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.

--

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?

--

Tom Boyd – the ambassador's reception is understandably mixed

26^th August 1998. It would be an exaggeration to say that Celtic fans' three months of joy – following nine years of pain – had come crashing to an end. The preceding weeks had been more traumatic than that.

Wim Jansen had walked, throwing as much dirt as he possibly could in the direction of Fergus McCann, Jock Brown and “Brown's man”, Eric Black.

Murdo McLeod had volubly spat the dummy in the same direction after he had failed to be anointed Jansen's successor and a search for a replacement manager – with Gerard Houllier, John Toshack and a host of other “big names” splashed across the sports pages had resulted in the appointment of Dr Jozef Vengloš.

Predictably, the sort of people who could confidently state that Celtic would appoint Artur Jorge, greeted the appointment with derision, labelling it “a farce”, “an embarrassment”, “a shambles”. You name it – they said it of the process through which Lubomir Moravcik would eventually be enticed to the club.

Croatia Zagreb 3-0 Celtic, Champions League

Any residual euphoria or belief that Celtic's troubles were behind them were duly Scotched that night, with an abject performance. It was a display worthy of a protest with a hapless captain allowing Silvio Marić the easiest of opportunities to open the scoring before giving away a penalty to dispel all doubt before half-time.

Bad night for the captain: and Celtic went two goals down

A tough night, which even very good players endure sometimes. You might have expected that captain to apologise to the fans, tell them that the team's performance, as well as his own, had not been good enough.

You might have imagined a strident defence of the manager and a promise to the supporters that this would not be repeated.

But, no, because what we got – to the further delight of the Scottish sports media – was a string of “no comments”.

But that was understandable. After all, the players who had just let down the club so badly were unhappy with the first ever Champions League bonus payment which would have been due to be paid to any Celtic players.

Years of several of the same squad having been party to some humiliating performances by Celtic had apparently been wiped out by one league title that had become so rare that it was deemed to be as precious as a Faberge egg.

The Jimmy Johnstone Faberge Egg

Vengloš was left alone to face a howling, gleeful press pack with the twin weapons of a crushing defeat and an excuse to attack Fergus McCann. Vengloš was as decent a man as you could have wished for: dignified, knowledgeable, experienced and respected in the game.

It was a shameful episode in the history of the club. Vengloš would face a torrid season of cruel attacks including the fiasco of signing a player from that very Zagreb team, Mark Viduka, who promptly got on a plane to Australia and tried to wriggle out of the move.

There were credible stories of players, whose technical abilities didn't match Vengloš's aspirations for the team, actively undermining him.

There has never, to my knowledge, been an accusation that the captain was one of them but I struggle to recall any robust defences of Vengloš, the like of which Scott Brown has laudably offered for Ronny Deila.

Oh, and the captain? He went on to be a “legend” by the name of Tom Boyd.

Boyd was, overall, an excellent player for Celtic – let's be absolutely clear about that. And, more, he has often been one of the few ex-players to challenge the negative press narrative surrounding all things Celtic.

Arriving two years before McCann, Boyd's career covered the ridiculous through to the sublime when Larsson, Sutton and Moravcik were running fine teams ragged and taunting city rivals.

But our newly-appointed club ambassador seems to look back on those days through a curiously selective lens, when using them for perspective against which to judge current “hysteria”.

“You only have to go back to the days when I first came to this football club and we couldn’t even finish in second place. We don’t have a divine right to win every game; to win every league.”

The latter comment is one of many straw-man arguments put forward by those who brook no criticism. I have yet to hear any fan claiming a “divine right” to win – only a constant ambition to do so.

Boyd seems to forget that it was sack-the-board “hysteria” that finally drove out a self-serving and incompetent board of directors and contributed to him winning the many honours he enjoyed at Celtic.

“Criticism doesn’t help out on the pitch. Players start to hide and don’t show for the ball. The most important thing is that the players and management get encouragement and unity.”

I'm sure I recall Billy McNeill making similar pleas and the anguish caused to a true Celtic great, who could also see that change was needed at the club, even while the anger of the fans was creating an often-toxic atmosphere in the ground, which could only have affected the players.

