GoD is dead. Beware false profits

Overall the key Company objective remains football success, as this will greatly assist revenue generation.
Celtic Chief Executive, Peter Lawwell

Once upon a time, in a land shrouded in myth, Celtic were promised a Generation of Domination.

The term was catchy and carried the allure of some days of recompense when Celtic fans would enjoy success, as some compensation for a near-decade of misery in which our rivals across the city - through double-dealing for sure - arrogantly taunted us as second-class citizens in a very parochial Scottish football world.

And for a moment, cutting through the hyperbole, things were looking good. True, the Celtic spin machine was lying to us all the way. For example, one master of figure-juggling told us that Gordon Strachan had won three titles in a row for only the third time in the club's history. And some swallowed that whole, apparently forgetting the fact that one Jock Stein had achieved three-in-a-row three times consecutively and Willie Maley had done the same twice.

For those peddling such nonsense, though, past victories had to be diminished to make a more modest achievement, impressive though it was, seem all the more remarkable. That Celtic's decline should be contrived on 5th August 2008 could hardly have been predicted by anyone. That was the day that had fans enjoying the discomfort of their rivals on hearing the scoreline: FC Kaunas 2-1 Rangers.

Rangers exited the Champions League and Celtic could only prosper from their misery, exploit their weakness and march into the Generation of Domination, securing an advantage that might never be overturned. But others at Celtic thought differently and having briefed their "independent" friends in Celtic cyberspace, we started to hear of the value of "banked cash".

Ambitious transfer plans were shelved as it was expected that more modest outlay would secure title number four.

And, despite clear difficulties on the field, despite the fact that Gordon Strachan had told Peter Lawwell that he was in his last season, something that was kept from the fans, it looked that another title might be won, such was Rangers' parlous state. Some expressed anxiety going into the infamous Willo Flood transfer window that the directors and executives thought that serious investment would not be required, a seven-point gap having been established at the top of the table.

The title was lost and, with it, Champions League revenue. They repeated the feat again, and again. We now hear little from Celtic media about how dominant a team has to be to win three titles in a row because that has the converse implication that to lose three consecutively establishes a team as firmly second-best.

All this to a club whose imminent financial collapse has been offered a comfort to Celtic fans, skirting over the shocking state a club must be in to be bested three times by rivals in financial crisis.

One thing alone has justified the near-silence from Celtic fans as the club's ethics and values have been dismantled and its directors praised for pursuing a strategy that brought few trophies, less European income, and found fewer fans willing to buy tickets. That is the debt of loyalty fans owe Neil Lennon.

But when the manager of Burnley turned down the chance to manage the club he loves so that we were left with a man who came cheap but just had his team relegated, applause from the gallery and praise of the fat-cats picking up bonuses was a dereliction of duty. Neil Lennon was given the job and has done about as well as anyone could in the circumstances.

It is those circumstances, brought about by a criminal neglect of our club, dishonestly reported and accepted by noveau riche market-watchers, that should have all Celtic fans raging with anger. John Reid leaves a club that hasn't been Scottish champions since 2008 celebrating. If there was any fire left amongst the Celtic support, he and his cosy circle would have been hounded out long ago.

Celtic are now about accounts first, media spin second and football third. Game on.

--

New Celtic lies and spin can't mask abject failure

Wade through the euphemisms, the obscure language and the evasive waffle and Celtic's interim accounts, published yesterday, represent a total failure of the heralded strategy at Celtic Park.

So catastrophic has this been that, in any other company, the Chief Executive and chairman of the Board of Directors would be looking for new jobs.

Let's get one thing straight. Celtic chose not to invest adequately in the team during season 2008-10. Their rationale was this – that it would be in the club's financial interests to be “prudent”, to reduce debt and favour “banked cash”. Those of us who pointed to the fact that failure to invest in strengthening a defective squad would lead to us losing out on future revenues were decried as reckless or naïve.

The prevailing wisdom as espoused by that new breed inhabiting an increasingly notorious supporters' blog (it may be noted that an “independent” fan's site was able to publish the figures even before the official club website) was that this policy equated to wise stewardship of the club and it's much-vaunted pursuit of “zero debt”.

