Desmond and Lawwell: the unacceptable faces of Celtic

Lawwell briefed every friendly hack, ex-Celtic employee and blogging shill that the supporters could stick their views where the sun don't shine

I freely admit that I've had mixed feelings about the Green Brigade.

They have undoubtedly improved the atmosphere at Celtic Park – most of the time – their displays are often magnificent and I generally share most of their politics.

On the other hand, I sometimes feel that they believe themselves to be the self-appointed heart and conscience of Celtic; they can be too eager to be seen as European-style “ultras” (with that “style” perhaps more important than substance) and their displays sometimes miss the mark, occasionally to the club's overall detriment.

I was not in favour of their “Time to go, Neil” demonstration at Celtic Park last Wednesday. Not because I disagreed with the message but because it seemed like just the sort of action that, not so long ago, ultras of another local club would have pulled to the great amusement of Celtic supporters, as another episode of the “banter years”.

But, as a fan who has had almost no faith in the powers-that-be at Celtic for well in excess of a decade, even I had failed to anticipate the extent and brazenness of the contempt that the Celtic suits were prepared to direct towards the supporters. 

Thousands of supporters had paid hundreds of pounds for season tickets for matches that there was never any real prospect of attending because they wanted to support the club through extraordinary times and help secure the ten-in-a-row record that matters to those of us who care about football. 

Many more had spent eye-watering sums on Adidas kit – which is lovely – but, unless donned by players performing to the standards that should be expected of a Celtic team, is nothing better than lipstick on a pig.

I, for one, was not in the least surprised by the capitulation to Ross County last weekend. Admittedly, I had been taken aback by some of the worst European performances in my lifetime, suffering back-to-back 4-1 defeats by a Sparta Prague side that is, frankly, not a good team.

But as a veteran of the now-infamous 1990s, I know a team that has the Indian Sign over it and this Celtic side definitely qualifies. When a team is in this type of form, naïve fans hope that one good performance will turn it around while others know it usually goes from bad to worse.

So, I had every sympathy with those Celtic fans who got off their backsides and told the Directors, coaches and players what they thought of the whimpering defeat by Ross County.

Were there some regrettable moments? Yes – but spontaneous displays of anger are, by their nature, difficult to control and the essence of the demo was to confront the many impostors currently benefiting from the cash eternally pumped in by the fans with the feelings of the majority of fans.

In response, Lawwell briefed every friendly hack, ex-Celtic employee and blogging shill that the supporters could stick their views where the sun don't shine.

So, my views of the latest Green Brigade banner are more supportive. I have chosen to crop out the image of Neil Lennon because he does still deserve some consideration for his overall contribution to Celtic.

However, he assuredly does not deserve to be Celtic manager. 

Neil can remind us of all he has done over twenty years and he is right. He has, in the past, endured obscene abuse for being a Celtic captain and manager who had the temerity to be an “uppity Tim” in a country that is still nowhere near as welcoming to some communities as many of its citizens would like to believe.

But that doesn't mean that he has the credentials to lead a club that its fans would still like to believe should be a major player on the European scene.

Let's make no mistake – this isn't about the ending of any possibility of a “quintuple treble” – and the quadruple is no formality. (If Ross County was Lennon's Caley Thistle, Hearts could easily prove to be his Raith Rovers.)

This is about an ever-more power-crazed Chief Executive, so determined to control every facet of the club that he has now sabotaged the dressing room. Anyone who has ever worked for one of those managers who prefers to sow division in their own department – making each appointee beholden to them personally – will understand how toxic and fatal to aspirations of success that is.

Lennon is a problem because he is not up to the job; though his reluctance to give up his last big opportunity in football is somewhat understandable.

Peter Lawwell is a problem because he increasingly appears to be a narcissistic megalomaniac, who would cheerfully watch Celtic disintegrate as long as his bonus was paid and no one challenged his monumental ego.

And above the two of them, Dermot Desmond is a problem because he doesn't give a dam about football, never mind Celtic, but sees the club as a means to getting even more money through getting Celtic into another league and turning his investment from lead into gold.

Much is unacceptable about Celtic now – the performances, the professionalism, the attitude of some players, the coaching set-up and the manager.

If there is another demo at Celtic Park on Sunday, the main targets will be Peter Lawwell and Dermot Desmond – the real unacceptable faces of Celtic Football Club.--

Celtic's Bolingoli fiasco – one idiot, many culprits

Rather than continually waiting for the next act of stupidity or deliberate wrecking of the competitions, 
we should call for the charade to be ended and the season to be suspended now

Only a week ago the greatest problem vexing the minds of most Celtic fans was the awful prospect of signing a 33-year-old Steven Fletcher and the fearful possibility that he was being considered as a replacement for Odsonne Edouard.

And if a week is a long time in politics, it can seem like a lifetime in football.

Some of us thought we had problems on Sunday when a repeat of the performances we've seen all too often over the last two or three years at Rugby Park saw us dropping two points in our second game of the season.

The team showing was contemptible, Chris Jullien showed again why he won second prize in the wet paper bag fighting contest and there were serious questions over the approach of the coaching staff who have yet to find an answer to the Kilmarnock high press on their admittedly poor pitch.

If Jullien thought he would be the major talking point there were plenty of other contenders, namely the tiresome lack of availability of Tom Rogic, the paper-thin squad (particularly after the departure of Simunovic, thankfully, and Jonny Hayes), Bayo not being available and the mystery of Shved continuing.

Five substitutions should favour teams with stronger squads but with misfiring in all departments in a tactically hopeless mess, Neil Lennon clearly felt short of quality options to replace the underperforming players on show on Sunday.

Ironically one chink of light came in the form of Boli Bolingoli Nbombo who, coming on late, contributed to three good chances that our foxes in the box managed to foxup entirely.

Those few moments from Bolingoli were the equal of anything he has produced in his risible time at Celtic and if not quite a hurrah they will certainly represent his last contribution to the club.

The facts of what happened are indisputable. Bolingoli went on a moonlight jaunt to Spain for reasons as yet unclear and broke Covid-19 regulations, actually having the audacity to play at Rugby Park without telling anyone at the club about his exploits.

That provided Nicola Sturgeon and her SNP leadership cult with a perfect opportunity to indulge two of their great pleasures: deflecting from negative at media attention directed at the first minister and taking a swipe at Scottish football.

So, under pressure from the Joint Response Group, which was under the direction of Nicola Sturgeon, the SPFL decided to cancel Celtic's next 2 League games; one with Aberdeen who also had their Covid-19 issues.

