship (at
the second attempt) and the Petrofac and Dry Blackthorn cups.
Candidates
At the turn of the
year, Derek McInnes was approached. Deek, the most transparently
dishonest, Ibrox-hearted Aberdeen manager since Jimmy Calderwood, did
everything short of baring his bearded backside in order to show his
preference for the Glaswegian imposters over his current employers.
But still, somehow, he couldn't bring himself to cash in on the
points gift he had sent in advance, so troubling were his doubts
about the club's financial stability.
That disappointed me
as I was quite sure that he would fail at Ibrox. But he also
surprised me. Never appearing to be the sharpest tool in the box,
Deek nevertheless made a wise judgement.
I wasn’t unduly
troubled, though I would have felt better if he had been in the bag –
a few months can bring untold changes and that might mean
improvements.
And so I wondered if
there was the possibility of some new investment, however improbable,
from the Bank of China or some such institution looking for a
high-profile presence.
In the meantime, the
next obvious candidate would have been Steve Clarke. This prospect
bothered me a little.
Clarke has a varied
and high-level coaching background, has done an excellent job with
Kilmarnock and could surely do much more with the sort of funding
that, even The Rangers could likely find, given his reputation and
extensive list of contacts.
He also comes across
as an intelligent guy, which was why I was fairly confident that he
would decline any offer.
Then there was
Steven Robinson, whose style (if you can call it that) I dislike
intensely.
Robinson is a
throwback to days that should be long gone, using physicality and a
peppering of brutality to good effect against superior football
teams.
Robinson is
reminiscent of a young Jimmy Nicholl – staunch, no one likes him
and he doesn’t care. So, in that sense he would have been a good
fit at Ibrox, though not box office.
He’d have
straightened them out in terms of being organised and aggressive but
he wouldn’t have sold season tickets, so he was a non-starter.
Then there were the
“Warnocks”. Of course, there is only one Neil Warnock but I use
the term to describe one of those experienced firefighting bosses,
who English chairmen turn to when their clubs are in distress.
The kind who have
lived with the intense daily pressure, fans calling for their heads,
the press pack stitching them up and who, year after year, come back
for more.
He is one of many
who just might have done a job – at least on an interim basis –
finding a tactical approach to favour a desperate situation and maybe
even swinging a cup or two.
But what The Rangers
got was the much-admired player and virgin manager, Steven Gerrard.
He thinks it's all over: An emotional Gerrard so close to a title
This pleased me
greatly, for a number of reasons.
Map-reading
Firstly, “it puts
Scottish football on the map” – no, it doesn’t. Scottish
football was already on the map and our own Brendan Rodgers has done
a great deal to make that happen.
Brendan was the
bookies’ second-favourite for the England manager’s job, within a
few weeks of joining Celtic, after Roy Hodgson resigned. He has also
been quoted as a likely candidate for most half-decent prospects in
the English Premier League, including Chelsea, and was heavily-linked
with the soon-to-be-vacant Arsenal job.
So, Scottish
football is getting plenty of attention from down south and beyond,
which is partly why we have Moussa Dembele, Olivier Ntcham and
Odsonne Edouard. It was also quite probably a factor in attracting
Clarke to Kilmarnock, persuading Youssouf Mulumbu that he could reset
his career there and convincing Steven Caulker that a season at
Dundee would be worth a try.
These things have
all been excellent for Scottish football as has the work Neil Lennon
has done at Hibs, building a very promising team.
Having Gerrard in
Scotland will generate more interest and perhaps persuade the likes
of Aberdeen and Hearts to consider experienced, progressive managers,
who would not have been available to them two years ago.
Why else would I be
happy that Gerrard is there?
Having a rookie
coach thrown into a torrid situation is obviously a bonus for rivals,
but the lack of tactical experience is only one element.
Leadership
Leadership is said
to be one of Gerrard’s strengths but that is the sort of glib
comment uttered by people who have little or no understanding of the
skills and qualities associated with leadership in modern-day
football.
Personally, I have
never felt Gerrard to be a great on-field leader. If he had been,
perhaps he would have won a league title in his career.
But, that aside,
leading by example is a very different prospect to leading through
communication.
This is something
that the majority of ex-pros and Scottish football pundits seem never
to have considered.