Well, while the accountants, the politicians, the spin merchants and their allies have been carrying on their programme of obfuscation, let's address some simple facts:

Debt increased from £0.97m to £3.13m
Turnover decreased by 22.8% to £36.11m

Perhaps it is time for someone at Celtic with the integrity, honesty or “moral courage” to confess that some of those fans who were so long taken for granted as fools, easily parted from their money, were right.

Celtic lost out on approximately £2m that would have been earned from the Peace Cup alone – due to the club's failure to win the SPL and automatic Champions League participation.

Celtic lost out on somewhere between £5m and £8 from Champions League participation.

The club also missed out on prize money that should have been attainable from the Scottish Cup and SPL title.

Now, while we await the accountants producing their boxes of tricks to tell us that around £10m in prize money and participation fees would not have wiped out £3.13m debts and left £6.87m over for player investment, let's look at the other elephant in the room.

Celtic plc – Dermond, Reid, Lawwell, Riley et al – calculated that they could pursue this policy and still expect Celtic fans to fund an approach that had abandoned the principles of competition, never mind the sporting traditions of Celtic. They were catastrophically wrong as attendances have shown.

They can point to the success of the away kit (conveniently overlooking the “international kit” that is unlikely to be needed any time soon) but more pertinent is the fact that increasingly the direction of Celtic resembles the flight of the bumblebee.

We are asked to believe that it is the “sustainable economic and business model” and financial stability” that “has delivered the continuing support of our kit manufacturer, Nike”.

And to think some of us thought that Nike invested in high-profile clubs with positive brand associations. We now know that they do not value a worldwide fan base and successful participation on the European stage but are instead keen to invest in businesses with the least radical accounting practices.

When the lies, selectively presented facts and evasion have passed. What will be left of Celtic?

--

Missing in action – the men who want your season ticket money

In a commercial master-stroke to match the launch of a new kit the day after a pivotal defeat to the R-word, Celtic announced today that they would be opening the ticket office for three hours to allow for final season ticket renewals.

The sensible Celtic fan will have stayed at home.

Why? Because season tickets have deprived Celtic supporters of influence at the club. As long as a few absurd rumours can be touted around renewal time, promising better things to come, the club gets in its ticket revenue for the season in advance and then cheerfully ignores the wishes of the fans.

We can moan and shout and some even boo but mere expressions of dissatisfaction do nothing to bring about change because the people in power don't care what we think. There is at Celtic such an obsession with the bottom line, with building the brand and managing assets that a new type of supporter has been born – one who can accept defeat on the field if it can be argued that a strategic long-term benefit from the plc may be accrued.

Some people get excited by watching numbers change – like day traders fascinated by stock market tickers. But the day that Celtic's primary focus is on revenue rather than old-fashioned competitive entertaining football, the club as we know it will be dead.

The apologists for Dermot Desmond, Peter Lawwell and John Reid would argue that aiming for the Champions League is not so important given the revenue-generating and co-efficient opportunities from the Europa League. That's why you shouldn't trust them.

Some people can only appreciate commodities that can be quantified in numbers. That is not what Celtic was founded for and if we are to remain the most special club in the world, the supporters must take ownership of the club we love.

The only way to do that is to exert the only pressure the executives appreciate – make them earn our money. There is nothing wrong with going to games on a pay-as-you-watch basis. That way, the continued acquisition of income depends on keeping the fans satisfied.

Likewise, if anyone wants to buy the shirt with the tartan boxers, they are welcome to do so but merchandise and other items such as snacks at the games, etc. are, like football tickets, grossly over-priced and reductions in sales will make a significant statement. They don't acquire our money by divine right.

Some will say that this can only damage the club, limiting spending power.

To that I say two things:

• The people running our club have shown that they cannot be trusted to invest properly in the team when fans have freely given them cash up front.

• The long-term expediency strategists' argument can be turned against them – it is better to take a stand now and force the board's hand than to continually acquiesce until our club reaches footballing oblivion.

We are still hearing that our “net spend” is higher than others and certainly the flawed squad should have been able to secure the SPL title. However, only a Philadelphia lawyer could argue that the failure to recruit a striker and left-back represented anything other than negligence.

