Time for spine and conscience to collapse King's house of cards

I am not going to start by sympathising with outgoing Scottish Football Association director, Gary Hughes, even though I don't believe that he did anything wrong by calling Rangers fans "the great unwashed" in 2006 - long before he was employed by the SFA.

What he said in that interview, so conveniently uncovered by The Rangers, (the original Rangers having been put into liquidation six years after the quote), was a silly joke. It was no more or less offensive than being called a "soap-dodging Weegie" by a fan one of the Edinburgh clubs but that's beside the point.

Hughes has gone, even though there was nothing illegal or motivated by religious bigotry or any other kind of hate speech.

But I won't weep for him.

Nor do I feel the need to rally to the side of Murdoch McLennan after the most contrived and absurd attacks on him having connections to companies involving Dermot Desmond and Denis O'Brien.

Both men will survive this and are presumably comfortably off. They have also been part of an institution noted for its incompetence on its better days and corruption on its worst.

You might argue that men of their business pedigree are needed to reform the SFA but I disagree. It is beyond redemption and only disbandment and a new organisation would have any hope of seeing the Scottish game being properly governed.

But what we should all be concerned about is the increasingly malign influence over the Scottish game of the convicted criminal, Dave King.

King has a grasp on truth, integrity and basic morality befitting a bona fide psychopath.

It is now so well known that a South African judge described him in court as a "glib and shameless liar" as to seem a tired cliché when repeated.

It is old news that he was a director of Rangers as the club ran a scheme of industrial-scale cheating and tax evasion, despite which he was considered a "fit and proper person" to be a director of a new club for which the SFA broke its own rules as well as the fundamental principles of good governance by allowing it to take a place in the Scottish Football League, for which it did not meet the basic criteria.

He sabotaged his own new club in order to pressure Mike Ashley into dumping it in the ditch, despite Ashley (no angel, by any means) being far better qualified to create a south Glasgow powerhouse.

He spun another intricate web of lies in order to take control of The Rangers acting in concert with two other parties to try to duck below company law.

And, of course, the takeover panel laughed him out of court when he claimed that nobody would sell their shares to him at the price dictated but, nevertheless, he would not make any offer as he lacked the funds to do so but, if so ordered, would buy the shares with the money that he claimed not to have.

As someone reluctant to make light of mental health issues, I would normally hesitate to make crude remarks about the psychological state of someone based purely on evidence prevented in the media but King's behaviour appears to be consistent with a serious personality disorder (which is not typically considered to be a mental health issue in the same way as the afflictions that many people suffer from through no fault of their own).

He self-evidently feels no embarrassment about telling the most absurd lies, which, at times it is difficult to believe that anyone - even the most rabid of the great unwashed - could possibly believe.

And he is not simply self-interested but more than willing to destroy anything that gets in his way, including the club that he is using for his own gain, or the game that sustains it.

Increasingly, he comes across as a man who would dynamite his own house rather than have the bank repossess it, regardless of the risks to the neighbours and any random passersby.

And yet he gets support in the media of the kind that goes beyond footballing bias or cultural affinity.

Over the last week, we have seen this from both ends of the Scottish journalistic spectrum.

At the bottom-feeder level is that international class buffoon, Keith Jackson.

Like King, Jackson apparently experiences neither embarrassment nor shame when shown to be glaringly wrong and, like King, he regularly trades in obvious falsehoods without discomfort.

In his latest piece on the supposed conflict of interest over McLennan, Jackson declares himself a dab hand at writing about company law.

This is from a man who once, despite having the benefit of the Internet, failed to correctly spell the word, "chateaubriand", on three consecutive occasions, as he attempted to boast to Twitter about how he was living the high life.

Graham Spiers is notionally a superior type of writer to Jackson, though he has rarely broken a story.

Spiers is of above average intelligence for a Scottish football writer, which is a compliment of a similar level to saying that Kris Boyd is of above average fitness for a man in his mid-thirties.

But Spiers is not as clever as he would like to think and he shares the same failing as Jackson in that he clearly believes that the public are too stupid to know when he is spinning them a line, even when he knows it very well, himself.

Spiers decided to tire us all by giving credence to King's most risible assertions that there is an appearance of something untoward in the McLennan situation, swatting aside every question about people who were clearly conflicted in their work with the SFA.

In doing so, these two have created a false sense in the media that legitimate questions are being asked, which has given some semblance of media credence to King's latest attempt to slip the noose of the Notice of Complaint raised in relation to Rangers securing a licence to play in European competitions through submitting false information.

The Hughes case is just one that points to ample evidence that the current modus operandi of The Rangers is to set the dogs on anyone with the slightest potential influence over events pertaining to that aberration of a club.

This follows on from a tradition once boasted of by their former PR grime-lord, Jack Irvine, whose emails - exposed by Charlotte Fakes (almost certainly Dave King) boasted of being able to coerce journalists because he knew "all their dirty little secrets".

I would not expect Spiers to have the kind of dark secrets that many Scottish football writers accrue on every second trip abroad, though an uncharacteristic moment of weakness is always possible.

In the case of Jackson, I would expect that his bar is set so low as to be difficult to embarrass by any heterosexual indiscretion.

King may well have dug some dirt on these two as he has clearly had people rooting into the backgrounds of others or he may be offering them different ways to get back into the fold (though despite his Ibrox bans, it's not clear that Jackson was ever really out of it).