If the facts of what happened are clear enough,  who's to blame and what should be done do not lend themselves so easily to such simplistic answers as might be imagined.

Bolingoli is certainly to blame. His actions were inexcusable and indefensible and no amount of apologies - sincere or otherwise - can mitigate those actions in any way.

He should certainly be punished to a far greater degree than the £480 fixed penalty notice imposed by police Scotland even if the apparent prompting of the Justice Minister, of whom the police are supposed to be independent, should cause concern.

In my view his punishment should be the maximum fine allowable under the rules as well as a substantial ban, preferably taking him beyond the next transfer window.

But simply ripping up his contract should not be an option. There were some suggestions on Twitter yesterday that Celtic could even sue him for breach of contract and recover some of ridiculous outlay they paid for a player who will surely go down as one of the worst purchases in the club's history.

To me, suing would be a step too far unless it could be proven that his trip (which looks very much like it was intended to discuss a transfer) was planned as some intricate scheme to get thrown out of Celtic. I doubt very much that he possesses is that intelligence.

On the other hand making a free agent of a £3m-pound footballer we dare not play - and who wants a move - would simply be rewarding a scurrilous activity that has already damaged Celtic and has been to the detriment and peril of Scottish football entirely.

Those actions should be non-starters but so, too, should be the suggestion of sending Bolingoli out on loan with an option to buy. That would be in the club's best financial interests but it would do nothing to protect the integrity of football or to protect Celtic or the game in general from potential sabotage through such reprehensible actions, in times of crisis, such as these.

Of course, the club must be careful to observe the law and not give Bolingoli any opportunity to leave through constructive dismissal or breach of contract. This is where the football authorities should show leadership and impose the most significant penalties within their powers.

But we should also remember that Bolingoli's culpability is not in any way diminished by having other targets in our sights.

The SPFL

It may been news to some that resisting the attempts of The Rangers to bring Scottish football to its knees - and force last season to be voided due to the pandemic - is not the same as endorsing the

leadership of the SPFL.

I do not and never have believed that this season would be completed.

Successfully completing the season might be possible in countries where there are clear policies and rules; effective, disciplined compliance and competent administration of the game.

Scotland is not one of those countries.

The SPFL may believe its guidelines are clear and that they can be sure that every club has communicated them effectively to young athletes of varied backgrounds, including different linguistic origins.

But there's a problem with that. With the best will in the world, it's difficult to convey a clear, simple message concerning complex and often vague conditions.

That may somewhat mitigate the actions of the Aberdeen players who went to pubs, legally opened and overcrowded, and found themselves in breach of distancing rules and guidelines over groups from more than 3 households.

And to Aberdeen's credit they did nothing to try to escape the consequences of their players' actions -  and were even quite ready to face what would surely have been a sound drubbing at the hands of a full-strength Celtic team, minus eight first-team players.

But the SPFL, having been quite frankly too afraid to punish the Rangers after fielding players without waiting for their covid-19 tests, have created an atmosphere in which it is difficult to know if any transgressions will be taken seriously, even in the unlikely event of every player understanding their responsibilities.

On top of that, the SPFL simply rolled over in the face of pressure from a government that has been hell-bent on attacking Scottish football ever since the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act was repealed.

Let's not forget that the government were threatening to intervene in Scottish football over crowd-control issues for more than a year, pre-covid-19, and now it has flexed its muscles over eight players in a pub and one player on a trip to Spain.

With weak-kneed leadership, being feart in the face of the Rangers and completely capitulating to the Scottish government, the SPFL and SFA have walked into a situation whereby the Scottish government can constantly threaten to bring the game crashing down.

And, if they can do so while apportioning the blame to others, they will.

SNP and Tories

Celtic are now in the unenviable position of being at the centre of an unedifying fight between the SNP and the Tories for the votes of the Rangers supporting loyalist Orange members of Scottish society.

We are often called paranoid but with buffoons such as Professor Adam Tomkins and Murdo Fraser openly courting the Rangers Supporters online; with their new Tory leader Douglas Ross insisting that he will still run the line in games; and on the other side with Ibrox Park being in the constituency of Nicola Sturgeon there is every reason to believe that damaging Celtic and stopping 10 in a row could be a major vote-winner fin next year's elections.

It doesn't help that Labour in the LibDems are so appallingly ineffective that nobody in their right mind would vote for them.

 

But, with the SNP, it seems that there is a genuine distaste for football and the football supporter. The Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, first introduced by Alex Salmond and defended to the hilt by Nicola Sturgeon criminalised ordinary actions in the context of football that would not be seen as illegal elsewhere. 

There is every reason to believe that football supporters are still considered an underclass in Scotland that is despised by the SNP.

It is also a convenient scapegoat while negative headlines are attached to the party or its leader.

Without strong, effective responses from the SPFL, including Peter Lawwell, who is on its board, Scottish football will continue to be battered by the Scottish government and Celtic will be the biggest losers.

Celtic

And as a club just what have Celtic done about all this? 

They issued the usual necessary statements against Bolingoli but have they done anything to defend the interests of the club and the fans? I see little evidence of that.

What they have done is completely capitulate when, without any requirement under the rules, our club has been penalised by politicians.

Thee club is exceptionally vocal when touting season tickets for matches that they know are unlikely to take place and even less likely to take place in front of fans. They indulge in wall-to-wall marketing of football strips, merchandise, Celtic media and every opportunity for the fan to put money into the clubs coffers. But when the fans need someone to stand up for them, Celtic - Dermot Desmond, Peter Lawwell and Ian Bankier - observe a "dignified silence".

While these people indulge in a high-stakes game of corporate Moneyball the last thing on their minds is the interests of the fans who simply want to see a strong team on the park playing on an even field. 

And what no one in the media - mainstream or independent -seems to have asked is did anyone in Scottish football really believe that this season would be completed when they were selling season tickets in advance.

It defies all expectations of scientists and public health professionals and I for one believe that together they have perpetrated one of the biggest frauds in sport

The people who run Celtic are a disgrace but they have been enabled.

Fans

But the fans also have to take some share of the blame.

Firstly, by the annual act of faith of buying 53,000 season tickets, clearing the shelves of strips and pouring money into the club all on promises that are rarely fulfilled.

Yes we have won 9 titles in a row and that is a memorable achievement. It theoretically puts us in a similar category to Bayern Munich, who have achieved the same in the Bundesliga, and one step ahead of Juventus and New Quay Saints of Wales who have both won eight consecutive titles.