In the meantime, the political nous of our chairman continues to set the tone: when there is trouble brewing, keep your head down and your name out of the story. It is a cowardly response that Lawwell and Desmond have happily adopted, following the lead of a man who makes David Murray seem trustworthy in comparison.

But Celtic is our club – and they better not forget it.






--

Time for recriminations? Damned right!

As the improbable became the inevitable, Celtic's capitulation to arguably the worst team ever to be Scottish champions presents a clear case for a change of personnel. That starts with the manager.

For three and a half seasons, this blog supported Gordon Strachan. Recent months, however, have raised questions about his attitude to the job, his ability to field a winning team and, frankly, his loyalty.

That Strachan was not accepted by a section of Celtic supporters is old news. In that, he was often a victim of fans' ridiculous petulance. But he also occasionally fed the critics through gross immaturity.

Few Celtic supporters had any sympathy for the journalists he sent packing with fleas in their ears – we know they revel in criticising all things Celtic. But Strachan failed to grasp the fact that he was also addressing the fans. Snippy one-liners directed at hacks may be well and good if he was communicating with the supporters elsewhere – for example through Celtic's website. Failure to do so seemed to indicate a lack of respect for the people who, for good or ill, make Celtic what it is.

The closing of ranks between manager and players might also be admirable in its own way if it was accompanied by acceptable results and performances. Unfortunately, though, that was not the case. Continually defending players after draws and defeats leads a club perilously close to accepting second-best. Not good enough for Celtic.

Furthermore, there were some absurd decisions over the past season. Squad rotation of middleweight players was an abject failure. Keeping faith with the talented but increasingly out of his depth Marc Crosas was as ill advised as was the bizarre decision to play Gary Caldwell in midfield. Dropping Aiden McGeady in favour of Shaun Maloney (whose return has been shown to be a mistake) at Ibrox was just one more unfathomable move that was an utter failure.

Even yesterday, needing a goal for some semblance of respectability, he replaced Scott McDonald with Maloney, one of the most absurd decisions of his managerial reign before he reached for Willo Flood, a move that was symbolic of a man who had run out of ideas long ago.

True, he was badly let down by directors and a Chief Executive, who were too damned smart for their own good in trying to keep Celtic a hair's breadth ahead of an abysmal Rangers team. Peter Lawwell, Dermot Desmond, John Reid and all their apologists fully deserve every bit of the abuse that will assuredly be hurled in their direction. Their briefings to certain supporters' websites in a transparent attempt to manage information have represented an underhand tactic that insults the intelligence of Celtic fans. They have failed the club and would do us all a favour by moving on to pastures new.

But there comes a point where the manager must stop meekly accepting under-investment because of his great friendship with Peter Lawwell and demand the best for the club. The world and his wife could see that we needed another striker and a left-back yet we spent an entire season with the most ineffective front line we have had since we were relying on the likes of Tommy Coyne and Andy Paton for goals. Still, he loaned out Cillian Sheridan though he has no time for Ben Hutcheson, leaving us with hopelessly inept forwards. Jan Vennegoor of Hesselink has shown that his race is run as a footballer while Georgious Samaras would be better taking up a career on the catwalk where his aimless strutting would be more appropriate. Scott McDonald found some form but far too late for the campaign as a whole.

It was naïve to say the least to rely on friendship with Lawwell, who would cheerfully hang Strachan out to dry if it made his life easier (and there is good reason to believe he was using at least one of those supporters' websites to do just that). Lawwell is a survivor and such people rarely reciprocate loyalty when their neck is on the line.

The country will now be represented in Europe by a club known as Scotland's Shame and one which is a national embarrassment. Finishing second to such garbage makes Strachan's position untenable.






--

Rotten to the core. Scottish football: of the peepul, by the peepul, for the peepul

Forget the corruption jibes against Italian, Eastern European or South American football. It has become increasingly evident in recent years that Scottish football is rotten to the core.

Take the Chief Executive of the Scottish Football Association, the Chairman of the Scottish Premier League and the Chief Executive of the Scottish Professional Footballers' Association and they have one glaring thing in common: all three are former Rangers players. This is such an astonishing imbalance that it would shame Ceaucescu's Romania or Saddam Hussein's Iraq but is easily overlooked, given the fact that the Scottish media routinely ignores the issue.