But, whether through carrot or stick, King is clearly able to persuade high-profile members of the Scottish football media to write whatever he wants.

In doing so, he is further undermining the already crumbling foundations of a game that is thoroughly rotten.

Far from humouring his destructive bent, the media should be honouring their pledge to report the truth without fear or favour, and exposing King for the cynical charlatan that he is.

We await some decent members of the Scottish media developing both the spine and conscience to do what they surely know they should and bring down the  King house of cards.

Scottish referees need competence, not commentators' idea of "common sense"

Where your writer attempts to use fast food analogies in order to draw lessons relevant to Scottish football.

There has been much talk in Scotland - again - about that old chestnut known as "common sense".

You know the drill.

There is a controversial decision - very often by virtue of nothing other than the fact that it benefits Celtic, either directly or indirectly through its perceived impact on a would-be rival.

(Recently around Cédric Kipré's red card for putting his studs into Scott Brown, to which “common sense” said he should not have been sent off and eventually prevailed with the card being rescinded.)

The pundits are inflamed. They disagree.

What is the rule?

Usually these professional analysts, most of whom have played the game, haven't got a clue. (Why would you expect people who are supposed to be enhancing the knowledge of millions of viewers to spend time learning the rules?)

There is a heated argument, which may be the most entertaining thing that has happened on the show.

How do we resolve this? Let's pour oil on troubled waters by calling for "common sense".

Yes, the pundits and presenters nod, wise words. "Common sense".

Surely, we can all agree on that.

But can we?

Do you ever stop to consider what that really means?

In our personal lives, of course we know.

"Whatever happens, don't disturb me," a relative says. Later they find that their car has gone.

"What happened?"

"The police towed it. I was going to tell you but you said not to disturb you."

"Have you no common sense?"

So far, so easy.

But take another case – your favourite guilty secret fast food joint. It's 10.15 am and you really fancy your favourite breakfast bun that's available until 10 – but they have one on the rack and your server agrees it is only common sense to sell it to you.

Mmmm... You know you want it but do the rules allow it?

"Eh, excuse me," a customer in the next queue says to a staff member, indignantly, "When I asked for that, I was told that your rules stated I couldn't buy it after 10 o'clock."

"I was just doing what I'm paid to do," his server explains.

"I was only using common sense," says your server.

"Or maybe there's something about me that you don't like," says the increasingly-frustrated customer.

"You're paranoid," you and the two staff members retort in unison.

The manager saunters in.

"Look, let's not get silly about this. Both of my staff were doing their jobs honestly and to the best of their ability. I fully support both of them and I think this criticism is unfair on people doing a job that few would envy."

Meanwhile, the other customers have become interested and are taking sides.

"That wee jobsworth is always like that," someone shouts, "He had ten Big Brekkies there last week and wouldn't sell me one of them at two minutes past!"

"Oh, really!" pipes another, "Well Mr Common Sense here did the same to me yesterday. It's only 'common sense' for those and such-as-those with that so-and-so."

By this time, the manager is becoming increasingly defensive, while you are preparing to take your swag away.

"You know, serving you people is a thankless task that I wouldn't wish on anyone."

"Just train them to be consistent!"

"Just hire people with common sense!"

"Aye, common sense when it suits YOUSE!"

As chaos ensues, a crestfallen woman with a clipboard identifies herself as being from the regional quality assurance team.

"I would like to say that I recognise the frustrations expressed here and sincerely regret them.
"While the rule on selling Big Brekkies after 10am may seem pedantic, we ask all our branches to observe it for a number of reasons.

"Firstly, sandwiches still on the rack at 10am show a higher dissatisfaction rate, which is difficult to remedy as our entire production setup moves to lunchtime meals at 10 o’clock.

"Secondly, we believe that our customers deserve a consistent service across all our branches and we find that leaving these seemingly-small decisions to local level can leave customers disappointed over matters that may not be immediately obvious."

"Really?" says the manager, "And who even asked you?"

Forgive the parable – and before going further I should make two points.

Firstly, of course no reasonable person has had more than a small portion of their morning spoiled by disappointment over which fast food they were allowed to buy, so the example is frivolous.

Secondly, there is not a burger joint, pie shop or chippie – never mind chain – in the country that is not run and staffed far better than any of the Scottish football authorities.

At the weekend, common sense – or, more importantly, “commentators’ sense” visited Fir Park where Motherwell (again) hosted The Rangers.

Well were awarded a penalty, much to the indignation of professional controversialist, Chris Sutton, and the world’s wealthiest horticulturist Ally McCoist.

A kick is not a (penalty) kick. Unless it's really hard!

“Never a penalty!” “Soft!” “There’s contact but not enough.” “There is a kick but not hard enough!”

Well, that appeared to be that, despite what you may have seen watching at home.

Two former professionals – one ex-Celtic, one ex-Rangers – made their statements of ecumenical unanimity.

Nick Walsh had got it wrong and Curtis Main cynically took advantage to make it 1-0 to Motherwell.

Then – Oh, the Humanity! – Allan Campbell had the Claret-and-Ambers 2-0 up in 16 minutes.

Well dominated the first half but Sutton and McCoist – neither of whom had ever “been professional” in “drawing fouls” in or around the box, were gagging on the injustice of that wrongful pen.