The point is that being a little better than extremely poor for a very long time should not be the aspiration of Celtic fans.

But it has been enough to mollify sufficient numbers to stop any protests in the only meaningful way possible - by hitting the club and its executives and directors in the pocket.

Similarly, amid the backlash against Bolingoli, numerous Celtic fans were only too quick to bend over and accept any punishment meted out, like children in the class all being belted over the transgressions of one and accepting that it was fully deserved.

What chance do we have of fairness, never mind improvement, while our own fans play into the hands of those who either don't care about us or despise us?

This is the club we've made and this is the game that our club has allowed to become.

Rather than continually waiting for the next act of stupidity or deliberate wrecking of the competitions, we should call for the charade to be ended and the season to be suspended now, with all season tickets being valid for 2021/22.

That may seem like a crime but I would see it as a mercy killing.

Celtic season tickets: time for experience to triumph over hope

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

And you'd buy a season ticket because...?

The quote above is most often attributed to Albert Einstein, though there is little evidence that the scientist ever actually uttered the words.

However, it is repeated so often as it is not necessary to be a genius to recognise the truth contained therein.

Dr Johnson was talking about second marriages when he wrote of “the triumph of hope over experience”.

But clearly both quotations speak to the same thing: there are only so many times that it makes sense to repeat an action that has led to a disappointing result.

Celtic fans should be pondering this today.

Those of us old enough to remember Celts for Change in the early 1990s will recall a fateful Celtic Park match against Kilmarnock for which the fans' pressure group had organised a boycott. The people Celts for Change called in to estimate the attendance put the figure at 8225, while the official figure reported by the club was 10,055 – just above the assumed break-even for a match.

In doing so, Celts for Change demonstrated that organised fan action could call into question the club's viability, never mind its prosperity or the profiteering of its directors, and a major step was taken towards the Fergus McCann revolution that saved Celtic.

Those particular incompetents of the White-Kelly era had actively discouraged the sale of season tickets, in what now seems like a policy of buffoonery. Their alleged logic was that season book discounts robbed them of the potential earnings of repeated full houses fans paying for single, full-price tickets (though there were probably other reasons).

That mistake hasn't been made since, with the major focus in terms of revenue generation being a push for season ticket sales that has seen an annual love-in, promise of glory or plea for support from Peter Lawwell and the board. And tens of thousands of supporters have repeatedly responded, vainly hoping that the next season will be better than the experience of the last.

In doing so, they try to help the club and guarantee their seats for a whole season, watching diminishing quality and entertainment from a fixed vantage point. Over and over.

The other result is that the fans pay in advance to reduce their ability to influence the direction of the club – or even to demand satisfaction. They can vote with their feet but the money is in the PLC bank account anyway and they can be safely ignored until next renewal time.

To continue this cycle, with the club in its current state, would be an act of questionable sanity.

You may pay in advance for a product or service, the vendor reasonably claiming to need some money to buy materials. But if the quality regularly fails to meet your expectations, you will most likely decide whether to stop buying it at all or at least choose to pay per item, satisfying yourself that you are getting value for money.

How many other things do you pay hundreds of pounds for, up-front, feel frustrated and even deceived, then repeat the same act of faith again and again?

Being a football supporter is about more than being a customer but, unless that quality is fully reciprocated from the club, it leaves fans open to exploitation, while the PLC pursues its own agenda.

It's hard to admit that you can't trust the people running the club that you have loved for years but Celtic fans have experience of this. It's time to let that experience triumph over hope.

Instead of buying season tickets (and new shirts or other merchandise), it's time for supporters to make the club earn that ticket money by putting a team worthy of the name Celtic on the field, properly resourced both in terms of playing and coaching personnel.

If they do, then fans should keep buying the tickets, match-by-match and retain that one bargaining chip until confidence in the (preferably different) people running the club is regained.

It is hard to “hurt the club”, just as it was for those who boycotted that Kilmarnock match. But Celtic, as a team and an institution, is being destroyed before our eyes. In truth, there is little left that is recognisable, as we speak.

And you may miss out on the chance to watch Celtic struggle against minor European opposition or teams that are not even in the same division or even league, as has happened this season.

But it is difficult to see how buying season tickets will not simply keep enabling those running the club to continue what they have been doing, corrupting something that once represented the highest ideals in sport.

Do you want to do that?

Related link:

• Missing in action – the men who want your season ticket money (May 25, 2009)

For Celtic PLC, will Resolution 12 be their Labour Party IndyRef moment?

If you thought the above headline signalled a party political blogcast, rest easy – this is instead about a lesson from history.

For most of my lifetime, the Scottish political scene has been a two-horse race. There was a brief period before 1979 in which the Scottish National Party was securing around 30% of the vote but, for decades, Labour and the Conservatives had dominated the vote with the majority of seats going to Labour.

Having lived through the Margaret Thatcher years, I saw support for the Tories evaporate and Labour secure what seemed an unassailable position of political supremacy.

But the two graphics posted tell a remarkable story: from 56 Westminster MPs in 2001 to just one in 2015; from a party that was able to lead a Holyrood administration for the first eight years of the Scottish parliament to one facing predictions of a near wipe-out in just over six weeks time.

The details of Scotland's changing political landscape and the complex issues are various but one common accusation remains: that Labour thought Scotland would always vote Labour, regardless of its message or policies, because Scotland always HAD voted Labour.

Political allegiance is usually more complex than simply assessing lists of candidates and policies. For many, it is tribal, sentimental, to do with family traditions, even “in the blood”.

Many of those who abandoned Labour did so with a heavy heart. “I didn't leave Labour; Labour left me”, was a common defensive cry from those facing accusations of disloyalty – even treachery – giving succour to their political enemies. The very need to explain exposed a deep-felt sense of anguish – sometimes guilt – in abandoning the party that had once represented their parents' and grandparent's interests when no one else would.

But, for huge numbers of those who believed in a set of values, the party's shift to accommodate modernism and “new realities” represented a betrayal – and the rational conclusion that if the party no longer held true to its founding principles and ideals, then it was no longer worthy of support.

And yet this logical outcome was something that the party's leaders, political strategists and communications professionals apparently believed would never happen.

It beggars belief that a party that could be so strategically successful in its campaigning in the Scottish Independence Referendum could at the same time finally exhaust the patience of those who had long doubted their political integrity.

But the reality is as stark and sobering an example as it is possible to get of the folly of taking people for granted. Labour's tactics, communications and cooperation with parties it claimed to oppose was for many the final nail in its coffin.