“Maybe defensively, Celtic haven’t been as good but there are a number of reasons for that. Last season, there was a settled defence with Virgil van Dijk and Jason Denayer,” Boyd goes on as if the fans don't know that we cashed in on one defender, knowing that the other wasn't our player.

That's a defence of Ronny Deila but not of the management of the club. And this is part of the issue that so many fans have with the comments from Boyd, a man of whom there was scarcely a negative word said before his latest intervention.

Celtic seem to be determined to go to war with a growing section of the club's fans, leaving them casualties in pursuit of a corporate plan. In doing so, there is room for suspicion that they are seeking allies from amongst the club's most respected servants to create division, despite Boyd's ironic call for unity.

Celtic fans don't need the club to tell us who our ambassadors are. We have always known – they have earned our trust sufficiently for us to believe they speak for the good of the club as a whole, 

starting with the fans and the team; not simply representing the executive view that they are "really spoiling us".

McNeill, Auld, McGrain, Burns, Aitken, McStay, Larsson, Moravcik and, yes, even Strachan – all ambassadors without having needed a title. In fact, the club ought not to think that by turning an accolade into a position of official authority, they can take ownership of it as a tool for the marketing and communications departments.

If the ambassadors get some sort of payment or benefit, good luck to them. If that impinges on their ability to speak out when things are wrong, they risk becoming people whose words the fans will view with increasing distrust.

Peter Lawwell: Is he really spoiling us?

Some ex-players, such as Sutton, Walker, McCleod and Provan are have had their reputations irreparably tarnished for unfairly abusing the club.

Other's reputations may suffer the same fate if they take potshots at fans who care about the club, all to please people who appear to be letting us down with a “plan” that is highly suspect.

“People were craving competition in Scottish football. Do people really want that? If the minute you get a close competition you then say, ‘crisis’ for a club sitting at the top of the league, do you really want the competition?”

The implied accusation of hypocrisy amongst the “lifeblood of the game” – the fans – should be duly noted.

Tom, there are two ways to achieve competition – encourage a raising of general standards or let the best team deteriorate – and it is insulting to the intelligence of fans to suggest that they cannot distinguish between the two or see which of the two options is currently in effect.

--

SPL should tackle St Mirren after Celtic abuse

Way back in November 2006, a St Mirren stadium announcer took it upon himself, without prior authorisation, to remark on "disgraceful chanting" by Celtic supporters at Love Street urging fans "to keep the good name of St Mirren intact by not responding to sectarian songs being sung at today's game".

At that time, St Mirren chairman Stewart Gilmour responded: "The comments were definitely off his own back but I thought it was fair comment. We certainly did not ask for it to be said. I have no problem with what [the announcer] said and I am glad to say this is not a problem we have at St Mirren."

Well, Mr Gilmour, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and anyone who witnessed the behaviour of St Mirren fans at their ground in the 5-1 thrashing by Celtic should be asking the club and the SPL to take a stance against the conduct of their own supporters.

The recent standards of unacceptable conduct as set out by the football authorities, specifically prohibit fans from abusing players by raising doubts about their sexuality. Yet Paul Hartley was continually abused by St Mirren fans with the chant “Paul Hartley is GAY”.

Therefore, unless the SPL match observer was deaf or only paying attention to Celtic fans, the rules in place now clearly demand an investigation into St Mirren.

It is amazing that the fans of Scotland’s other clubs continually sneer at the conduct of Celtic and Rangers fans when they are often rife with bigots of their own. But St Mirren chose to make themselves part of this story and now is the time to insist that they take their own responsibilities seriously.

A person present at or in the immediate environs of an Official Match engages in Unacceptable Conduct where their conduct is violent and/or disorderly.

Disorderly conduct includes (i) conduct which stirs up or sustains or is likely or designed to stir up or sustain, hatred or ill will against or towards a group of persons based on their membership or presumed membership of a group defined by reference to a category mentioned below or against an individual who is or is presumed to be a member of such group; (ii) using threatening, abusive or insulting words or conduct; or (iii) displaying any writing or other thing which is threatening, abusive or insulting.

“Presumed” means presumed by the person or persons engaged in the conduct.

The categories referred to above are:-

• female or male gender;

• colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin;

• membership of a religious group or of a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation;

• sexual orientation;

• transgender identity; and disability.