What happened next was as lamentable as it was predictable.

Eight-million-pound-man James Tavernier took the first opportunity after half-time to theatrically land on his bahoochie and – peep-peep-point! – it’s a penalty.

Again Sutton and McCoist agreed – never a pen! – but Tav didn’t care. Poetic justice!
Two minutes later, Jamie Murphy popped in a peach and it was 2-2.

Honest Tavernier had no intention of going down

Well’s top-six ambitions virtually shattered, The Rangers still looking good for a top-four-or-better finish to the season.

All is apparently right with the world, except for the referee.

Now, I already know what a good five-to-seven of my ten (or more) regular readers are thinking: that referee Walsh was just biased -  he couldn’t wait to even it up.

And you’d be at least half-right.

But, by full-time, something else had happened. McCoist had changed his mind about the first penalty and the rest of the panel, except for Sutton, agreed that Walsh had got it spot-on! (Pun champion since 2006.)

Just another day in the professional backwater that is Scottish football.

However, in homage to that legal great, Tony Petrocelli, let me present you, ladies and gentlemen, with another version of what happened that day.

Petrocelli tells it like it is.

Your eyes did not deceive you when you believed that Russell Martin had kicked Chris Cadden on the calf, missing the ball by some margin of both space and time, thus constituting a penalty.

But what happened at half-time behind closed doors in the referee’s room?

I submit to you that poor Nick Walsh, as officials regularly do, ate the forbidden fruit of half-time roundups put on BT Sport (on this occasion, instead of Sky), either on a TV or personal mobile device, and found that he had been roundly castigated for a crucial decision by two high-profile “expert” commentators from either side of a divide that last existed in 2012.

He was now going to be the subject of much criticism, given the importance of the game for both clubs and, faced with the prospect of a media barrage for days after the game, he allowed human weakness to take over.

I believe that he really couldn't wait to even things up, as the punters often say, but probably not because he was following a tradition of institutional bias.

His first-half performance had been very good.

But he listened to the opinion-formers and buckled, throwing bad decision after good because neither Chris Sutton nor Ally McCoist either know or care about the rules of the game. (After all, in their playing careers, they had someone on the pitch to take care of that.)

In other words, because he made a good decision that pundits didn't understand, he felt compelled to "compensate" by making a bad decision to make amends. 

That, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is modern Scottish football. The media influencing decisions on the field and actively making things worse.

McCoist later admitted that he was wrong. Doing likewise doesn’t fit with Sutton’s persona.

But, again and again, in the Scottish game, refereeing decisions are made that defy the international rules, which are intended to offer some semblance of consistency and an even playing field.

That’s how it becomes “common sense” to absolve Kipré of a correct red card (only in Scotland would it not have been a clear red) and Andrew Davies can perform what was definitely a reckless and dangerous "challenge" on Scott Brown - but which looked like a deliberate and malicious assault - and get a single-match ban.

Another accidental attack on Scott Brown

Because, you see, there is really no such thing as common sense.

Well, there is but it exists in each of our minds in different forms according to our wishes and needs at any specific time. And that is the same as inherent bias. 

Rules governing a game are intended to ensure that those inconsistent interests don't offer advantage or disadvantage unfairly.

So that one player isn't protected while another is assaulted; one freed of suspension while another is banned for an identical or lesser offence.

Play isn't - or shouldn't be - stopped for some head injuries but not others. Because, even when a player's health and safety is at stake, he is at the mercy of what that particular referee considers "common sense" - the catch-all excuse for not doing his job.

I have little sympathy for referees and assistant referees in Scotland as their general standard of officiating is appalling.

I also find it both incredible and offensive that Scottish referees are still considered incapable of the corruption that the media are all too happy to believe pervades football in countless overseas countries.

But the atmosphere that is created in Scotland is toxic to any hope of the raising of standards or fair play in general.

The biased and ignorant, through their media influence, too often dictate the implementation of the rules of the game.

We don't need common sense dictated by part-time weekend entertainers. We already have rules. 

We just need the officials to apply them in Scotland properly, without the pundits telling them not to.

Imagine that - Scottish football being governed by the rules and standards that apply to the rest of the world.

Wouldn't that just be common sense?

Why The Rangers and Police Scotland must take action against the Union Bears

Incitement to attack Celtic players and fans shows they are dangerously out of control

At the best of times they're unpleasant – a “permanent embarrassment and an occasional disgrace,” as one journalist famously said of the club they commemorate.

They set out to offend and sometimes achieve the notoriety they are seeking with the crudest displays of anti-Irish and anti-Catholic bigotry.

The Union Bears are a  group of people who you wouldn't leave alone with sharp objects, never mind an egg and a microwave,

But, when those who are motivated by little other than being noticed and don't get the attention they crave, they can quickly move towards becoming dangerous.

And that appears to be the case with their fans' march before Celtic visit Ibrox on Sunday (or the “match against the Fenians”, as they put it).

Forget the obvious copycatting of the Green Brigade with their Corteos – no one has a monopoly on walking the highways (and many of the Union Bears are will be experienced street-walkers).

But the banner calling on supporters to take to the streets “in dark clothing” carries a clear incitement to violence against Celtic supporters and/or players.

The “Goodnight, Green White” has a silhouette image of someone wearing a green-and-white hooped jersey being kicked in the head, which could only reasonably be interpreted as encouraging physical assaults.