Is it a coincidence that all three bodies have contrived in recent seasons to materially affect the outcome of the Scottish Premier League Championship in favour of Rangers? And, today, true to form, they continue their naked corruption with the approval of the Scottish news industry.

Cast your mind back to the end of last season where one extension was not enough for Rangers. In an unprecedented act of duplicity, the SFA's (former Rangers player) Gordon Smith and George Peat secretly met with Rangers officials and offered to move the date of the Scottish Cup Final, briefing the Daily Record in the process to present the move as a fait accompli.

In doing so, they disregarded the rules of their own association without consulting any member clubs, including Queen of the South who were Scottish Cup finalists. And crucially, this move could not benefit Rangers in their UEFA Cup final campaign – it could only benefit their SPL challenge.

The attempted intervention was an outrageous act of duplicity yet acting against the interests of one of the competing member clubs – Celtic, of course – was allowed to pass without censure for the officials.

At the same time, the SPFA's (former Rangers player) Fraser Wishart, a man paid as a trade union official under the umbrella of the GMB, actively supported a full season extension, again without consulting his members, even though it was against the interests of those who paid his wages.

Take any unionised company or organisation in the United Kingdom and see what happens when they arbitrarily announce, at short notice, an illegal reduction in holidays without consultation. Any union would immediately threaten action. But Wishart, acting in favour of Rangers against the interests of his own members, actively supported an extension that could see hundreds of players having to cancel holidays without compensation, never mind affecting European Championship preparations, all for the sake of trying to help Rangers win the SPL.

No reference has yet been seen in the Scottish mainstream media querying Wishart's role or, for example, his publicly disavowing the actions of his own members when they happen to play for Celtic. In any real trade union, he would have been dismissed.

The SPL, led by (former Rangers player) Lex Gold, at the time agreed to one extension, specifically defying UEFA's continent-wide instructions to finish the season on time due to the Euro 2008 championships. It was a move that was opposed by Celtic and defied the SPL's own rules but it was largely supported by the mainstream media in Scotland, those who like to claim they are the arbiters of common sense, even if their diction and attire suggest that most of their “journalists” would be better suited to selling knocked-off bottles of suntan lotion.

This season, the SPL contrived to allow Rangers to play Scotland's third-best team, Hearts, three times at Ibrox Park, excusing the actions in such fanciful terms that they could only be believed by a proponent of the seven-day-creationism school of science.

Again, this materially affected the run-in to the SPL and was largely supported by the Scottish media.

Further hitherto unheard-of actions have been undertaken by our referees. For the first time in several decades, referees have been publicly punished for “dubious” decisions, the head referee, Don McVicar having abandoned his practice of defending officials in the face of club attacks when decisions were seen to go against Rangers or in favour of Celtic.

The most obvious example of this was the removal of Iain Brines (who has no fan on this blog) after accusations emanating from Rangers that they had been hard done by. This is the same club whose former manager in his “132 years of unsurpassed dignity” rant insisted that nobody at Rangers would ever question the integrity of an official.

Walter Smith publicly implied bias by assistant referee Tom Murphy, again without sanction or comment from McVicar, even though he was forced to send Murphy a written apology which was unreported in the Scottish newspapers and broadcast media.

Finally, in recent weeks, two Celtic players have been referred to the SFA to consider further sanctions over incidents that referees thought unworthy of attention at the time while we are now told that the Rangers and media campaign to free Madjid Bougherra for the last match of the season has been successful.

This is in the face of one of the most appalling pieces of cheating by a footballer in recent years, Kyle Lafferty's dive to have a fellow professional sent off and regardless of the fact that Bougherra's studs are clearly shown to have made strong contact with the head of Aberdeen goalkeeper Jamie Langfield. Smith and Smith have clearly been in consultation again as the SFA Chief Executive has now praised the Ibrox club for fining Lafferty in a move that was intended only to pave the way for Bougherra's reinstatement.

