Is it time for Scottish football to embrace new realities?

The would-be supremacists are facing up to life as Scottish football's Hunderclass

The dust is still falling from the Sunday swatting of The Rangers and perhaps the most remarkable thing to digest was how routine the 3-0 victory was.

Most of us have too much experience to take anything for granted in football but, for me, I was finding it hard not to expect a comfortable win.

I couldn't see how we could lose, draw or even win narrowly and the 3-0 score seemed to be the likely acceptable minimum.

For fans of The Rangers, it seems, the expectations were exactly the converse. The saying goes that it's always darkest just before the dawn but for the antisocial neighbours, it seems that the dawning was of the realisation that their position is now cemented as Glasgow football's (possibly permanent) Hunderclass.

Listening to the media phone-ins and post-mortem discussions following such fixtures can be a task for fools, usually a mixture of delusion and denial, punctuated with some genuinely funny moments of anger. The aftermath of the latest statement of Celtic’s superiority, however, had an altogether different tone.

Pundits had run out of straws to clutch and fans of The Rangers took to the internet and airwaves to declare their hatred and contempt for everyone representing their club and utter despair for the future.

Where once everything was an act of defiance, bloggers, vloggers, Twitterers and callers lined up to sing from the same sheet: “Celtic are superior in every department and the gulf can only get wider.”

Suddenly, the notion that has sustained Scottish football that it must be an endless duality between a Celtic, still unloved by most paid to comment on the game, and the indestructible, immortal, risen Rangers seems shattered.

Fans and media shills who could not and would not accept the fact of the death of Rangers in 2012, now seem increasingly resigned to The Rangers MKII languishing eternally in purgatory, ever looking upwards to Celtic revelling in Paradise.

If many Celtic fans who endured the daily “in-your-faces” experience of the financial doping years will be hesitant to display the same hubris that came before the Rangers fall, there is nevertheless a compelling emerging narrative — that, this time, it’s different.

Strange things do happen in football — often through corruption nodded through by authorities that are more than willing to turn a blind eye to financial unfair play — so The Rangers may yet find a wealthy saviour of similar character and competence to the rogues gallery that have held sway at Ibrox since the 1980s.

But, without moving goalposts to artificially level the playing field, the dominance Celtic enjoys looks set to remain. 

After finishing last season as champions but with a squad that most supporters agreed was inadequate for the challenges ahead, Celtic emphatically dominated the match with outfield players who had all been regulars when title 54 was secured. On the bench was approximately £30m of new talent, including our two record signings.

The game was all but won before Celtic paraded Arena Engels, Luke McCowan and James Forrest for his 500th club appearance.

With the transfer window now closed until January, it’s difficult to see what circumstances could allow The Rangers to close the gap and, with Celtic enjoying the superior wealth of the Champions League, the club looks likely to be set for further development over the coming 12 months.

Anyone who has seen a football club die, only for its imitators to be hailed as the real thing by authorities and media alike will know better than to take anything for granted. On the other hand, as an increasing number of The Rangers partisans are coming to terms with, the difference between our dominance and the old Rangers’ swagger show is stark. Ours is founded on a solid structure while their’s was built on sand.

And, if that does come to pass — “Espanyolification”, as it was once known or “being Everton to their Liverpool” as one desperate caller put it -- would it be such a bad thing? Paul Lambert may believe that Scottish football needs a strong club accepted as Rangers but their demise might well provide an opportunity for clubs from Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Ayrshire and Dundee to find new opportunities and build something sustainable as Scottish football is realigned.

Before that is allowed to happen, we can expect the sort of dirty tricks that would put a referendum campaign to shame but, with fair play, it looks increasingly likely that Scottish football may have to be ready to accept new realities along with the surrender of the would-be supremacists.

No, Celtic don’t need “a strong Rangers” and neither does Scottish football. However hard The Rangers may scramble to reach for it, it seems that penny is finally dropping.

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.

That Club Statement from Dave King and The Rangers on investment for Steven Gerrard

Yesterday, the Twitter account associated with this blog @theceltsarehere posted this "screen grab" of one of those infamous statements from The Rangers.