This should particularly concern the Scottish Football Association, given the number of  incursions by fans of The Rangers in recent years, especially in light of the rioting at Hampden after the 2016 Scottish Cup Final.

There can be no excuses for Rangers continuing to accommodate this group of dangerously out-of-control thugs and Police Scotland must take all necessary measures to prevent threats to public safety.

The time to act on that is now, when the incitement is so explicit as it is with the Union Bears' poster.

Waiting until after the called-for assaults have taken place is not an option.

Ironically, as many will be aware, the image they chose to adapt is a famous one with Anti-Fascist Action (AntiFA) groups for years (you can read about its origins here) but it's not the first time that extreme right-wing hate groups have missed the irony of their own messages.

But, while the march has, as with most Union Bears activities, been met with mockery, the potential consequences are serious.

There is no place for this in football and there is no place for this in Scotland.

--

Referee Bobby Madden is not just incompetent - he's dangerous and Celtic must act

Some might call him incompetent. Some might call him biased. Some might call him a cheat. Only referee Bobby Madden knows for sure.

But whatever else Madden may or may not be, today he was unquestionably dangerous. And that's where Celtic must draw the line and finally challenge the Scottish Football Association.

Over the past season-and-a-half, in particular, we have seen some disgraceful challenges in the

Scottish game, and Celtic players have suffered more than most.

Kieran Tierney has come in for particularly brutal treatment with fouls that could have caused career-ending injuries and a broken jaw in the Scottish Cup Final after what was nothing better than an assault by Jayden Stockley.

For that, players and their coaches are to blame in what is a damning indictment on the Scottish game.

Fans have been calling for Celtic to speak upas Pep Guardiola has done for his players in England – before someone has an injury that threatens their football career or worse.

This is, of course, where referees come in – in giving fouls and, just as importantly, the appropriate cards for actions that are dangerous, reckless or violent.

But they also have a duty to ensure that medical attention is required and act without hesitation in seeing that players are treated.

These men of highly-questionable ability and suspect willingness have the physical wellbeing of footballers in their hands and, in Scotland, are doing a horrendous job of carrying out their responsibilities.

And none are currently worse than Madden, who during the victory over Aberdeen at Pittodrie, left Kristofer Ajer prostate on the turf and bleeding from a head wound in order to allow Aberdeen a crack at goal.

The fact that the clash was an accidental one with his own team-mate, Jozo Šimunović, is of no relevance. Madden's first duty was to stop the game to allow Ajer to be treated and, whether through crass stupidity or any other reasons, Madden chose to delay what could have been vital treatment to the player.

The SFA being what it is, the football authorities are unlikely to take the action that they should – suspend Madden until he has retrained in safety and issue a clear directive to all officials that player safety takes precedence over any other considerations.

Celtic fans still keep alive the memory of John Thomson, who lost his life after what appeared to be a glancing blow to the head in a match against Rangers in 1921.

Football has moved on in many ways but the risk of dangerous head injuries has not diminished. We should, however, have officials who are better educated and sufficiently professional to at least get the easiest decision of all correct – to stop play and call the doctor onto the field immediately when a player goes down after a blow to the head.

Madden is a truly appalling referee in several ways, something with which the football establishment seems comfortable.

But points and trophies lost mean nothing in comparison to the safety of players and, any referee incapable of recognising that should not be allowed to play games with the lives of players.

Celtic, as a club, must protest to the SFA and demand protection for all players in the Scottish game.

--

From Green Brigade to Grudge Brigade – Celtic must end this crass act

The danger inherent to earning a reputation is that you may long feel compelled to live up to it

Making a name for yourself is not what it used to be. Andy Warhol's famous 15-minute share of fame came long before social media offered new ways for otherwise unremarkable people to launch themselves into the attention of others who would otherwise have no interest in them.

It has become the sport of the day – on Twitter, Facebook, comments pages of news websites, forums and the blogosphere.

Wilde was onto something when he said that the only thing worse than being talked about was not being talked about.

But the sad fact is – as countless washed-up once-weres can testify – that, once you have tasted a bit of attention and called it fame, there can be a destructive compulsion to remain in the public eye.

I recall my own doctor – a thoroughly decent guy and good GP – getting his name and picture in the papers. A few months later, he was there again. And then it seemed as if he was doing things primarily to enjoy that rush again and again.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that he became a bad doctor but he certainly seemed less dignified and sympathetic than before.

It's the fate of all who seek attention for attention's sake. They rarely recognise the distinction between fame, infamy and notoriety. As long as they can get a regular hit of being talked about.

Which brings me to the people that every Celtic fan seems to be talking about now – the Green Brigade.

Like most Celtic fans, I've enjoyed many of their displays and their contribution to the atmosphere at Celtic Park, which – contrary to misinformed comment – was lauded long before the Green Brigade existed.

But, over the years, I've found myself raising an eyebrow at some of their antics. Partly because there was always a “look at me” element to their displays but mostly because they had a tendency to seek confrontation where none was needed.

Like most, however, I was of the mindset that they were an asset to Celtic who should be supported, forgiven for past misdemeanours  and, in return, they should observe the rules of safety and desist from putting the club at risk of sanction.
That was largely my position on Wednesday night, even though I felt that they had gone too far once too often.