Yet there is room for suspicion that Celtic's directors and chief executives are similarly complacent.

While many, if not most, Scottish football supporters deem the Scottish Football Association to be corrupt, flying in the face of its own rules and the principles of fair play in order to maintain an establishment club in the Premiership, Celtic have stood by.

As the team, players and fans were cheated, Celtic at no time formally complained or protested publicly.

As a new club was entered into the bottom division – one which did not meet SFA criteria for membership, depriving qualified applicants a place – Celtic approved. And, infamously, they took no part in preventing the Ibrox Newco being admitted to one of the top two divisions, leaving the fight for integrity to the laudable actions of Turnbull Hutton.

Raith Rovers leading the way where Celtic apparently feared to tread.

And now we have Resolution 12, which seems almost certain to fail, and on which the club could have acted years ago.

And, for all this, they expect continued support – primarily with cash – from supporters they no longer defend, appear to care for or even represent.

So what is Celtic? A club that plays in the same colours at the same ground as the one graced by Tully, Johnstone, McGrain, Burns and Larsson? Its continuity as the entity founded by Brother walfrid is in no more doubt than that of the Labour party of Keir Hardy.

But it's values can no longer be seen as being in any way consistent with those that once bonded together a “Celtic family”. Celtic fans are being asked to support a club that no longer values fair play, the communities from which it has gained its support or playing football for the fans in a way to thrill and inspire.

And without those values, does the name, strip and ground alone entitle the club to the continuing support of people who have agonised over its decline?

When Labour found common cause with Tories and LibDems to oppose Scottish independence, the sharing of a platform with a Tory-LibDem coalition, as well as some cynical tactics, were too much for even its most faithful supporters.

But you could easily replace Labour's Jim Murphy, John McTernan and Blair McDougall with Dermot Desmond, Ian Bankier and Peter Lawwell, standing with the SFA and the Ibrox regime, led by a convicted criminal.

It appears that they do so in the belief that a promise here, a discount there and a “heartfelt plea for unity” are all that are needed to keep the tills ringing for yet another season; employing naïve hope in the aftermath of crushing experience.

But when trust has been damaged beyond repair, can supporters Keep the Faith?

--

As Resolution 12 founders are Lawwell and the PLC Fit for Celtic?

In the event that, three months from now, we are faced with a case that is dead in the water with no meaningful answers, we should not miss our targets

Repeating yourself too often is rarely a good thing. “You can say that again”, I hear you cry, but I'll resist.

Only yesterday, I was expressing my belief that the efforts to have a UEFA investigation opened into possible misconduct by the SFA in allowing Rangers to be entered into the 2011 Champions League, (having failed to meet the Financial Fair Play criteria set out by European football's umbrella body) were almost certainly doomed to failure.

I need not reiterate my concerns as you can read them, if you wish.

However, tonight's hasty announcement from “Brogan, Rogan, Trevino & Hogan” (not a firm of solicitors but an individual Celtic fan) must surely have been greeted with the thunder of jaws dropping and heads slapping across the Celtic community.

(I will state now that this is not an attack on BRTH, Auldheid, Canalamar or any of the other people genuinely trying to pursue justice on this matter. I don't know their backgrounds but neither do I doubt their goods intentions – you may have to jump to the end of this piece for that to become clear.)

This was an urgent request for any shareholders willing to be named by the solicitors claiming to represent them to sign a mandate authorising their names to be used.

It is not often I agree with Stewart Regan but it is quite proper for an organisation to decline to answer questions from anonymous sources. Anonymity is for bloggers and social media users (though the owner of one site attempted to use this blogger's preference for using a pseudonym in an attempt to silence criticism).

Refuting Regan's argument, BRTH stated: “This is not so, as the organisation Regan heads up has been written to by a large commercial firm of solicitors who have clearly advised that they act on behalf of a distinct class of people, namely shareholders in Celtic PLC who signed up to and supported Res 12 at the 2013 AGM.”

There are a number of problems with that statement.

Firstly, the size of the legal firm is irrelevant. Any legal firm registered with the Law Society of Scotland is as competent to act as any other, large or small, and can be expected to operate to the same professional and ethical standards.

“We've got a big firm behind us” may be useful in terms of their resources and expertise but it means nothing in terms of legitimacy.

Secondly, the relevance of “a distinct class of people” is obscure. Perhaps the Resolutioners are trying to imply that some sort of class action is taking place. That would be inaccurate – they are requesting information that the SFA does not appear to be compelled to give and, indeed, may argue that they are compelled to withhold on the grounds of confidentiality.

For this, they would need only cite the Procedural Rules Governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body:

“Article 10  – Confidentiality
Members of the CFCB  ensure complete confidentiality of all facts that come to their attention in the course of  their duties and, in  particular, refrain from divulging the contents of deliberations.”

That alone would likely be sufficient justification for the SFA to decline to divulge any information that may relate to a potential investigation that the Resolutioners are currently seeking to initiate.

Really, would ANY organisation divulge potentially confidential information that may lead to a damages action and even criminal proceedings, to an unnamed group of people? Logically, it would only take a similar group of shareholders of any club (including Celtic) to request that the SFA refuse to engage with them, whether that would mean a hearing before a sheriff or simply a meeting of the SFA Board (of which Peter Lawwell is a member).

Given that the member clubs are competent to submit complaints, it is not at all clear that an unnamed “class of people” has any greater legitimacy than “a bunch of guys”.

This, of course, gives the SFA any number of additional get-outs, the most obvious being avoidance or prevarication, with any UEFA investigation being time-barred by the end of June this year – roughly 12 weeks.

The implications of this are profound. Any lawyers would surely advise the SFA not to answer any questions that could leave them open to civil or criminal action, never mind liable to UEFA or FIFA sanctions.

In the circumstances, the SFA would seem to have every reason to keep schtum. However, there is another very clear available tactic.

For any normal legal request, it is usually considered reasonable to allow for ten working days for a reply. If we presume that the Resolutioners must wait two weeks for all the mandates to be received – April 1st – it would be likely that any reply would not be received before April 15th.

This would be unlikely to contain any meaningful answers. Rather, it would most probably be a legal opinion that the SFA did not have to respond to the Resolutioners, according to their rules, and even that SFA rules either did not allow – or actually prohibited – the Association from dealing with the inquiry (something that would be virtually impossible, were Celtic or any member club to make similar representations).

Alternatively, if it was deemed that the SFA should respond, the lawyers would most likely ask for clarification on a number of points, requiring the Resolutioners' lawyers to respond with due diligence – meaning that they could not simply reply over a coffee break but take reasonable time to ensure that they were meeting all of their professional duties.