Here it is in full:

Yes, it was just a spoof but, as the Twitter conversation reveals, apparently not so easy to distinguish from the broadsides delivered by The Rangers communications Tsar, Jim Traynor.

So, if anyone at Ibrox is looking for a statement-writer, drop me a line.

Payment in advance, please!
--

The reality for The Rangers and Steven Gerrard? It's over!

Yes, we all saw him and heard what Steven Gerrard had to say but, then again, some of us saw Maurice Johnston in a Celtic shirt for his "second coming" and we all know how that finished.

So, Monday came and the least surprising thing that anyone watching Scottish football with half an eye for the truth or bare facts could have heard.

The Rangers have, allegedly, a new high-profile manager but no money or investors with which to fund his improbable aspirations.

I use the word, "allegedly" with good reason.

Yes, we all saw him and heard what he had to say but, then again, some of us saw Maurice Johnston in a Celtic shirt for his "second coming" and we all know how that finished.

Steven Gerrard may really have been so stupid as to have agreed to manage The Rangers with a maximum budget of £6m to spend on players but it would be very surprising.

Less surprising, given that we are dealing with Dave King, would be that Gerrard was spun a convincing line to get him to sign so that King could drum up cash through season ticket sales (which he would then go about pumping out of the club).

Banking on the fact that the newly-unveiled boss would be embarrassed into sticking to his part of the deal, King may have thought that Gerrard would just think that he had to lump it and hope for the best.

I could claim to have impeccably-placed sources to back that up but it would be untrue. However, the available facts and a little experience suggest that King's hastily-arranged move on Friday may have been football's equivalent of a resistable marriage proposal publicly made at your grandparents' golden wedding anniversary party.

Awkward to back out of after they have already popped another bottle of champagne.

But, if that is anything close to the truth, don't be surprised if Gerrard's advisers are already looking at ways to get out of the deal.

King will have calculated for that eventuality, probably why supporters were asked for their cash up front. No doubt a few thousand tickets were bought and paid for online between Friday and Monday, with the only surprise being that he didn't wait a few days longer before announcing that there were no new investors.

Yes, there will be some fans who are not so much unfailingly loyal as eternally gullible and feel that their only chance is to try to fund the Ibrox resurrection themselves.

But this posted on Twitter by John Bradshaw (@JBLuvsCeltic) provides the vital details that demonstrate just how desperate King's supposed share offer is and explains the departures of two directors last week - the share issue can't happen as King is facing action by the takeover panel.

So, even though £6m would have been nowhere near enough to improve The Rangers team, that money will not be there, either.

Effectively, Gerrard has a potential transfer budget of precisely zero of your British pounds.

And that would point to another likely outcome. Liquidation would see HMRC and preferred creditors recompensed before the likes of Gerrard saw a penny.

Like many other Scottish football fans, I tired long ago of "in the know" bloggers claiming to have an inside track on likely insolvency events but it does not seem at all improbable, given the circumstances.

Gerrard may take the chance to hobble through a season of grief and humiliation but, if he wants out, he will walk away.

King can jettison the whole shebang and he will not hesitate to do so if he deems it the most beneficial step for him.

But, one way or another, it seems to me that Scottish football will have to reconcile itself to a final dose of reality.

For Rangers, The Rangers and any other conceptual variation of The People's club, the message is clear.

It's over.

The Great Steven Gerrard Swindle? Never Mind the Bollocks, Here’s the Reality

I have been wrong before but this move just doesn't add up

I do not like The Rangers Football Club. I don't dislike them with the same intensity that I did Rangers and I got a great sense of closure when Rangers were liquidated.

But any club emulating what I have always believed to have been a uniquely objectionable sporting institution is worthy of similar derision, though the stakes are less high for me, simply because we won.

Nonetheless, the new neighbours who moved in are noisy and do their best to be vexatious and even (especially) offensive. So, while, on a competitive level, I am much more concerned with Motherwell (for obvious reasons), Hibs, Kilmarnock, Aberdeen and, next season, St Mirren, the happenings at Ibrox are still worthy of comment.