Book-learning
As a hobbyist blogger, I am very much a half-assed amateur when it comes to
football. However, I do read about the game and biographical works
about football managers reveal some common themes.
First is that a
little reading about football demonstrates that, in the modern game,
old-fashioned techniques are largely obsolete, partly due to
increased education as well as the changing dynamics brought about by
huge salaries.
Even in the lower
reaches of the English game, managers study various psychological
techniques, including drawing on successful leadership and motivation
strategies from other sports.
St Mirren’s Jack
Ross gives indications of this sort of thinking but he is one of a
very few in Scotland to allude to this. I have my doubts about
whether Gerrard has been similarly studious but you can guarantee
that Pep Guardiola and Zinedine Zidane did so before entering
management. Ryan Giggs? I’m guessing not.
Second, is the
intense, nigh-on intolerable pressure, which seems to increase
year-on-year. Gordon Strachan recently spoke of sitting in Glasgow
holding hands with his wife hoping it would get better, when first in
the Celtic manager’s job.
But look at the
physical changes that took place in Slaven Bilic, once one of the
coolest young managers in the game but who appeared to be collapsing
before our eyes before he was finally released from his West Ham
purgatory.
Before & After: Two years took their toll on Slaven Bilic
Likewise, Antonio
Conte – looking like an Italian film star on his arrival, exuding
confidence to the point of mania but latterly resembling someone
recounting his traumatic survival of an earthquake – one year after
winning the League on his first attempt.
Before & After: Antonio Conte
The Rangers is one
of the least forgiving and most unreasonable clubs in football and
Gerrard – neither an insider nor one whose England performances cut
much ice in Scotland – will discover this when unrealistic
expectations are not fulfilled.
Circumstantial evidence
But, more than this,
are the circumstantial factors.
According to the
media mania, his name alone will attract top-quality players and
investment has been promised.
But let’s look at
that rationally.
As recently as
Friday, Dave King couldn’t even state if the necessary investment
would be internal or external, claiming that it “didn’t matter”.
Now, far be it from
me to call King a glib and shameless liar, but the empirical evidence
is against this mystery investment existing.
A few weeks ago, The
Rangers signed a third-rate kit deal that was derided by a large
proportion of their own fans.
So, it seems safe to
assume that the club hadn’t even thought of signing Gerrard at the
time, as having such a big name manager on board – with exciting
signings to come – would surely have been a bargaining chip in
negotiations with Nike, Adidas or even New Balance.
Secondly, having
promised a manager “capable of delivering trophies”, just in time
to undermine Graeme Murty (and make this blogger’s concerns that
The Rangers would run Celtic close in the Scottish Cup semi-final
seem like frightful anxiety), King has appointed someone who can
offer no evidence of the same.
Again, that sounds
awfully like someone who had no idea that Gerrard would be boss, just
a couple of weeks ago.
And yet, with a
multi-million-pound war chest arriving any day now, The Rangers would
surely have felt confident of luring a manager who had actually won
something in the past – or at least managed a team – and who
would back up Dave’s promise of Silverado.
We are also invited
to believe that, on the cusp of a brave new era, two directors
decided that they wanted to bail out before the times got truly
exciting.
Add to this the
debt, the issues with the takeover panel, the need for stadium
repairs, etc. and the Steven Gerrard appointment looks more and more
like a swindle perpetrated on someone who knows little or nothing
about The Rangers or the Scottish game, aided and abetted by the most
ignorant and unscrupulous shower of reporters that have ever covered
any sport.
I’ve been wrong
before, of course – like when I thought that we would face a few
scares in the cup semi – but, at face value, this whole episode
looks not so much a damp squib as a custard pie primed with a banger,
ready to explode in a lot of faces.
Sympathy for the Red?
I suppose I could
sympathise with Gerrard, who seems to have displayed that
English-football arrogance of thinking that Scotland should be a
soft-touch and a shortcut to the top.
I suppose I could
predict that Brendan, Neil, Clarke, Robinson, Ross and even
McInnes or Levein will take great pleasure in bringing the big-shot
rookie down to earth, with a mixture of tactics, man-management and
experience at the coal face, and that we should go easy on someone
who has been pretty inoffensive, thus far.