The timeline is now at Friday, 29th April before the SFA have received their first response telling them why they should address the points made. Another round of letters would take us to Friday 13th May.

Do you see where this is going?

With the added complication of an unlikely UEFA investigation being requested at the same time, the SFA can kill this through legal letters and delays until the UEFA Statute of Limitations has passed.

And all this calls even further into question the Celtic board's request that the shareholders take action first. You could believe that these millionaires with their years of corporate experience and high-powered lawyers haven't spotted the obvious flaws that an independent blogger has identified.

In that case, you could also consider replacing the buttons up your back with Velcro.

Of course, there may be something I am missing. I've been wrong before and told I was wrong even more often – notably when I was saying that Peter Lawwell and the Celtic board were overseeing managed decline of the club.

I'm only basing my judgement on my personal experience and appreciation of the facts.

I referred yesterday to a sense of “betrayal”. The Resolutioners have put their faith in the Chief Executive and the Celtic PLC board. They have been strongly encouraged in that and that trust should neither be seen as a character flaw nor a reflection on their individual abilities.

They have largely been (rightly) lauded for their efforts, even if refusing to consider that the people they have been urged to trust – who have, no doubt, convincingly assured them of their own good intentions – appears to have been a miscalculation.

But the most burning question remains: did the Celtic board, in any of their regular “supportive” meetings, point out the potential flaws that it has now taken this blogger approximately 40 minutes to write?

If not, and as seems almost inevitable, their years of collective efforts come to nought, will the Resolutioners then re-evaluate their faith in the people they have been defending? Will they and other Celtic fans stand by and watch their endeavours ridiculed?

We should all hope that this article is the most complete waste of less than an hour of a blogger's time that has ever been expended; that the SFA will offer full transparency – that they will offer a convincing response disclaiming wrongdoing or that UEFA sanctions will be brought to bear.

And that would be my preferred option – justice, integrity and a game I can believe in.

In the event that, three months from now, we are faced with a case that is dead in the water with no meaningful answers, we should not miss our targets. The SFA may not be fit for purpose – but are the PLC board and Chief Executive fit for Celtic?

Surely they won't fool the Children of the Resolution

Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

I have a professional contact, who loves to point out how hard she works. And she does work hard, too, emails from the early hours backing up her assertion that she spends most of the day at her PC.


But – it's a big one – she's hopelessly, haplessly inefficient. One of the reasons that she works so hard is that she has no concept of processes. And she rebuffs any suggestion that she might do things differently because she has always done things this way and therefore it is right.

And that impacts on me, as well as everyone who works with her. If I need information, she can't give it to me when I need it. She does everything strictly in the order that it comes up, with no view to time sensitivity, relative importance, knock-on effects, etc.

In short, if she worked less hard and was more receptive to the view that she might take a different tack, my life would be easier and her strong work ethic would be a source of admiration from me rather than frustration, noting her apparent assumption that she is doing things the only possible way.

I admire hard work where it is necessary or achieves a better result than a less industrious approach but I'm always wary of people who praise sweat for its own sake, when approaching a problem from a different angle might have been more effective.

So I am ready for brickbats from some quarters if I do not lavish unqualified praise on those who are working hard for a result on behalf of Celtic that they are highly unlikely to achieve.

And so we come to the hard-working people who are trying to pursue the aims of the now-infamous Resolution 12.

In short, Resolution 12 was put to the Celtic AGM and withdrawn because the majority shareholders indicated that they intended to vote it down. Had it been passed, it would have required the board to refer the Scottish Football Association's decision to submit Rangers' application to play in the Champions League to the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) to examine what appeared to be a breach of the rules on Financial Fair Play.

Specifically, that, as Rangers had not paid their tax bill in 2011, they should not have been allowed to participate in any UEFA competition.

By all accounts, the main protagonists, notably “Auldheid” and “Brogan, Rogan, Trevino and Hogan” of Celtic Quick News fame put forward a carefully-researched proposal, backed by as much evidence and legal advice as could be reasonably available to them.

However, one of the notable things about AGMs in recent years has been that they are largely a charade, as far as fans being able to use their shareholdings to influence the direction of the club. Simply put, any policy that the directors and major shareholders dislike can be voted down.

So those proposing Resolution 12 had to rely on their carefully-researched case persuading the big hitters at the club that it was in their interests to act.

And that could only be based on another assumption – that those who wield power at Celtic Park view their interests and those of the club in the same way as the overwhelming majority of fans.

It is here that the pragmatism of their efforts can be called into question. CQN has long been the site most loudly banging the drum for the corporate “plan”, and Peter Lawwell's strategy for achieving it. And all the evidence to date seems to show that the Resolution 12 proponents maintain an unshakable faith in the integrity and good faith of those running the club.

With due respect to Auldheid and BRTH, that confidence is not universally shared amongst supporters.

The result is the now farcical situation whereby the Resolution 12 supporters, having invested years of effort in trying to pursue sporting integrity are defending a board that refuses to even request an investigation into the possibility that the club was cheated out of a chance to compete in the Champions League, and denied potential earnings of up to £15 million.

“In the intervening period of time, there have been numerous meetings and consistent correspondence between those shareholders and officials of Celtic PLC, all with a view to furthering the aims of Res 12, and there is no doubt that the Celtic board have played a full part in taking the resolution to where it now stands,” they have claimed, omitting to mention that “playing a full part” would have involved Celtic, as a member club, formally requesting action by the SFA, the absence of which would logically dictate that a formal complaint would be made to UEFA.

“Working together, the board and the shareholders have seen to it that formal letters of enquiry have been sent to the SFA, together with various pieces of documentation and supporting evidence.

“Through the shareholders’ lawyers, the SFA were asked to answer specific detailed questions in relation to their procedures, however the SFA responded by saying they would not answer any questions other than through the “member club” i.e. the board of Celtic PLC.”

Throughout the process, the board of Celtic PLC have consistently failed to exercise their rights as a member club, knowing full well that their refusal to act allowed the SFA the only get-out in a situation that was at best demonstrative of incompetence and at worst corruption.

Instead, the club have insisted that the shareholders should pursue any action.

It beggars belief that meetings where the club's representatives demonstrated verbal support that was inconsistent with their inaction should be seen as facilitating anything. The shareholders of any company are not required to act in the interests of the board; the case is quite the reverse.