I am not objective, as my first statement acknowledged. I'm biased, and speaking from a position of ill will towards The Rangers.

But, thus-declared, I have my own observations to make about the appointment of Steven Gerrard as the six-year-old Ibrox club's seventh manager.

The Player

Firstly, due respect: I liked him as a player and acknowledge that he was the best English midfielder of his generation and an all-time great English footballer.

But I have never believed that he would make a great manager because he always seemed to have a working-class sense of humility that, while endearing, was born of self-doubt whereas Frank Lampard exuded such confidence, displayed as smug arrogance, as to be guaranteed to rub me up the wrong way.

Don't get me wrong - I have always respected Lampard. In fact, I have always believed that he could make an excellent manager, which I have never believed of Gerrard.

Time will vindicate or condemn my superficial assessments but, amongst the undesired outcomes at The Rangers, Steven Gerrard taking over as boss has never registered.

Age-old Theme

For film buffs and those of a certain vintage, the last six years have been reminiscent of the Hollywood classic, Sunset Boulevard, in which an ageing "once-was" refuses to accept the realities of time and progress, surrendering any last vestiges of dignity in the process.

How Do I Look? Have I still got it?

Her increasingly desperate attempts make for compelling, if sometimes uncomfortable, viewing.

The Rangers demonstrate similar delusions, though the constantly-changing, increasingly-ridiculous storylines could have been churned out by the scriptwriters of River City.

McCoist, McCall, Warburton, Murty, Caixhinha, Murty, Nicholl, Gerrard. Between them, they have won League Two, League One, the Scottish Championship (at the second attempt) and the Petrofac and Dry Blackthorn cups.

Candidates

At the turn of the year, Derek McInnes was approached. Deek, the most transparently dishonest, Ibrox-hearted Aberdeen manager since Jimmy Calderwood, did everything short of baring his bearded backside in order to show his preference for the Glaswegian imposters over his current employers. But still, somehow, he couldn't bring himself to cash in on the points gift he had sent in advance, so troubling were his doubts about the club's financial stability.

That disappointed me as I was quite sure that he would fail at Ibrox. But he also surprised me. Never appearing to be the sharpest tool in the box, Deek nevertheless made a wise judgement.

I wasn’t unduly troubled, though I would have felt better if he had been in the bag – a few months can bring untold changes and that might mean improvements.

And so I wondered if there was the possibility of some new investment, however improbable, from the Bank of China or some such institution looking for a high-profile presence.

In the meantime, the next obvious candidate would have been Steve Clarke. This prospect bothered me a little.

Clarke has a varied and high-level coaching background, has done an excellent job with Kilmarnock and could surely do much more with the sort of funding that, even The Rangers could likely find, given his reputation and extensive list of contacts.

He also comes across as an intelligent guy, which was why I was fairly confident that he would decline any offer.

Then there was Steven Robinson, whose style (if you can call it that) I dislike intensely.

Robinson is a throwback to days that should be long gone, using physicality and a peppering of brutality to good effect against superior football teams.

Robinson is reminiscent of a young Jimmy Nicholl – staunch, no one likes him and he doesn’t care. So, in that sense he would have been a good fit at Ibrox, though not box office.

He’d have straightened them out in terms of being organised and aggressive but he wouldn’t have sold season tickets, so he was a non-starter.

Then there were the “Warnocks”. Of course, there is only one Neil Warnock but I use the term to describe one of those experienced firefighting bosses, who English chairmen turn to when their clubs are in distress.

The kind who have lived with the intense daily pressure, fans calling for their heads, the press pack stitching them up and who, year after year, come back for more.

He is one of many who just might have done a job – at least on an interim basis – finding a tactical approach to favour a desperate situation and maybe even swinging a cup or two.

But what The Rangers got was the much-admired player and virgin manager, Steven Gerrard.

He thinks it's all over: An emotional Gerrard so close to a title

This pleased me greatly, for a number of reasons.

Map-reading

Firstly, “it puts Scottish football on the map” – no, it doesn’t. Scottish football was already on the map and our own Brendan Rodgers has done a great deal to make that happen.

