The unpalatable truth? We, the Celtic fans, are to blame

The fans – once dubbed “the lifeblood of the club”, TGFIW (“the greatest fans in the world”, as if you didn't know that, already) stand accused.

Yes, we, who in our tens and hundreds of thousands have given our all to Celtic, for Celtic, even “Because” Celtic have no hiding place today. We, who have been immersed in the traditions of the club – or who have chosen Celtic more recently (all have their right to call themselves Celtic fans) stand accused.

That statement may seem unfair and it may even outrage some who stumble across this sad missive on a day of high emotion and low morale. But it is true.

And why? Because we let it happen.

We did not actively participate in the destruction of our club but we were eye-witnesses who did too little to help. Some of us complained a bit – but not enough – and a few protested. But, the truth is, we largely, en masse, listened to false prophets telling us how great this new, “pragmatic” approach would be.

As an inveterate socialist, I find myself paralleling Celtic to that other organisation that once was the vehicle of my dreams – the Labour Party.

I remember the transformation of Labour at a time when I was becoming, on a very small scale, politically active. It was the time of the “Dem Left”, the “New Realists” who would eventually be victorious in the battle for Labour minds (if not hearts) and reshape that party, forming it into something I could neither identify with nor care for, in pursuit of pragmatism.

Their side – the side of Kinnock and eventually Blair – won and my side, that hopelessly idealistic crew who thought that a Labour party that veered from its essential values was no Labour party at all, lost being consigned to a history in which Ned Ludd was the gatekeeper.

It won great success by the standards that those in power set for it. But I fell out of love with it, coming to resent it bitterly for taking something beautiful and idealistic and turning it into an entity without values, without soul, and justifying its metamorphosis in terms of Key Performance Indicators that had nothing to do with the Labour party I knew and in which I felt I belonged.

That whole New Labour experience was both a demoralising wake-up call warning -- that those things you wish to believe are less strong than the Machiavellian will of those unconstrained by the very notion of beliefs -- and a training exercise for compromising ideals and a commonly-understood set of values, even a code, when what seems the solidity of a century of mutual identity and understanding becomes disparaged as archaic, belonging in the past.

When New Celtic was born, many of us felt disquiet. But the spin was good – Mandelson and Campbell would have envied their mainstream and “independent” media manipulation – and their constituents were often too desperate to believe in a new dawn and too ready to believe the new informed, even intellectual, Celtic commentators who outlined the inevitable victory of the plan in such confident terms that those who had their doubts were routinely mocked and sidelined.

When we were clearly in decline, we did not all join in with the “happy clapper” brigade, scoffing at the plebs while snouts were in the troughs.

But the fans that once allowed themselves to be mocked for their “car park protests” adhered to the New Celtic spin that so many so wanted to believe in such numbers that we, collectively, left our club to the mercies of hard-bitten businessmen who think that everything that identifies a club can be expressed in terms of malleable brand values.

That if it cannot be recorded on the balance sheet, it has no worth.

What we have today, with an inexperienced manager working with a parlous squad, which has declined season-by-season, is our responsibility.

Because, “when they came for Celtic”, we did nothing. --

GoD is dead. Beware false profits

Overall the key Company objective remains football success, as this will greatly assist revenue generation.
Celtic Chief Executive, Peter Lawwell

Once upon a time, in a land shrouded in myth, Celtic were promised a Generation of Domination.

The term was catchy and carried the allure of some days of recompense when Celtic fans would enjoy success, as some compensation for a near-decade of misery in which our rivals across the city - through double-dealing for sure - arrogantly taunted us as second-class citizens in a very parochial Scottish football world.

And for a moment, cutting through the hyperbole, things were looking good. True, the Celtic spin machine was lying to us all the way. For example, one master of figure-juggling told us that Gordon Strachan had won three titles in a row for only the third time in the club's history. And some swallowed that whole, apparently forgetting the fact that one Jock Stein had achieved three-in-a-row three times consecutively and Willie Maley had done the same twice.