And let's not forget Rangers' flouting of international anti-doping legislation in using pain-killing injections to allow them to field injured players or the dismissal by Gordon Smith of Rangers fans racist chanting, even though it strained international diplomatic relations between the UK and Ireland.

In the meantime, Celtic officials remain silent, save for one letter requesting “clarification” of the SPL post-split schedule. We have a former Home Secretary as Chairman, who apparently sees fit to allow the combined forces of Rangers and their allies to continually move the goalposts for the benefit of the Ibrox club.

We have a billionaire major shareholder, who may or may not be aware of these things from the sun-drenched tax haven of Gibraltar and we have a Chief Executive who has learned from Reid to keep his head down when there is flak flying, regardless of the detriment to the club that pays him handsomely.

It would appear that the parlous state of R-word's finances have led to desperate measures by the Scottish football and media fraternities to support them, rather than observe fair play. Celtic should – but won't – refer the entire matter of the administration of Scottish football to UEFA.

It seems that only Celtic fans have the interests of Celtic at heart.





--

Three key players who wrecked Celtic’s European dreams

Celtic fans have rightly sneered in recent times at the increasingly crude media management employed by David Murray and his Media House cronies, using second-rate Play-Doh hacks to deflect attention from the behaviour of Rangers fans.

Celtic have been much more subtle. Peter Lawell, for example, is a much more shrewd operator than Murray (and could teach him a thing or two about dignity). But that’s not to say that certain figures at Celtic have made less strenuous efforts to spin their way out of the public eye when the club’s failings have been concerned.

And chief victim of this is Gordon Strachan. Has Strachan made mistakes? Is he often too reluctant to make attacking changes? Could he sometimes be described as too much a coach and not enough of an old-fashioned manager? Undoubtedly.

Has he been a Chief Executive’s dream? You betcha!

Let’s be clear about one thing – Celtic, above the coaching level, did not plan for the last 16 of this season’s Champions League. The club calculated for a lucrative UEFA Cup run and championship-winning season.

They watched a pitiful Rangers side clump to a final in Manchester and said: “We’ll have some of that.”

How do we know this? Because Celtic’s unofficial channels that explain away policies before they have even become official told us so before a ball was kicked in anger. When the club was crying out for the left back and striker the fans expected, suddenly the focus turned to “cash in the bank”, and “financial consolidation” keeping us ahead of our domestic rivals for the foreseeable future. It was then that speculation turned to the benefits of a UEFA Cup run in comparison to one more round in the Champions League against a club we had little hope of beating. This does not happen by accident.

Well, when you aim for second best, you very often end up with nothing.

Now, however, the same “insiders” are telling us that, whatever else may be wrong at Celtic, lack of investment in the team isn’t one of them. “Net spend” is relatively high, we hear. The implication is clear – Peter Lawwell, Dermot Demond and John Reid aren’t to blame; Gordon Strachan is.

It is a shoddy way to treat a manager who has continually delivered success under extreme financial constraints and sung the praises of his “friends” at the club in the process.

Did Strachan, who maintains the most detailed database of players, say he didn’t want another left-back, additional top quality central defender and proven goalscorer? If he did, he should come out and say so. If instead he was forced to accept that sufficient funds would be unavailable, those who made that decision should be held accountable.

Strachan still has and always will have fans who compare him unfavourably to Martin O’Neill. How would he have reacted to this?

I suspect that he would have publicly embarrassed the officials who were failing to support him. I doubt that he would have quietly acquiesced while players like Du Wei were foisted upon him to “appeal to the Chinese market”. I wonder if he would have sat back while players like Marc Crosas (admittedly a good addition) were delivered in deals that were conducted in the board room without the coaching staff being asked for an opinion.

You can be certain that O’Neill would have raised the roof if he suspected that private briefings were being issued to have the blame laid entirely at his door while those who frustrated his attempts to improve the squad were exonerated.

I suspect that this will be Gordon Strachan’s last season at Celtic, though I hope I am wrong. If that is the plan, then some figures at Celtic may think they have little to lose in feeding him to the piranhas to enable them to hide.

It is true that some fans judge ambition only on the size of the transfer fee paid for “wow signings”. It also appears that, whatever the financial climate, some of the recent calls for prudence would have been more appropriate to the last Chancellor of the Exchequer than the former Home Secretary. There is a middle ground – sign better players than you have and build the squad you need.