Brendan was the bookies’ second-favourite for the England manager’s job, within a few weeks of joining Celtic, after Roy Hodgson resigned. He has also been quoted as a likely candidate for most half-decent prospects in the English Premier League, including Chelsea, and was heavily-linked with the soon-to-be-vacant Arsenal job.

So, Scottish football is getting plenty of attention from down south and beyond, which is partly why we have Moussa Dembele, Olivier Ntcham and Odsonne Edouard. It was also quite probably a factor in attracting Clarke to Kilmarnock, persuading Youssouf Mulumbu that he could reset his career there and convincing Steven Caulker that a season at Dundee would be worth a try.

These things have all been excellent for Scottish football as has the work Neil Lennon has done at Hibs, building a very promising team.

Having Gerrard in Scotland will generate more interest and perhaps persuade the likes of Aberdeen and Hearts to consider experienced, progressive managers, who would not have been available to them two years ago.

Why else would I be happy that Gerrard is there?

Having a rookie coach thrown into a torrid situation is obviously a bonus for rivals, but the lack of tactical experience is only one element.

Leadership

Leadership is said to be one of Gerrard’s strengths but that is the sort of glib comment uttered by people who have little or no understanding of the skills and qualities associated with leadership in modern-day football.

Personally, I have never felt Gerrard to be a great on-field leader. If he had been, perhaps he would have won a league title in his career.

But, that aside, leading by example is a very different prospect to leading through communication.

This is something that the majority of ex-pros and Scottish football pundits seem never to have considered.

Book-learning

As a hobbyist blogger, I am very much a half-assed amateur when it comes to football. However, I do read about the game and biographical works about football managers reveal some common themes.

First is that a little reading about football demonstrates that, in the modern game, old-fashioned techniques are largely obsolete, partly due to increased education as well as the changing dynamics brought about by huge salaries.

Even in the lower reaches of the English game, managers study various psychological techniques, including drawing on successful leadership and motivation strategies from other sports.

St Mirren’s Jack Ross gives indications of this sort of thinking but he is one of a very few in Scotland to allude to this. I have my doubts about whether Gerrard has been similarly studious but you can guarantee that Pep Guardiola and Zinedine Zidane did so before entering management. Ryan Giggs? I’m guessing not.

Second, is the intense, nigh-on intolerable pressure, which seems to increase year-on-year. Gordon Strachan recently spoke of sitting in Glasgow holding hands with his wife hoping it would get better, when first in the Celtic manager’s job.

But look at the physical changes that took place in Slaven Bilic, once one of the coolest young managers in the game but who appeared to be collapsing before our eyes before he was finally released from his West Ham purgatory.

Before & After: Two years took their toll on Slaven Bilic

Likewise, Antonio Conte – looking like an Italian film star on his arrival, exuding confidence to the point of mania but latterly resembling someone recounting his traumatic survival of an earthquake – one year after winning the League on his first attempt.

Before & After: Antonio Conte

The Rangers is one of the least forgiving and most unreasonable clubs in football and Gerrard – neither an insider nor one whose England performances cut much ice in Scotland – will discover this when unrealistic expectations are not fulfilled.

Circumstantial evidence

But, more than this, are the circumstantial factors.

According to the media mania, his name alone will attract top-quality players and investment has been promised.

But let’s look at that rationally.

As recently as Friday, Dave King couldn’t even state if the necessary investment would be internal or external, claiming that it “didn’t matter”.

Now, far be it from me to call King a glib and shameless liar, but the empirical evidence is against this mystery investment existing.

A few weeks ago, The Rangers signed a third-rate kit deal that was derided by a large proportion of their own fans.

So, it seems safe to assume that the club hadn’t even thought of signing Gerrard at the time, as having such a big name manager on board – with exciting signings to come – would surely have been a bargaining chip in negotiations with Nike, Adidas or even New Balance.

Secondly, having promised a manager “capable of delivering trophies”, just in time to undermine Graeme Murty (and make this blogger’s concerns that The Rangers would run Celtic close in the Scottish Cup semi-final seem like frightful anxiety), King has appointed someone who can offer no evidence of the same.