Let's address the banner nonsense right away: they had no right to take an image of our manager – a Northern-Irishman – and associate it with paramilitary activity, however “cleverly” they thought they had done it.

After the match, David Healy was referring to Brendan Rodgers as “a class act” for shaking the hand of every Linfield player in the dressing room.

Whether Brendan did that simply out of sportsmanship, through affinity with fellow Ulstermen, or because he sees every opportunity for bridge-building as a small step in bringing a better life to people in the six counties, only he can say.

But the contrast with the actions of the Green Brigade could scarcely be more stark. They weren't class, but crass.

Worse, though, they clearly contravened UEFA rules that the Green Brigade have flouted before and punitive action was inevitable. In fact, it would be hard to avoid the conclusion that they were actively provoking sanctions.

There is a delusion that persists in the minds of some Celtic supporters that all that UEFA will do is issue a fine that the club can afford to pay. But when any authoritarian body sees that fines have no effect, they turn to more serious penalties.

Perhaps that really is beyond the wit of some of those self-styled rebels in the support.

For me, two things changed my position from advocating one last chance to lancing the boil once and for all.

One was the pathetic statement issued by the Green Brigade saying they were accepting responsibility before going round the houses of every grudge and grievance they have been harbouring over the years and finishing by saying that nobody will ever tell them how to behave.

That pretty well ties Celtic's hands because, even if they could set aside any personal slights or vendettas, they would be negotiating with a group that has publicly reserved the right to observe only its own rules of conduct.

I don't like the corporate nature of Celtic or modern football in general. I also dislike the corruption of UEFA and the equally corrupt and inept SFA.

But I do like Celtic and, in general, Celtic fans. Like millions of others since 1888, I've put a lot of my heart and soul into the club and I want to see it do what it's meant to do – play good football on the park, support charities and make Celtic supporters proud.

Which brings me to the second reason that I say this must finish now.

Over the past few days, Celtic cyberspace has been filled with the sort of venom directed at any who have dared to criticise the Green Brigade that was once the preserve of a club whose fans thought they were the definition of dignity.

In support of the Green Brigade, lifelong Celtic fans have been subjected to a torrent of abuse with expletive-ridden posts berating “panty-wetters”, “soup-takers”, “Tories” and an array of accusations that to criticise the behaviour of a group of “Ultras” was tantamount to supporting the British establishment, disrespecting the people of Ireland and those who fought for it and abandoning the working class.

The logic is laughable but the division amongst Celtic supporters that the Green Brigade has sown is not.
In defence of the Green Brigade, almost every aspect of Celtic – fans, management, European prospects and more – has become fair game.

It has unleashed a keyboard thuggery that is tarnishing Celtic's name and setting fans against each other. All in the name of a bunch of lads who want to be notorious Ultras.

No group should be allowed to have this effect on the club that we have loved and sustained for more than a century and no amount of colourful banners and jolly singing is a compensation for what these attention-seeking egotists have done in the last few days.

Thanks for the good memories but it's time to end this crass act.

--

Craig Whyte and Rangers freak show does nothing for Celtic or Scottish football

Here we go being “obsessed”. Dust down any other social media tropes for those who dare to comment on the Craig Whyte case or the freak show that has been Rangers and their sequel, The Rangers.

Perhaps spin-off would be more appropriate as this sorry tale has gone from Breaking Brox to Better Call Donald as the focus has shifted from one improbable anti-hero to another with the common theme being that everyone close to it ends up being irredeemably tainted.

Apart from, perhaps, Donald Findlay QC. There will be no paean to Findlay here, any more than any sympathy will be extended towards the club that cheated the tax-payer, businesses, employees, fans and the game of football.

But Findlay could claim to be “untainted” in the sense that just about the only criticism that would sting Scotland’s highest-profile lawyer would be that he was a bad lawyer, which he patently is not.

Lawyers can be a peculiar breed – indeed, every profession has its attendant foibles – but they often get a bad press unnecessarily. They do an essential job that you hope never to need but pray to the great star above that you get a good one, if you do.

Something like an insurance policy; everyone hopes never to collect and resents paying but wants to make it work for them when called upon.

Findlay gives the impression of being that particularly obsessive type – the kind who feels a rush of cerebral orgasm when touching a clever legal spot. The kind who would see “lawyer” as being what defines him before family, faith, football or even Freemason.

So, to see him in Craig Whyte’s corner against his former friends and colleagues only added to the slapstick nature of the Govan Comedy.

The rest of Scottish football can laugh for a moment – and probably should. The case against Whyte smacked of bitter, visceral revenge and the defendant (himself no “innocent” in the world of underhand business) looking like a patsy to draw the focus from the real culprits in Rangers’s demise – David Murray, Campbell Ogilvie and a bunch of directors.

It’s amusing because the metaphorical blood promised by the same people who ushered Whyte into Ibrox has not been shed. He’s not going to jail, after all, for buying a football club that was already on the rocks and finally sinking it.

But any sympathy for Whyte should extend to the actual injustices visited on him (when his erstwhile backers hung him out to dry) and “respect” should be limited to an Artful Dodger who had enough craft to see Fagan and Bill Sykes hoist by their own petard.