For the CFCB to open an inquiry, its members would almost certainly have to consider that a group of minority shareholders, without authorisation from the board of directors of the club or any resolution passed at AGM were somehow legitimate stakeholders in representing the club.

There is little to support that position. Does anyone really imagine that UEFA would set a precedent of allowing any minority group with a handful of shares to precipitate the machinations of their investigative and disciplinary processes?

Theoretically, the CFCB could decide, unilaterally, to open a case but in the absence of a complaint from the allegedly aggrieved party, to do so would be a remarkable decision.

Which takes us back to assumptions and Occam's Razor, quoted at the top of this piece. When business people are reported to hold private views that are in direct conflict with their actions, it can be assumed that their actions are a more accurate indication of their intentions.

And when a club declines to take a complaint, where it appears that it has unfairly incurred a loss, it requires fewest assumptions to conclude that its representatives do not wish to have the outcome that such a complaint might bring about.

We could only speculate on their motives. But we can state with certainty that the club has not pursued its interests in this matter and infer why that might be.

In the meantime, the shareholders have been left to submit a complaint that the CFCB has no responsibility to consider and – crucially – resolve the entire matter before July 2016, when its own statute of limitations on this issue would run out.

In other words, the shareholders will almost certainly be rebuffed and the board will then say, “Sorry, but it's too late to do anything now.”

If that scenario comes to pass – and, in the absence of direct fan pressure on the board, it is difficult to see how it will be avoided – we will have been witness to one of the greatest betrayals in football history.

Of course, that last assertion would prove outrageous, if the board can be relied on to act in good faith, in pursuit of the club's best interests, fairness to its fans and sporting integrity.

Can we assume that to be the case?--

A (respectful) open letter to Ronny Deila

Dear Ronny,

This isn't easy for me to write. Why? Because I like you.

Not only that – I respect and admire you. I like the way you conduct yourself. You demonstrate a dignity that is all too rare in football.

You display admirable self-confidence without coming across as arrogant. You seem like a man who has a strong sense of values; who treats people with respect.

And more – you are clearly intelligent. When I watched you deliver that lecture in Norwegian about developing people, I was hugely impressed.  For the record, I also think your are good at your job.

The trouble is, as one of your supporters, I'm experiencing gnawing doubts about your ability to do your job at my club at this time.

People talk about a football club being “in the blood”. And I understand that. But that could suggest that supporting a club can be a passive, programmed experience.

For me, it's much more than that. Celtic is a part of my identity. I'm a reasonably well-educated guy with what I believe to be an above-average level of intelligence. And yet I think about Celtic every day, many times a day and have done for as long as I can remember.

If I am lucky enough to end my life in the comfort of my bed, I will be thinking about Celtic that day.

If I'm ever given that dreaded news, I'll be wondering what will happen to Celtic after I'm gone.

What happens at Celtic matters to me profoundly. It matters where the club is going, how we play, if we are meeting the standards we should, if our values are being upheld and, also, how we treat people.

When I meet with people, we talk about weighty matters and those that cause us to experience high emotion. Life, politics and Celtic. We flit from one to the other seamlessly.

For my part, I want our club and fans to treat you well but I also need something from you. I need to believe that you can do the job we require.

And I hope you will think of yourself, too. I'm not calling for your head. I don't have any pet candidate who I would like to get the job.

David Moyes? Sure he could be good for the club if the conditions were right.

Neil Lennon? He gave us everything he had but he left for a reason and I see no evidence that that has changed.

Alan Stubbs? Paul Hartley? Some day, maybe, but several years from now.

Owen Coyle, Ryan Giggs, Michael O'Neill? No, no and no again.

And part of the reason why I wouldn't want even David Moyes is that I don't believe the conditions at the club are conducive to anyone taking the team forward.

I don't trust Dermot Desmond. I have read too much about his past business dealings to have any confidence in him and his strategy for Celtic.

Desmond, apart from anything else, buys low and sells high, which is great for business but soul-destroying for football fans. Desmond, I suspect, wants to manage Celtic “efficiently” (which is political-speak for frugally) and jettison the club if circumstances allow him to make a massive return on his investment. He did something like that with City of London Airport.

Planes take off and land, hopefully with a monotonous safety that becomes mundane. We do not need exciting flights.

But, to apply that wait-and-build-value in football requires patience and a disregard for how the club performs in any area not immediately recorded on the balance sheet.

I do not trust Peter Lawwell's stewardship of the club. I believe he is competent, professional and utterly disinterested in Plebeian concerns such as watching a team fans can be proud of.

I hear people saying that he is just following Desmond's orders but that's not how a Chief Executive works. A Chief Executive devises and implements a strategy to achieve the aims of the Board of Directors. How he does it is largely up to him and he stands or falls by his decisions.

If that is not true, I will offer to take his job “following orders” for one-twentieth of his £1,000,000 per year take-home pay. Yes, I'm that easily-bought.

I now have no faith in John Parks. I remember when it was supposed to be a real coup to have landed him from Hibs.

There was a scare story that we might lose him – the man who found Scott Brown, Kevin Thomson, Garry O'Connor and Derek Riordan, apparently.

But it seems to me that our roving international scout has been taking a scatter-gun approach to player recruitment.

Frankly, most of the players we sign from outside the UK are not very good but let's not be accused of racism – neither are a lot of the players from the British Isles. We appear to be scouring the globe, mining shovelfuls of coal in the hope of coming across a saleable diamond.

Exciting for Desmond, spinning the wheel of fortune until the arrow lands on the jackpot, but tedious for the fans watching movement without purpose.

And, now, the Celtic men. Ronny, I don't rate your coaching staff. Like many Celtic fans, I feel an almost protective instinct towards John Kennedy that would be pretty ironic to anyone who had seen the young man at full power before a Romanian thug named Ioan Ganea ruined his career through sheer malice.

John should be looking at the end of his playing career right now and I badly want him to be a success but there's the rub – he's “defensive coach” and the defence is absolutely, utterly, abysmal. You must have seen that, too, right?

So, either John is responsible and just not very good at his job or you are to blame for the relentless screw-ups that have scuppered most of our ambitions for the past season-and-a-bit. But, Ronny, if you are in charge of your coaching staff, you are also responsible for their performance. And that alludes to one of the big questions. Is John just carrying out your instructions or are you entrusting him with teaching the defenders how to defend?

Looking after our own is laudable but we don't owe people a living at the expense of the team. If John is responsible for giving us a defence that can defend, I'm sorry to say that he has to go. Could you sack him if you wanted to?