Notably, Celtic’s own website has only two news items on the exit from Europe. The names Reid, Lawwell and Desmond are not mentioned. They should not, however, believe that underhand tactics will fool all of the people all of the time.






--

Keep politics - and poppies - out of football

In these times when supporters are urged to keep politics and football separate, it is unfortunate that an SPL dictat will see all players forced to wear a poppy during matches this weekend.

More disappointing is the foolish and insensitive actions of Celtic’s representatives at SPL level, apparently waving through this decision with as much resistance as is met by teenaged neds encroaching on the pitch on Champions League nights.

Predictably, and understandably, Irish supporters have expressed their concern. The Association of Irish Celtic Supporters' Clubs was quoted as saying in their statement:

“While respectful of the symbolism of the poppy in Britain and keeping in mind those Celtic players, employees and supporters who either lost their lives or those of family members and friends in war, we are disappointed at this decision (apparently taken without consultation with supporters' groups) in light of the fact that the poppy is seen as a more divisive symbol in Ireland where many Celtic supporters are based and from where many others claim their heritage.

“Many supporters in general and members of the AICSC in particular will have wholly negative views of the British army's operations in Ireland and, indeed, have also lost their lives or those of family members and friends as a result. We feel that they too should be remembered at this time and regret the potentially divisive nature of this weekend's planned initiative.”

The AICSC statement was measured and appropriate, not least in recognising that players and fans fought in those wars, a practice that was supported by no less than Willie Maley.

However, with respect to the club’s thousands of Irish supporters, Peter Lawwell and John Reid might have focussed on other interests of even more direct relevance to their responsibilities. That is to Celtic players themselves.

It is quite conceivable that Celtic could have four Irish nationals, a German, an Italian and a Japanese player featuring in this weekend’s match against Motherwell.

Even given the disdain with which the sensitivities of the Irish are routinely dismissed in Scotland, did Celtic officials consider the dilemmas posed to players like Massimo Donati, Andreas Hinkel or Shunsuke Nakamura to be forced to wear a symbol in remembrance only of those who were engaged in war against their ancestors and countrymen?

How, one wonders, would it be received if Nakamura was to instead prefer to wear a chrysanthemum or any player wear a white poppy as a symbol of peace?

It is every nation’s right to remember those who died in its armed forces, whether in defence of the nation or in blindly pursuing the political aims of its government. For that reason, audible or visual protests are not appropriate on these occasions.

However, questions must be asked of the Celtic hierarchy – not to mention those of other clubs. Did anyone ask Andrius Velicka or any of the other Lithuanian players in Scotland how they feel about the poppy, given that their country fought against the Russians during WWI?

What about Andis Shala, a Kosovar German playing for Dundee Utd?

Does anyone care about the feelings of the many Irish internationals at Dundee Utd and elsewhere, instructed to honour men who became Black & Tans or who were serving when Lloyd George threatened “an immediate and terrible war” in 1921, not to mention those who took part in the summary executions of the 1916 rebels?

Only those with Britain’s famed insularity could fail to recognise that wearing a poppy – while quite acceptable for those who choose to do so – has oppressive political connotations for those whose national loyalties and familial interest in the wars lie elsewhere.

That Celtic – and every other club – should fail to defend the interests of their own employees in such a matter is a disgrace.

The Scottish Poppy Appeal does a great deal of fine work for men and women who are deserving of the support of their nation.

That does not mean that anyone should be required to wear a symbol that, above all, celebrates victory in this the most obsessed of nations with its wartime past “glories”.

One need only witness the abuse directed at those who choose not to wear a poppy – or to wear a white poppy symbolising a commitment to peace – to understand that this is an intrinsically political statement

Is it really so much worse to sing The Boys of the Old Brigade (a song your writer would deprecate in any Celtic context)?

Given that our chairman, according to George Galloway, was once known to make it his business to educate new old Labour recruits in the Irish Republican songbook before going on to be an enthusiastic protagonist in Britain’s illegal wars, it is perhaps unsurprising that Celtic officials display a split personality disorder on this issue – even to the extent of neglecting the interests of their own employees.