That the Scottish Football Association should respond by mooting a legal challenge to recover a £200,000 fine for “bringing the game into disrepute” is worthy of derision at best and another reason for an organised campaign to clean the SFA of the corrupt and the incompetent – which covers just about all of the senior positions.

Having a president who lied about knowledge of EBTs while having received one himself at the club that was under investigation brought the entire game into the worst ill-repute possible.

21st-century Scotland is still so small in places that a small, one-nation clique of handshakers, blazer-wearers and pocket-liners can still hold sway in major institutions to the detriment of the game of football and the reputation of the country itself.

Do not underestimate the power of football. The modern political consultancies have been tuned into the “soft power” potential of sporting and media events to enhance a nation’s international standing for years.

It is for this reason, above all, that the political world suddenly becomes focused on gay rights when major tournaments like the Winter Olympics and World Cup are awarded to Russia. The politicians care no more for Russia’s oppressed LGBT communities than they do for them in the British Commonwealth but PR-gold sporting events? That’s a problem.

Forgive the digression but a Scottish football game that was healthy and winning friends on the international stage would be a major boost to the stature of the nation. And the tawdry, insular catastrophe that has been the Scottish game similarly has an inverse effect.

So, what now? For a few days fans of the other Scottish clubs will exchange

jokes and the endless stream of shysters and snake-oil salesmen a who have stuck their nose in the Ibrox trough over the years will bleat like lambs marked out for succulence.

Then, on Saturday, the nation will unite to support the SFA’s team against England. If they win, the game will ride a summer wave of delusion; if they lose Gordon Strachan will be sacked and that will be the Scottish football news.

It’s no good asking: when will the punters have had enough? The punters had enough years ago and came back for more, martyring themselves like the unappreciated partners of a no-good spouse, whining over cups of tea and deserving very little sympathy.

Celtic supporters of a certain vintage will recall that we have had our own camel-coat-wearers to bear and that our own major shareholder has a few sharp moves of his own.

But until the fans start to act – by boycotting the national teams and exerting co-ordinated pressure on their own clubs to reform or disband the SFA, they will be part of the problems, victims facilitating a wider malaise.

A stinking fungus has befouled Scottish football for generations. The game will not be rid of it without root-and-branch removal.

Hold your nose, not your breath.


--

Not fit for purpose: The only victory for Resolution 12 would be to disband the SFA

In 1873, one year after the foundation of a now-lost Glasgow club, the Scottish Football Association was formed, making it the sport's second oldest national association in the world.

The SFA is a remarkable organisation. While most of the world was still sleeping, in terms of football, Scotland was leading the way, having participated in the first ever international match – against England, of course – at the West of Scotland Cricket Club in 1872.

And yet famously, infamously, notoriously, the men's national team has, uniquely in the British Isles  failed to progress past the groups stages of any major international tournament in its history.

That is despite having been peppered with some of the greatest players in football, all the way up until the 1990s.

McGrory, Hibs' Famous Five, the Lisbon Lions, Baxter, Bremner, McLintock, McGrain, Dalglish, Jordan, Souness. For more than 100 years, the playing talent was abundant.

The Famous Five: 

In 1967, the Scottish champions were European champions, too, and the national team was good enough to humiliate the world champions on their own patch. But a sustained endeavour towards a major trophy or a final or a semi-final? Nope.

When we were kings: Billy McNeill

I refer to this purely for background and anecdotal evidence that there has been an apparent malaise at Park Gardens and Hampden Park, ever since – more-or-less – the SFA was founded.

But it's not good living in the past, especially when the evidence of contemporary failure is so abundant.

The most recent revelations surrounding Resolution 12 bring this into sharp focus. Those pursuing this deserve credit for their efforts in a thankless task, even if I, personally, believe that the strategy directing those efforts has sometimes been flawed.

Nonetheless, they have tried and no one should doubt their efforts.

On the other hand, I take reports of their “victory” with a  pinch of salt. They may have been vindicated by some of the language used in the letter they received from UEFA, seemingly acknowledging, at least implicitly, that the SFA failed in its duty of governance of the matter of Rangers' licence to play in European competition.

(And the essence of transparency is that information is widely disseminated, not held by trusted sources.)

They may even have written evidence pointing to malfeasance but the vindication of having someone in high office telling you what you already knew is some way short of a victory.

No, victory would be some measure of justice – appropriate punishment for the offenders and compensation for the injured parties.

We know Rangers can't be punished because they were last seen in 2012 and are now throwing hammers around that great field of dreams in the sky.

We know this. Fans of every club in Scotland know it, too, and yet the fact that the “established” media resolutely close ranks behind the Scottish football authorities to deny this patent truth leaves a sense that the injustices that began when Rangers started cheating through tax avoidance continue to the extent that the accompanying lies are inscribed in silver.

Celtic and other wronged clubs are unlikely to be compensated because they seem to have no interest in saying, “Let right be done”. There may be pragmatic reasons for that in terms of the practicality of recouping financial losses or lost potential earnings.

And if, as has been mooted, the appropriate penalty against the “member association” that is the SFA would mean all teams being banned from European competition, that would be too steep a price to pay for most – though not all – fans.

On the face of it, any “victory” that may be pursued could be described as pyrrhic, though that does not excuse an abject failure to lead by Celtic PLC and others.

But if the lessons of the past are to remain an open wound, it would surely be some kind of victory if they led to a better future.