For those peddling such nonsense, though, past victories had to be diminished to make a more modest achievement, impressive though it was, seem all the more remarkable. That Celtic's decline should be contrived on 5th August 2008 could hardly have been predicted by anyone. That was the day that had fans enjoying the discomfort of their rivals on hearing the scoreline: FC Kaunas 2-1 Rangers.

Rangers exited the Champions League and Celtic could only prosper from their misery, exploit their weakness and march into the Generation of Domination, securing an advantage that might never be overturned. But others at Celtic thought differently and having briefed their "independent" friends in Celtic cyberspace, we started to hear of the value of "banked cash".

Ambitious transfer plans were shelved as it was expected that more modest outlay would secure title number four.

And, despite clear difficulties on the field, despite the fact that Gordon Strachan had told Peter Lawwell that he was in his last season, something that was kept from the fans, it looked that another title might be won, such was Rangers' parlous state. Some expressed anxiety going into the infamous Willo Flood transfer window that the directors and executives thought that serious investment would not be required, a seven-point gap having been established at the top of the table.

The title was lost and, with it, Champions League revenue. They repeated the feat again, and again. We now hear little from Celtic media about how dominant a team has to be to win three titles in a row because that has the converse implication that to lose three consecutively establishes a team as firmly second-best.

All this to a club whose imminent financial collapse has been offered a comfort to Celtic fans, skirting over the shocking state a club must be in to be bested three times by rivals in financial crisis.

One thing alone has justified the near-silence from Celtic fans as the club's ethics and values have been dismantled and its directors praised for pursuing a strategy that brought few trophies, less European income, and found fewer fans willing to buy tickets. That is the debt of loyalty fans owe Neil Lennon.

But when the manager of Burnley turned down the chance to manage the club he loves so that we were left with a man who came cheap but just had his team relegated, applause from the gallery and praise of the fat-cats picking up bonuses was a dereliction of duty. Neil Lennon was given the job and has done about as well as anyone could in the circumstances.

It is those circumstances, brought about by a criminal neglect of our club, dishonestly reported and accepted by noveau riche market-watchers, that should have all Celtic fans raging with anger. John Reid leaves a club that hasn't been Scottish champions since 2008 celebrating. If there was any fire left amongst the Celtic support, he and his cosy circle would have been hounded out long ago.

Celtic are now about accounts first, media spin second and football third. Game on.

--

Celebrity mismatch: Paul McBride QC vs SFA. What happens next?

I read the statement from the SFA in response to Paul McBride's remarks with amusement and a degree of shock. I had intended to write a piece welcoming the rumour that the SFA were set to make a complaint to the Faculty of Advocates following the QCs castigation of Scottish football's governing body. That was before a stunning SFA statement, attributed to Chief Executive Stewart Regan, that could potentially be of historic significance.

Let's be clear - there were only three avenues open to the SFA following McBride's accusations. They could let the comments pass with no more than a denial; they could lodge a complaint with the Faculty of Advocates or they could sue him for defamation.

The first option might well be seen as an admission that the Association could not legally refute the claims of Scotland's leading QC. The second is their right; indeed it is the right of anyone to ask the Faculty of Advocates to consider the conduct of a QC, especially when they are directly affected. The last option - legal redress - is fraught with danger.

Defamation is notoriously hard to prove and, even if proven, there are public interest and "fair comment" defences that seemingly allow defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory for any complainant. For every Tommy Sheridan, there must be two dozen people in Britain who have seen apparently sound legal cases founder in court through the complexity of the law, its interpretations and defences.

It is also invariably a hugely costly exercise and one that is, probably unjustly, normally the preserve of those with money enough to lose. Stewart Regan's recent plea for less litigious relationships between clubs and the SFA is hardly consistent with a brazen announcement that the association is considering "whether to sue just Paul McBride for damages or whether to also sue other parties". That is a crass statement designed to gag media outlets - mainstream or independent.

With the established media, legal counsel will be to take no chances and it will be a surprise if we see any further comments with the strength that Hugh MacDonald demonstrated in The Herald. Oh yes, the gag will be passed from lawyers to Chief Executives to editors to journalists. A few letters will also be fired off (which don't come free either, Mr Regan).