The Celtic supporters, who better understand the identity of the club are likely to be less negligent, even if this is one occasion for silent dissent.





--

Smith, remember Farry; Reid, remember McCann

Today the integrity of Scottish football’s governing body, the SFA, is in tatters.

Just days after Rangers withdrew four players from George Burley’s first Scotland squad it emerges that Barry Robson not only reported for duty, he insisted that he was fit and desperate to play.

Despite this, he was overruled by former Rangers club doctor, Stuart Hillis, citing a knee injury that Robson’s own club manager didn’t know about and the player himself was convinced did not affect his fitness to play.

The result was media coverage lumping Robson together with four Rangers players – all of whom were declared fit for club duty on the evening of the match.

Predictably, SFA Chief Executive Gordon Smith has had nothing to say. Rarely found wanting a crass or inflammatory comment, Smith’s credibility has been in shreds almost since he was given the job.

• He implied that cheating was part of the culture of Lithuania and Slovenia

• Was found to have contributed to a book citing Catholic education as a factor in football bigotry

• Falsely claimed that every football club had complained to him about cheating

• When challenged, falsely claimed that he had been misquoted by journalists, an allegation he was forced to retract

• Has made the deluded claim that all criticism of him can be attributed solely to his association with Rangers and stated that he can disregard comment on his actions from football fans based on the assumption that he is being personally targeted as a “confident” former Rangers player

However, when it has been suggested that the SFA have colluded with Rangers to rest their players and at the same time undermined Barry Robson’s international career to manage the negative publicity that the moves would attract, Smith remains silent.

Let’s be clear: if Gordon Smith can question the integrity of two UEFA football associations, it is quite proper to question the integrity of the body that he is currently so badly mismanaging.

Smith cannot dismiss legitimate questions based on nothing other than his paranoid insistence that his status as a former Rangers player and his confident nature attract malicious comment.

Celtic have consistently found that integrity and commitment to Scotland leaves the club at a disadvantage faced with an association that discards all standards of fair play at the behest of its favourite club.

Recent manifestations of this have been absurd anomalies in disciplinary sanctions being taken against players and officials at Celtic and Rangers.

The last time that a Scottish official’s action blatantly favoured Rangers over Celtic – when Jim Farry deliberately withheld Jorge Cadete’s registration making him ineligible to play against Rangers – Fergus McCann let it be known that the Scottish League itself would find itself in court if it did not take appropriate action. Farry was sacked.

It cannot be that the current incumbents at Celtic Park, one of whom led the country into war and one of whom has been credited with being a vital contributor to a national economic revival, along with shareholders who operate at the highest level of international commerce can sit idly by while the interests of Celtic are being undermined.

John Reid, Dermot Desmond and Peter Lawwell must challenge the SFA directly: either produce a legitimate justification for its recent actions or find itself answering before UEFA.

In particular, some key questions should be addressed:

• Why has the SFA declined to enforce the rule allowing it to bar players from playing for their clubs when they have withdrawn from their international squad in midweek?
  

• If the Rangers injuries were legitimate, why were no other Rangers players called in as replacements, Cardiff City’s Gavin Rae, for example, being preferred to Kevin Thomson?

• If Barry Robson was so badly injured that he was unable to even remain with the Scotland squad despite his protests, why was the usual process of consultation with the player’s club disregarded? Evidently, communication between the Scotland team and Rangers management and medical staff had taken place.

Such responsibility cannot be left to Gordon Strachan, who has already been targeted by the SFA, most notably by the referee at Ibrox tomorrow, and who has faced the indignity of having a national bookmaker run a special bet on the possibility of his being sacked by Sunday night.

To fail to address this is to let down Strachan, whose career prospects are affected, as well as Barry Robson, whose opportunities have come late in his career only to find himself the victim of the most absurd brand of politics.

It is also obvious that holding high office at Celtic is not just an honour – it comes with responsibility to innumerable supporters the world over.

• One other thing – we criticise reporters when they unfairly attack our club but it only right to mention that Keith Jackson is the only Scottish journalist who has so far highlighted the issues in this case. Praise where it’s due and all that!