Again, that sounds awfully like someone who had no idea that Gerrard would be boss, just a couple of weeks ago.

And yet, with a multi-million-pound war chest arriving any day now, The Rangers would surely have felt confident of luring a manager who had actually won something in the past – or at least managed a team – and who would back up Dave’s promise of Silverado.

We are also invited to believe that, on the cusp of a brave new era, two directors decided that they wanted to bail out before the times got truly exciting.

Add to this the debt, the issues with the takeover panel, the need for stadium repairs, etc. and the Steven Gerrard appointment looks more and more like a swindle perpetrated on someone who knows little or nothing about The Rangers or the Scottish game, aided and abetted by the most ignorant and unscrupulous shower of reporters that have ever covered any sport.

I’ve been wrong before, of course – like when I thought that we would face a few scares in the cup semi – but, at face value, this whole episode looks not so much a damp squib as a custard pie primed with a banger, ready to explode in a lot of faces.

Sympathy for the Red?

I suppose I could sympathise with Gerrard, who seems to have displayed that English-football arrogance of thinking that Scotland should be a soft-touch and a shortcut to the top.

I suppose I could predict that Brendan, Neil, Clarke, Robinson, Ross and even McInnes or Levein will take great pleasure in bringing the big-shot rookie down to earth, with a mixture of tactics, man-management and experience at the coal face, and that we should go easy on someone who has been pretty inoffensive, thus far.

I could but, on reflection – nah – f*ck him!

--

No time for gloating as too-casual Celtic players stumble to 5-0 victory over The Rangers

Shameless bullying of inept opponents does nothing for sportsmanship or competition

I have never been a big brother. I have, however, been a younger brother.

Some of you will know how it feels (fraternal-sororial relations can have a similar dynamic).

Big bro is forced to play a ballgame with you.

He grudgingly goes along with it for a while, even occasionally being supportive and perhaps maybe instructive.

But he tires of of this. Because it's too easy, because it’s not cool and because his heart was never in it in the first place.

He scores again and again, however hard you try.

He starts to try stupid tricks, just to entertain himself by teasing you. And he can pull them off because you are younger and weaker than him.

And then, he picks up the ball and holds it above his head. You know how it feels.

You jump but he is taller and his arms are longer. You try to push him but he’s heavier and stronger.

It’s frustrating and not fair but he won’t stop and won’t even play the game with you.

Eventually, you get called in for your tea, which ends the misery but leaves you hating him and, perhaps with tears, saying: “Just you wait! One day!”

It’s absolutely not cool and is, in fact, a form of bullying, which might be forgiven when perpetrated by adolescents but never by fully-grown adults.

So, I was dismayed to see Celtic bullying The Rangers in a similar manner on Sunday.

Sure, their opponents didn’t really belong on the same park and were only even there at all because the patriarchs of Scottish football used their authority to insist that the Little Boys Blue be allowed to play.

But nobody gains from toying with the opposition and taking advantage of their obvious weakness and ineptitude.

Andy Murray didn’t become a Wimbledon singles champion because his brother Jamie got bored with competing and held him down, saying: “Stop hitting yourself.”

For the first five goals, Celtic were playing an honourable game – “respecting their opponents” – and actually competing.

But the players seemed to forget that seven, eight, nine or ten goals would have shown more regard for their fellow professionals on the field – and even taught them something for a future date – than sauntering around casually swinging at the ball and generally acting the annoying big brother with some kid who only moved in six years ago and has been pleading for acceptance, ever since.

Instead, the extreme superiority of Celtic was used in order to leave admirable pros like Graham Dorrans, Andy Halliday, Daniel Candeilas and Alfredo Morelos, saying, “Just you wait”, through gritted, gnashing teeth.

Mark these words – the Celtic players will rue the day that they bullied and toyed with those grudge-bearing children from the neighbourhood.

Some time very soon, The Rangers are coming.




--

Too close to call! Stats suggest Scottish Cup Semi-Final between Celtic and The Rangers will be a nailbiter

Hunskelping. It's something that never gets old. And the title of Hunskelper is one of highest accolades that can be conferred on any Celtic player, manager or team.