Would you be allowed that authority? And, if John is not to blame, perhaps you could explain why, as Head Coach, you have disregarded that simple wisdom that the first thing you have to do is stop losing goals.

87 minutes of work to create six scoring opportunities and two goals can be undone in three minutes if your team can't defend. It's like slogging your guts out to make money that you stuff into pockets with holes in them. You must know this.

 I also have my doubts about John Collins. Now, let's get this straight – I watched him play for Celtic from the Jungle. He was damned good at what he did. Skill, movement, passing, always with an eye for goal.

He had his own little tackling technique, sliding in and trapping the ball between his legs so he could jump to his feet in possession when many other players were content to just knock it away from the player who had been on the ball.

I was there – in what we used to call the “Rangers” end (named after a defunct club that once challenged us strongly) when Celtic overturned a 2-0 deficit against Cologne.

You should have seen Collins that night – magnificent, imperious – choose your own adjective. We thrashed them and he was the best player on show.

You should have felt the atmosphere that night, and witnessed the goal he scored to make it 3-0. My God, he could play.

When he left us, it left a sour taste because we were really stiffed over the move that made John a very wealthy man. The Bosman ruling covered employment in the European Union but he went to the tax haven of Monaco, a non-EU member, enjoying the full benefits of the free transfer as if UEFA and Europe were one and the same.

It hurt us badly because, if we were going to lose the player, we needed some transfer cash to replace him. But I – more-or-less – forgave him because there were also rumours that had Rangers had tried to gazump his move from Hibs to Celtic and he would have earned far more money there. So much for “full disclosure”.

What is he bringing to Celtic? I have heard many great things about his knowledge of football and coaching. I would like to see the results of this at Celtic. So, I would ask again – what is John Collins contributing and, if the answer is not clear, could you sack him if you wanted to?

Would two Norwegian coaches help you to realise your vision?

 Ronny, in that Norwegian presentation I mentioned earlier, you talked of a time when things had started to go wrong with your team in Norway.

Your response impressed me. You asked the players and were disappointed with their answer.

Then you asked someone else – an agent, I believe – and he gave a similar answer. And you were open-minded to the possibility that you might have been wrong. That's a fantastic quality to have.

Do you have a similar response to what is going wrong at Celtic?

I'm only one fan and I speak only for myself. But, as a randomly-chosen sample fan, I need to know that you can see how to make this better.

I want Celtic to be Scottish champions again. I believe that we will win the league under you. If the defence of the title starts to crumble, I WILL be calling for your replacement.

But, as one fan, I need something from you. I need to see that you can put a team on the field that can defend as well as attack, that doesn't overly rely on Leigh Griffiths for goals, that can keep 11 men on the park and that doesn't crumble when tough questions are asked.

And here is my proposition to you – which should benefit everyone.

Between now and the end of May, please show that, having learned from past mistakes, you are the guy to lead us into your third European campaign, confident that you can take us to the Champions League as contenders for second-place in the group, not grateful to be in the Europa League because we fear what might have happened against a higher standard of opposition.

I think that's a reasonable request.

Win us the League and use the next four months or so to show us that you can take us forward.

And I believe you should make whatever tough decisions are necessary to achieve that. Read about Jock Stein giving Bobby Murdoch – who he described as the best footballer he ever managed – to Jack Charlton at Middlesbrough. Or replacing Tommy Gemell with David Hay for the 1969 League Cup final.

Tough decisions that hurt people who deserved better. But tough decisions have to be made sometimes.

If we win, but without answering the questions about how you put a decent team on the pitch, I would urge you to resign from a position of strength and with your reputation intact.

You are not to blame for everything that is wrong with Celtic. Most of us know that you didn't create the mess masquerading as Celtic, treating the fans as fools.

And, sadly, I doubt that anyone replacing you will make things much better. But we need a manager who can show us that he can deliver a team capable of competing in the way that we should. If you are that man, please prove it.

If you are not the man (yet), then it would suit all of us if you took what you had learned from managing in a high-pressure job and moved forward with your career. As a Celtic fan, I don't want to see another European campaign like the last two.

And I don't want you to experience how it will feel if we are humiliated again. It won't be pretty to watch. And I could even say that it's not you; it's us.

I hope you do turn it around and I believe you have it in you. One more thing – if you are Celtic manager next season, don't talk about trebles.

Really – no one at the club told you that? --

Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

John Lydon, 1978

Cast your minds back to December 2008. Celtic were Scottish champions and coasting to the SPL title. We played the R-word in January, establishing a 7-point lead in the SPL table. We were heading for a fourth title and bemoaning two title blips under Martin O'Neill that had spoiled what should have been a historic run of championships. All was right with the world, right?

Well, not quite. Few of us were actually fooled into thinking we had a good team. Complacency had appeared to set in at every level of the club.

Gordon Strachan had already submitted his notice (as suggested here), despite lies to the contrary. As with almost every man who knows he is marking time in a job, his demeanour changed. He was that bit less angry and more dismissive.

His ideas - when he appeared to have any – increasingly looked tired and predictable. The performances on the pitch were reflective of an attitude that everyone seemed to be guilty of – going through the motions in a slightly disinterested expectation of eventual success.

The team on the park was leaderless, gutless and lacking any spark of creativity or passion. The players turned up, regularly failed to win and went home, only to take the same approach week after week.

The fans were unhappy but there was little that could be recognised as a consensus. Some said the football was boring. Others said they were unrealistic and should be thankful of the inevitable title, however it was achieved. Some questioned the board's fiscal policy. Others told them they were the sort of people who brought Leeds Utd to financial ruin. Some feared for the future. Others told them the club was in the best hands but that average Celtic fans were too ignorant to understand the strides being made at boardroom level. Some were angry, some were bored and, frankly, some didn't seem to give a damn.

But we had one consolation. We were going to win the title because our nearest rivals were an abysmal team, almost totally bereft of talent, and in such a financial hole that there was damn all they could do about it.

Then came the long, cold January of 2009. It is a time that will live in ignominy in the history of Celtic. Rumours abounded that Celtic directors had reneged on promises to improve the team in the summer. The arrival of Willo Flood had all the impact of Neil and Christine Hamilton turning up at a charity event as surprise celebrity guests.

The rest is so much history – the title was lost, the manager vanished, he was replaced with someone who had just had his team relegated after the manager of Burnley turned us down (only to later be lured by the bright-lights-big-city of Bolton). And, yes, we were told lies about that too.

Well, the chickens have come home to roost. On this blog, I expressed concern about the sort of managers Celtic had approached, not even considering someone like Davie Moyes who was clearly interested. But, in truth, I suspected that they would get away with it.