One in which football was run for the fans and the good of the game itself; where fair play took precedence over financial imperatives.

Is that likely to be achieved in Scotland under the present structure?

Recent years saw the received wisdom of the nylon blazers challenged by two men, now both sadly departed.

The late Paul McBride QC, to put it politely, scared the bejaysus out of the SFA. When arguably the most formidable criminal lawyer of his time was railing against the heady mix of corruption and incompetence guiding the Scottish game, the SFA office-bearers were shown up, not so much as paper tigers as sleekit cowrin tim'rous beasties.

McBride threatened to rock the football establishment to its foundation and there appeared a genuine chance that he would almost single-handedly force a new, binding constitution for the modern age before his tragic death.

The other figure was, of course, the late Turnbull Hutton. The one-time “conscience of Scottish football”, who “stood up for the 'wee' clubs”, Hutton projected a moral force that, coupled with his executive-level experience at Diageo, was more than a match for patsies and yes-men occupying senior roles in Scottish football.

Turnbull Hutton and Paul McBride: Should fans need heroes?

These two men gave – pro-bono – their time and talents in pursuit of the greater good of the beautiful game.

And yet, it is entirely wrong that fans who wish to believe in football should be left waiting for heroes to emerge to fight their corner.

Fans should not have to fight the governing body; it should exist to fight for them.

And yet let's look at this organisation, in its own words.

The Scottish FA exists to promote, foster and develop the game at all levels in this country.
Founded in 1873, Scottish football’s governing body has recently undergone the most radical changes in its history, enabling us to lead the game into a new era. The launch of our strategic plan Scotland United: A 2020 Vision outlines the vision, values and goals that underpin the organisation and its many facets.
The plan encompasses four strategic pillars:
•    Perform and Win
•    Strong Quality Growth
•    Better financial returns
•    Respected and Trusted to Lead

Two things may immediately jump out from the above.

Firstly – and disgracefully – nowhere in those “four strategic pillars” is there any mention of fans.

Is it the fans who are expected to “respect and trust” the SFA or are they to be led by it? Or is the sole relevance of fans to the Scottish Football Association in relation to “better financial returns”?

The second point leads on from the first – that the SFA appears to fail on all of its stated key aims.

In fact, going back to 1873, when has the SFA ever achieved anything of note? The “golden era” of the Scottish national team consisted of qualifying for five consecutive world cup finals and going home at the earliest opportunity every time.

A simpler question would be: in what areas is the SFA actually a success?

I would argue that the answer is: none, ever.

And I would further argue that the SFA is inherently dysfunctional: structurally, institutionally, in terms of its personnel and its apparent inability to ever repair its standing in the eyes of the fans, without whom there can be no ticket sales and no domestic marketing opportunities.

The SFA has about as much chance of realistically aspiring to its “four pillars” as a Mafia-owned restaurant, run for years as a money-laundering joint, has of aspiring to a Michelin star.

And when that happens, what? As was once said in a famous film, “You bust the joint out – you light a match.”

In these sensitive times, I must quickly urge you to keep your pyros in your pocket. This bonfire must be a metaphorical one – of the vanities of the stuffed shirts, scoffing at the principles of fair play, good governance or even key performance indicators.

The Scottish Football Association is “not fit for purpose” and is beyond reform. Its office-bearers should be invited to a ceremony to be given thanks, a 9ct-gold-plated watch and a gentle boot out the door.

Only a completely new body – with new people – has any hope of bringing Scottish football back to a position of repute.

As a starting point, I'll offer my four “cornerstones”, to underpin the current pillars:

1. Football, without fans, is nothing. We exist to bring football to the fans of all clubs and of all our national teams. We listen to the fans; we respect the fans; we endeavour to meet the aspirations of the fans in all our activities.
2. We commit ourselves to excellence. We measure that excellence primarily on the success and quality of performance of every Scottish national and club team.
3. We are committed to supporting Scottish football at all levels, through providing support in the forms of facilities, coaching and best practice to nurture player development and a continued strengthening of both the quality and entertainment value of the game from grassroots-level to international competition.
4. We will work with fans, clubs, the media and commercial partners to strengthen Scottish football commercially in keeping with the ethos of financial fair play.

Okay, so my “four cornerstones” are cobbled-together ideas and I do not expect that they would form a framework for anything at all.

My point is that I don't believe a multi-million-pound study from a former East Fife player, who left his last political job under a cloud was needed to do a better job of defining what should be the aims of a body entrusted with the task of moving the game forward.

A new body should mean new personnel – from diverse professional backgrounds, including several from outside Scotland (preferably not simply replacing one club tie with another), who are unlikely to rely on “old certainties”.

People with fresh ideas, a willingness to engage and a track record of success.

And – who knows – maybe it would even be “respected and trusted to lead”?
Wouldn't that, in itself, be a victory?
--

The Scottish football media - a special shower

That fans of a Celtic persuasion tend to distrust the Scottish football media is nothing new. Those of us old enough to remember Don Morrison and Alex “Candid” Cameron needed little convincing that being anti-Celtic was rarely, if ever, to the detriment of any aspiring young journalist's career.

But, even in those days, the Scottish sports press had the odd reliable maverick, such as Ian Archer, the cautiously respected like Alan Davidson and the rare pearl that was Hugh McIlvanney whose retirement in March of this year surely pulled down the curtain on Scotland's last great sportswriter.