We have several at present but perhaps also too many people who take victory for granted.

However, a few facts and stats suggest that the Scottish Cup semi-final with The Rangers will be far closer than many Celtic fans are prepared for.

But, I hear you say, we're coasting to the title, far ahead of the southside pretenders, who have never beaten us over 90 or 120 minutes in their short history.

And, having played perhaps our worst 45 minutes at Ibrox, we beat eventually them with ten men.

All true and valid points.

And yet, there are one or two notable issues to suggest that we would be unwise to take a Cup Final place for granted.

The most significant of these is the disparity in terms of performance when comparing Celtic and The Rangers at home and away.

Breaking the table down, it is clear that Celtic (unbeaten at Celtic Park) have been ten points and roughly a goal-a-game better than The Rangers in terms of goal difference.

Away from home, however, the respective records are extremely close. (In fact, before the match with Hamilton Accies last week, the won/drawn/lost record was identical.)

The Rangers have scored 38 goals in 16 (2.4 a game) matches to Celtic's 31 in 17 (1.8 per match) games. That's a third more than Celtic's goals tally.

In contrast, Celtic have conceded six fewer goals than The Rangers by a similar factor (13:19) having played a game less.

Now, there is an obvious point to make that playing at a neutral venue is not the same as playing an ordinary away game.

But the factors that have contributed to the statistics mentioned above may not be clear until the game is done.

We can say that Celtic Park is an intimidating venue and that an overwhelmingly Celtic crowd can positively influence results.

On the other hand, perhaps the pressures associated with those same factors have actually inhibited the performances of The Rangers.

But it is not at all clear how those factors will play out at Hampden with a roughly 50-50 spectator split.

Should both teams be thought of as playing away or is the Hampden venue something distinct for both teams?

If the influence of the crowd is a crucial factor, basic logic would imply that Celtic will be somewhat disadvantaged while The Rangers will be somewhat advantaged. (If a crowd dominated by home fans boosts Celtic but intimidates The Rangers.)

And that would suggest that the result is far from the foregone conclusion that many Celtic fans would wish for.

Add to that factors related to the playing surface. It was difficult to judge based on the Motherwell-Aberdeen semi as the ball spent little time on the grass.

However, if the pitch is as bad as on many previous occasions, it will definitely benefit the less skilful team (though the larger dimensions would favour a team playing expansive, varied football rather than one that would clip its own pitch in order to contain the same qualities).

Also, throwing in the fact that the referee, Bobby Madden, is a former season ticket holder at Ibrox, you could have an intriguing match on your hands.

Unexpected plusses for Celtic have come in the form of Dave King effectively promising to sack the current Ibrox coach Graeme Murty and the idiotic furore over David Bates daring to sign for Hamburg on a free transfer.

In normal circumstances, these issues would likely damage the remaining morale of the Ibrox coaching and playing staff alike.

But, on the back of some lukewarm Celtic form, with an uncertain defence and the normal tension that comes with trying to achieve something that has never been done before - a second consecutive domestic treble - it would be foolish to expect a procession to the final on 19th May.

We have two painful examples in the past few seasons of semi-final disappointments.

This Celtic side will have to be at its very best to have that chance to make history.

We have the players and the coaching team to do it.

Make no mistake – everyone will have to be at their best and they must believe to achieve.

It will be a challenge but I believe we will get the result.

I believe in our people. Let's be ready.

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?

Union Bears in crisis! The Rangers fans split over violent sectarian idiocy ahead of Celtic match

Several fans of The Rangers have hit back at the 'open goal' flyer while others blame (this) 'Taig website' 

Scanning social media to cobble together online posts as some sort of news story is both the epitome of lazy journalism and typical of the modern media.

However, a Google search led me to stumble onto the FollowFollow (FF) discussion of the Union Bears flyer inciting sectarian violence.

(Confession: Yes, I occasionally used to log in to laugh at the delusional expectations or disproportionate reaction to disappointments. It was a guilty pleasure that I weaned myself off.)

For those who don't know FF, it was once the staunchest of all opinion-formers for Rangers fans and the Scottish mainstream media.