But will MacDonald or The Herald find themselves in court? Will a Rangers player be banned for manhandling a ref?

Reading the coarsely worded and intemperate statement from the SFA, it also seems that the association may have responded to the media before fully considering the legal advice that they have sought.

It should not be lost on them that in a defamation case, the burden of proof lies with the complainant. Yes, that's right. Paul McBride doesn't even have to prove the veracity of his statements to the media - the SFA must prove that what he said was untrue; that his comments were not in the public interest and that his remarks should not be deemed fair comment.

This is an organisation that is constantly in the public eye, with political and commercial interests affecting hundreds of thousands of Scots and businesses; an organisation that receives public money and officially represents the country domestically and on the international stage. Are remarks on the conduct of such a body in the public interest? Are criticisms fair comment? That would be for a court to decide.

It is, however, worth noting that a false claim of defamation could itself be actionable while malice on the part of either party - or an accusation of malice - would be seen as an aggravating factor.

For that reason, there are parts of the SFA statement that will not be repeated here, nor will there be a link to the statement. This small blog could barely be seen as impacting on the reputation of either party when such remarks have been so widely publicised but, nevertheless, it is bad practice to spread such remarks, if their accuracy is believed to be in doubt.

Suffice it to say that I will not be making or repeating insinuations that speculate on the motivations or professionalism of the QC and it would be wise for others with larger circulation publications to take a similar approach.

The formal complaint to the Faculty of Advocates is, in itself, not without risk, primarily to the SFA's reputation. As with a court case, the Faculty would request documents and hitherto unknown details of proceedings, the publication of which the SFA has been accused of resisting. McBride could also be reasonably expected to request the same documents for his defence.

This would be a time for stout hearts at the SFA. Remember that a complaint to the Faculty of Advocates would involved the finest legal minds in Scotland arguing over the conduct of one of its members - judgement of lawyers by lawyers for lawyers. And what would they do? They would do as lawyers do - pore over the minutiae of every dot and comma in every document; weigh every decision against ever other decision; statement against statement.

The result could be anything from the most complete vindication of the SFA, its office-bearers, its rules and practices to a dismantling of the same in forensic detail. Outsiders can only speculate as to where in the spectrum the final decision would lie.

Failure to fully cooperate with the Faculty would fatally undermine their case and invite questions as to why. Opening the doors to assist their complaint would bring the prospect of Glasnost and Perestroika the like of which Mikhail Gorbachev could only have dreamed of. In a court case, the stakes would be higher.

Oh, and for another twist, who do you think would represent McBride at his Faculty hearing? If I'm not mistaken a hot favourite would be one Donald Findlay QC, who McBride successfully defended at his own Faculty hearing some years ago. How about that for a headline!

Of course, at the heart of this is something even more clear than any allegations recently made against the SFA - mind-boggling incompetence. In Stewart Regan, the Association does seem to have someone with the background, skills and nous to tackle the job of Chief Executive of an organisation that is constantly in the public eye and with such a wide-ranging remit. But let's not forget that the appointment of his predecessor seemed to question the recruitment procedures at Hampden Park.

The same could be said of the role of Director of Communications. Such a position would be best suited to someone with at least ten years experience in a senior corporate communications role in the public sector or high-level business. It's a job for someone who can develop and implement a wide-ranging corporate communications strategy with a view to representing the SFA appropriately at all levels and to sense how the public, media and interested parties will react to what they see, hear or read.

It is not a job for a reporter who thinks that PR is a nod and a wink here, a bit of inside info there and the odd strident statement. That sort of person is used to having at least three pairs of eyes examine his output with any controversial statement "legalled" before publication. It would be remarkable if the SFA statement now so widely available in the public domain had been so scrutinised.

McBride is used to locking horns with fine legal minds in adversarial contest; prompting people to react to his questioning and verbal sparring in ways they did not plan; sometimes provoking them to make mistakes. With his strident statement to the BBC on Tuesday, he could scarcely have imagined that the response would be so intemperately worded or so ill-measured.

There will be many letters to and fro and cryptically worded statements when the legal teams are in place so a protracted battle may ensue. However, it really may be that the endgame is now in sight. --