Three key players who wrecked Celtic’s European dreams

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






--

Amateurs embarrass fans

We can say all we like about Celtic’s “mystifying” inability to win away from home – even laugh about it from time to time.

But there is no excuse for losing to a team that was easier to break down than St Mirren at the weekend. If Georgios Samaras is unfit, then his place should have been taken by Cillian Sheridan (himself unimpressive in the time he was on).

What is the story with Samaras in Champions League games?

The man with the lowest pulse rate in the SPL has been conspicuously bad in his European ventures for Celtic, panicking into making no decision, rather even than the wrong one in front of goal.

And ridiculous decision-making is one of the major criticisms to be levelled at Celtic especially away from home. How many times did Andreas Hinkel play the ball backwards rather than across the field? How many times did Celtic players pass to Aalborg players rather than find their own men?

Aalborg are the worst side Celtic have ever faced in the Champions League group stages, yet still the Danes managed to take four points.

Gordon Strachan could do worse than offer his own explanations. I didn’t see what happened off the field preceding Shaun Maloney’s arrival, one minute before the end of ordinary time. I’m quite glad as, for several minutes prior to that, I had been predicting that Gary Pendrey would be drawing diagrams three minutes before the end.

It’s too easy to name names of players who badly let Celtic down – Scott McDonald, for example – but that would be to exonerate the rest. Boruc, Wilson, Brown and Robson can perhaps be given pass marks.

Territorial dominance and creating chances mean nothing if you throw away chances and bring poor teams into games with absurd passing and players who look like they should be in their beds. If you do you that you deserve to lose.





--

Keep politics - and poppies - out of football

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





--