Now that “former” is more accurately applied to the club that once played out of Ibrox  – and other forms of social media reign supreme – the old site run by Mark Dingwall (a sort of Jim Traynor with reduced charm) has seen its influence wane.

However, FF would still be considered a hotbed of the most extreme reactionary Ibrox-related opinion to be found on social media.

So responses to the Union Bears flyer on its forum have been interesting.

Yes, many are echoing their post on Friday claiming victimisation with a defiant “No surrender”.

Some are even blaming this “Taig website” for publishing the story on Wednesday.

But numerous others have declared the flyer a massive own goal that will finally end cooperation between The Rangers FC and the fans' would-be Ultras (or perhaps more appropriately, “Ultras”).

With apologies to the FF posters here, who will almost certainly be declared “Timposters” due to being quoted here, the range of replies is revealing.

SuperA: “While  I love what the UB do I did think the leaflet was going to draw unwanted attention.”

BroomloanWATP: “Call me a handwringer all you want but the second I saw the word "fenian" on that flyer I knew this would happen. “

Wilkinsvolley: “That’ll be us boxing clever again.”

The Crimson King: “We could spend 10 pages agreeing with each other over the real meaning of the word, and the waste of police resources, but come on, the UBs have to be a bit smarter than sticking 'March against the fenians' on a bloody poster in modern Scotland.”

Papa Smurf: “Regardless of the lack of a level playing field, it's a bloody rediculous [sic] flier. What on earth did the creator expect.

Does not show anyone in a good light.”

arnietac1: “Unless someone can explain the mindset behind this then all I see as an Auld timer is a cluster %^*& of an own goal here.”

Herbie53: “UB should have anticipated this being the response, bit naive of them to use that word so openly, an unnecessary “own goal” it seems like.”

HCMC_Loyal: “As others have stated...a massive own goal. Hopefully it goes off without incident and the only thing the press can report after the game is a magnificent home win.”

Gattuso72: “What do you expect from a group who will spend a large majority of the game singing about religion/Irish terrorists then wondering why nobody else is joining in.

“IMO they make it impossible for the clubs board to support them in anyway.

“You can see why the club are so reluctant to safe standing if it’s the UB who take centre stage.

“I await the accusations of ‘imposter’ etc. but in reality I’m just a bear who thinks these guys could/should be doing much more to promote our club in a better light.

“You’ve got the platform. Let’s try not to be like our ugly neighbours.”

Buffallo72: “Another example of our obsession with them. If the GB had made a flyer showing a bear being kicked with the H word their would be uproar. Yet another example of so called fans damaging the clubs [reputation]. I’m sure there will be plenty of bears with young kids who will avoid this like the plague. I await the many videos uploaded to social media showing loads of wee guys dressed in black singing the ‘Tiffany’ song among others. A march to celebrate our great club now why not do that? Celebrating late great players like D for example? Or is all that just a bit too leftfield because it doesn’t mention them? Saw a video of Porto and Basel fans doing this and it looked great. Pity we couldn’t lose our baggage for once on this.”

Tommyhlrsc: “So a Taig website [this blog] asks this morning for the Polis to take the boys of the UB's to task?....The puppets that run Police Scotland do exactly that....Tail wagging the dug right enough.

“Wolf Tone was a Fenian, folk in Scotland not allowed to say that now?”

We'll leave the last word from FF to Southpaws:

“F*ck sake! Have the ‘union’ bears been living under a rock for the past twenty years? Of course a banner with the word ‘fenian’ and the depiction of a knuckle dragging Neanderthal kicking a [Celtic] fan on the ground was going to bring huge condemnation.

“I would imagine more than one complaint was made to police Scotland. Just as the club is beginning to get its act together on the pitch an element of its support is dragging its good name once more through the mud with this sectarian sh*t.

“Rangers is a football club and not a religious or political organisation with a support, the majority of which is happy to have moved on from the religious baggage which had previously demonised and damaged the clubs reputation.

“Sadly there is still a sizeable minority bent on pushing their own agenda of [ignorance] and intolerance more akin to their upbringing and lack of a desire to put Rangers FC first and foremost in their actions.