I had a hunch that a new manager would see players more motivated, kick a few backsides, inject a few ideas and comfortably outclass the other teams in Scotland. Shouldn't have been too hard, should it? To outclass St Mirren? Or the Scottish champions who had actually got weaker than that side we were lolling past just 14 months ago?

For those of you who deplore the blame game, look away now. It's high time to indulge in recriminations with gusto.

I blame the Coolmore Mafia's Dermot Desmond, a man with an ethical business record that makes David Murray look like Richard Branson. Brian Quinn has not been forgotten.

I blame Dr John Reid, who spent a lifetime betraying and backstabbing political colleagues to get what he wanted, who had no qualms about killing children in an illegal war, yet has shown no stomach to fight for Celtic.

I blame Peter Lawwell and Eric Riley, partners in crime who have made huge sums of money while Celtic have declined.

I blame the players – nearly all of them – who have shown no sense of understanding that it is a privilege to play for Celtic.

I blame Tony Mowbray, who I urged to resign with dignity several weeks ago, and who appears to lack the most basic footballing intelligence.

I blame the Scottish football establishment and their friends in the media who perpetuate the myth that, just because we are playing badly, we are not entitled to impartial officiating, while another team that is playing badly is gifted points and has players let off scot-free after committing assaults just because of who they are.

I blame the Celtic supporters, who in five years under Martin O'Neill started to think of winning trophies as something that just happened.

I blame the insidious campaign of propaganda and disinformation masquerading as “independent” comment on a certain blog and I blame the adherents to that blog's “party line” who smugly derided fans who just wanted to adhere to Celtic's traditions, including trying to win things. They are perhaps the worst of all. They have embraced decline and declared themselves to be financial geniuses in doing so. Rest assured, the volunteer men who built the first Celtic Park with their bare hands did not do so for the likes of them.

A club and a support divided? So be it. Draw the battle lines, prepare for idealogical warfare. We must root them out, whatever the cost. We are not even serving in heaven, but in hell.

--

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?

--

Mowbray a victim of ill-advised planning

The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does not forget that disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered, and his States and all their clans are preserved.

Confucius

Well, we finally concede a goal and play a competitive game, with our Champions League hopes already severely undermined.

To some, this would appear to be an appropriate time to warn of the fate of other managers who lost their first game for Celtic – how some fans will never forgive Tony Mowbray.

If we read the Scottish tabloids – and those of us who try to avoid that embarrassing illness of the media world are ill-placed to comment on their responses – we might castigate Marc-Antoine Fortuné for a night of spurned chances.

But Celtic fans are already showing that, despite the worst wishes of our critics, we are capable of reacting proportionately to disappointment.

For Marc-Antoine, Wednesday night will surely not figure highly in his list of career highlights. He showed us what we were led to expect – he is willing, athletic and appears to have a finishing capability to match his scoring record. This, we were fully warned of before he signed the deal but we can reasonably expect that a few more matches will improve his effectiveness.

Landry N'Guémo continued to demonstrate that he could serve as a potent weapon in midfield, if he is careful with his distribution but then Massimo Donati, arguably the best technician left at the club, somehow managed to pass the ball to Dinamo players, scorning the vindication of a rare first-team selection. Those of us who have defended Donati are now starting to avoid people in corridors, recalling past “just wait and see” conversations.

But if we are going to single out individuals, let them be Shaun Maloney and Aiden McGeady. Quite frankly, it is time for these two laddies to act like men, to produce the goods for 90 minutes consistently. Instead, for too much of their careers, they have been playing like kids in front of their grandmothers, expecting words of praise and consolation, regardless of their ineptitudes.

“Some nice touches” and “effective for a while” are not phrases with which to heap praise on Celtic players. These two need to talk to someone like Bertie Auld and ask for private tuition in how to combine football with expediency in order to be effective. Hell, they could start by having a word with Peter Grant – by common consent not the most naturally talented Celt ever but one whose standing our two starlets look unlikely to challenge in their careers.

But in the case of Tony Mowbray, it would take a hard heart not to sympathise with him in his disappointment. True, he made a baffling decision in bringing on Danny Fox late in the game but a least he attempted to be proactive with his substitutions, quite rightly demonstrating to Fortuné and Scott McDonald that they will only play if they are doing so well. And it was refreshing to see him attempt to influence the game rather than waiting for something better to happen with a failing formula.

However, it would be wrong to fail to (again) point the finger at the real culprits – those who arranged a ridiculous pre-season schedule that was viable only in the case of winning the league title that they neglected to pursue professionally. Anyone with a modicum of sense would know that if there's one thing to avoid, it is playing a Champions League qualifier before even a domestic league game.

That can only be done by investing properly to win the SPL. Sending a team off to Australia in the aftermath of that gross negligence was utter folly – but then it had been pre-booked at the height of their naivety.

The outstanding image from last night was not of any player but of Messrs Reid, Desmond and Lawwell, sitting shiftily side-by-side in their directors' box that might equally have been a high court dock.

They may have sharp lawyers but the public are still likely to consider them guilty.






--

Goodbye, Gordon – and thanks

Gordon Strachan's departure from Celtic should not fill anyone with joy. His commitment to Celtic in the most trying circumstances and his three SPL titles coupled with two last 16 places in the Champions League amount to an enviable legacy.

He also invested in youth, meaning that his successor will not be afflicted with an ageing squad of has-been legends, as was the case when Strachan took the job.

However, his final season was a grave disappointment and he gave the impression of a man whose thoughts were elsewhere for much of that time.

He is not totally to blame – his “friends” Peter Lawwell, Dermot Desmond and John Reid are complicit in this season's failure. They have attempted to play the supporters like a fiddle and, unfortunately, succeeded in doing so with Strachan to the extent that he castigated those who derided their failure to invest in the squad.

I predicted the departure of Strachan in November, partly on observing that a certain supporters' blog was suddenly lukewarm in its articles on the manager. That particular site has clearly been used as a mouthpiece for Lawwell, something illustrated most clearly by its ability to pre-empt the Celtic official media channels in announcing Strachan's resignation.

That represents a betrayal of Strachan and the club – as does the naked propaganda in advocating under-investment while touting the benefits of finishing second. When the same blog is being used to prepare fans for the sale of the more talented high-ticket players, it is time to draw a line.

Strachan leaves at a bad time but with his reputation as a manager and man of integrity intact.

Those he leaves behind and their quislings cannot say the same.





--

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.






--