Celtic, politics and war crimes a bad mix

Yesterday, the headlines brought a load of jitters for Celtic supporters with fears – that the club tried hard to allay – that Shunsuke Nakamura might leave; and for only £1million. We are entitled to our cold sweats on such occasions as there are two main types of Celtic fan: those who love Nakamura and those who prefer other clubs.

But, in the best traditions of political spin, a potentially more damaging blow was floated in the press and played down by mainstream media and independent fan sites alike. That was the credible suggestion that the Right Honourable Dr John Reid MP might be offered a place on the board of directors at Celtic Park.

Let us be clear on one thing – Reid’s Celtic-mindedness is not in question as anyone who has witnessed the super-smooth passing of his vehicle to the main doors of the stadium will testify. The fact of his being ushered to his place with such efficiency shouldn’t irk horn-tooting Celtic fans too much – Special Branch takes charge of that sort of thing, with Protectevent left to deal with the lower-risk targets.

But in an era when Celtic fans have rightly enjoyed – if not always fully recognised – the fact that we now rarely need fear the back pages of a red-top press dominated by a desire to define our club as in crisis, the Kerrydale Street suits have taken a monumental risk. Or to be more figuratively melodramatic – they have thrown a loaded gun in the air and invited the unidentified catcher to do as they please.

With such a dangerously bad plan, it is difficult to know where to start in highlighting exactly why such a decision would be so wrong. So let’s focus on the uncertainty – the fact that no-one will confirm or deny such a proposition exists. From a cynic’s point of view, that all seems very in keeping with the New Labour style Reid so readily adopted – float controversial proposals with an unsubstantiated off-the-record briefing and test the public response, particularly when there is a more engaging story to capture the attention.

If that is the case, the relative lack of media interest will only convince Reid, Peter Lawwell, Brian Quinn and Dermot Desmond that such a move will be accepted by fans and a Scottish news industry that has been in the pocket of the Labour party for decades.

But what does Reid bring: political contacts and nous? Certainly, he self-evidently has all of those in spades, hence his rise to the roles of Health Minister, Home Secretary, Minister of Defence and Secretary of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Balancing that has been a “combative” style that has been likened to a Rottweiler’s, aggressive attempts to bully dissenters into submission and a contempt for debate on matters of such trivia as international law; of life and death.

The latter issue should be of greatest concern to Celtic directors, sponsors and supporters. Let’s not forget that history – and many still hope an international court – may yet judge key figures in our government to be war criminals due to its illegal invasion of Iraq, against the will of the British people and at the cost of thousands of innocent lives, not to mention Scottish soldiers. John Reid has been one of the most ruthless proponents of this indefensible calamity. Is it supported by even a sizeable minority of Celtic fans?

Do our supporters in North America, where distaste for the war is growing rapidly, feel the need for one of Tony Blair’s arch henchmen to take a position of honour and influence at Celtic? Will Reid help promote the Celtic “brand” worldwide in countries where his beloved war is reviled?

What does all this promise of Reid’s sensitivity and sympathy towards the feelings of fans? True, he once made a shamefully misguided attempt at populism as the former health minister who urged that people should be left to smoke. That sort of blunt knife approach to public opinion has largely been eradicated from Celtic since the wreckage of the Kelly-White era was salvaged to create a modern corporation that understood how to communicate.

The suits at Celtic have done remarkably well in recent years in turning around a club that routinely got a kicking on and off the football field.

That they should even contemplate entertaining the contemptible practices of tobacco companies and comparable organisations seeking to use old-pals leverage for political gains without regard to the views of the people who support the club smacks of a small group of men who are in danger of losing touch catastrophically.

Few politicians rise to the heady levels Reid has enjoyed without dirt or blood on their hands. He has been no noble exception. Hearts made a similarly audacious move with the, by comparison, angelic George Foulkes. Presumably this example impressed some of the powers that be at Celtic.

Finally, it is perhaps only proper to apologise to Celtic supporters for, on this occasion, rejecting Peter Lawwell’s request to disassociate Celtic from politics. If we hear no more talk of Reid’s involvement at Celtic, it might be easier to comply in future.

John Reid on Wikipedia

George Galloway on John Reid