It now seems ironic, if not fanciful, to note that one of the would-be heirs to McIlvanney's mantle was one James Traynor, formerly of the Glasgow Herald parish. There is a whole generation of football fans too young to remember those heady days and most are reluctant to believe they existed.

Traynor, like no other, embodies the collapse of professional and ethical journalistic standards and the derision heaped on those who followed him into the profession.

I sometimes wonder what prompted Traynor to propel himself from understated respectability to the sort of man who would represent the worst form of dishonest tabloid journalism to the darkest tactics in PR – sometimes blurring the two roles.

Once, Scottish football fans simply laughed at Darryl Broadfoot and his “Greek Saga” prose. But few are laughing now – from within the ranks of the media or their consumers at any club.

However, since the events preceding – and subsequent to – the liquidation of Rangers, there has been the sort of psychotic meltdown that one might only expect when facing Armageddon.

With shock troops rallied by Traynor and Jack Irvine before him, a climate of fear has arisen concerning any mention of Rangers.

Chris McLaughlin was banned from Ibrox, with scarcely a whimper raised publicly by his peers. Graham Spiers was forced to leave his freelance gig at the Herald, after a gutless performance by Magnus Llewellyn, who is now to be his new editor at The Times.

And only recently Tom English and Stuart Cosgrove were named in an “enemies-of-Rangers” style press release that some viewed as an incitement to disorder. Again, the defence of both men was muted, to say the least.

But if some would say this calls into question the intestinal fortitude of the press pack, they have pulled no punches in attacking the readers, listeners, new media interlopers and their fellow inhabitants of “Socialmedialand”.

In this, few provide better exemplars than Neil Cameron, normally a relatively low-key player on the scene. After a warning to Herald & Times staff came from Barclay McBain, Cameron quickly took to social media with a “what the boss said” Tweet that, to some, may have looked like a bit of career opportunism.

But Cameron has been more full-blooded in his online spats with retired journalist Brian McNally and particularly Phil Mac Giolla Bháin, who Cameron has described as both “a vile man” and “a scab”.

Some Neil Cameron Twitter exchanges

Now, Phil is not everybody's cup of tea, including a number of Celtic supporters, but he remains a figure who challenges the natural order, being on the outside of the Scottish media tent pissing in, against years of tradition and patronage in the private members' club.

And yet there is something desperate in all of this. Some have questioned why Cameron should have been so silent on the fate of Spiers (and Angela Haggerty) yet so abusive to Mac Giolla Bháin, invoking their common membership of the National Union of Journalists, as if the number one rule of the club is “Omerta”.

It's relatively easy to attack McNally as he presumably has few strings to pull for young journalists and has had the irritating habit of enjoying his retirement by criticising coverage of football issues. For this, he has drawn abuse from, among others, Keith Jackson.

Much of the current talk is of a column by Gordon Waddell, who has insisted that only the word of journalists on the scene at Hampden can be taken at face value over the events of the Scottish Cup Final.

The likes of Cameron and Spiers, naturally enough, support this while playing down Jackson's claim that every Rangers player was assaulted after the final.

But there's the rub. There is barely a shred of trust, respect or sympathy left for any Scottish sports journalist – and they have brought that state of affairs entirely on themselves.

Spiers remains the one who has done most to stand up for the integrity of his profession but he has got less fearless as time has gone on. And Spiers retains a haughtiness, sometimes verging on a sneering tone directed at the plebs who follow this game that he graces with his words, an attitude that is amplified by English, who seems to feed his not-inconsiderable ego by putting fans down.

Spiers and English will mock their own readers as derisively as Jackson (if a little more pithily), laugh up their sleeves at the antagonistic antics of Hugh Keevins and blindly ignore the absurdity of their fellow journos Chris Jack, Matt Lindsay et al.

And for this, they expect what – our trust? The people that have gone into every contortion possible to resist saying that Rangers Football Club was liquidated and the evidence of corruption at the heart of the Scottish game expect respect?

Cameron eventually did something to mention The Offshore Game report into corruption, after Spiers acknowledged its existence.

But it is an indictment on the entire industry that the best and most comprehensive treatment of the issue was by Robbie Dinwoodie – again retired – writing for the independent Bella Caledonia (aptly titled The Unreported).

And, after so conspicuously failing to stand together on real interference and even intimidation, why should they expect a level of regard so much higher than that which they (fail to) show the football public?

Will any of these journalists of note rally to the aid of Rachel Lynch, the latest writer to be harassed for saying things that are off-script – or will they offer her the same support that Jim Spence enjoyed?

What they are struggling to accept is that their relevance is diminishing as fast as the esteem in which they may once have been held.

Frankly, we don't need to know that a journalist was sent to Monaco to watch a draw that was broadcast live by UEFA.

We don't need to hear their ill-qualified insights into events of matches that were televised live (especially when some of those match reports have been written by people who weren't even at the game).

And for their “eye-witness reports” to carry any weight, those delivering them must have more than a long-lost sliver of credibility.

The one enduring skill of the overwhelming majority of the Scottish football media pack is to irritate fans enough to get a reaction to feed off.

In other words, the term, “football journalist”, has become synonymous with being a troll.

But, like a troll, that will soon all be water under the bridge – most of their careers are sailing down the river.

--

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?--