“The whatabootery is just plain facile, since when did we take our behavioural cues from the ‘beast from the east’? Rangers F.C. does not operate nor play to the base standards of that club, nor should its supporters. Rangers songs and Rangers songs only should by sung at our games, barring perhaps GSTQ and rule Britannia.

“Enough is enough, if you want to protest religion, politics, eulogise the death of Bobby sands or any such totally unrelated to football and therefore Rangers FC. Why not try and find the correct platform to so do and spare the rest of us from your outdated and bigoted repertoire.”

The messages above are highly selective. There are numerous others praising the Union Bears, insisting that they will attend the march and using the kid of bigoted, racist language that has become associated with fans of clubs based at Ibrox Park.

As I said in my last post on this blog, this story is not yet finished.

None of the posters on FollowFollow expressed even the slightest sympathy with Celtic and that is absolutely fair. We don't expect compliments from our rivals.

But it is clear to see that the actions of the Union Bears have created a schism in the ranks of The Rangers, which could only be a good thing.

Maybe those calling for decency, 21st-century tolerance and common sense will eventually win the day.

With the support of The Rangers Football Club and the Scottish Football Association, the club might one day be defined, not by its hatred of all things Celtic, Catholic or Irish, but by its football.

We patiently await that day.
--

Blogging for the public good – police take action against Union Bears’ violent threat to Celts

Social media can set the agenda and help make people a little safer

Nobody likes people who blow their own trumpets and this blogger rarely does. (In fact, it rarely has a trumpet worth blowing.)

While the newspapers love to claim victories that are often nothing to do with them, it is only the most delusional, self-aggrandising of bloggers (and there are a few) who would dare to do so other than in very rare exceptional cases.

And, no, your humble blogger is not claiming a victory but taking what seems a reasonable opportunity to flag up that social media can lead to positive change and that this blog can claim to have participated in that process this week.

Two days after calling for action against the Union Bears who had announced a march before their team’s match “against the Fenians”, this issue is a major mainstream media news story.

It has been reported in several popular news outlets that a criminal investigation has been opened and the Union Bears are complaining today that they have been "intimidated" by the media and that some members have been visited by police.

The blog is also quoted – with a link – in the Evening Times, something that you are unlikely to find in some of the most popular Celtic blogs which are now running the story (though some such as Indy Celts can be supportive of other Celtic blogs).

This is exactly the response that was hoped for when the original piece was written.

Point-scoring is part-and-parcel of football rivalry – but this was something different.

It was an arrow shot in the air in the hope that, if enough people read it, there might be at least a “quiet word” from Police Scotland in the ear of someone who might otherwise incite or perpetrate violence against some innocent person.

The best that can be hoped for is that, such is the focus on the issue and the protagonists, that there will be no other news story about someone getting hurt for no good reason.

That’s the only victory worth having – not lamenting an attack on a player or fan after the fact.

The Union Bears have, predictably, reacted with defiance, following some truly idiotic interactions on Twitter that resulted in the author of the original flyer being outed by one of his own friends.

And this story still has legs.

But the power of social media to raise awareness and put issues into the public forum, which the mainstream media may then follow, is clear to see.

The police know that any problems will lead to media and political pressure and will be watching the activities of the Union Bears very closely.

The public – especially Celtic fans and players – should be a little safer on Sunday.

The two pieces previously published on the issue in this blog have been amongst the most popular ever on this blog – the initial article is comfortably the most-read and the second is in the top five.

But, before you think this really is just a trumpet-blowing exercise, here’s the kicker.

The effectiveness of social media relies entirely on the users and their willingness to share or promote articles that they think are of some value.

Whatever part the articles on this blog played in doing some good was entirely thanks to the countless people on Twitter, Facebook and other platforms who helped to spread the word.

So, thank you and pat yourselves on the back. Some people are, hopefully, a little safer because of your work, though they will never know it (and it’s worth making a special mention of Celtic NewsNow and the Glasgow Celtic Stream).

This is the Celtic family – trying to do some good.

As usual, with success.
--