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. --

An open email to the SFA

To: George Peat; Campbell Ogilive

Sent: 12 April 2011; 15:01

Dear George and Campbell,

Could you please advise us as to when you will be commenting officially on allegations that a culture either does or has existed within the Scottish Football Association that is hostile to one of its member clubs? This has, I am sure you will agree, become more pertinent in the light of recent reporting that an email detailing the remuneration of a former player from a member club was sent by an office-bearer to senior figures within the SFA, with an appended note directly insulting Celtic.

I trust you recognise the seriousness of the allegations and, given the "tiresome" activities of the club in question in continually embarrassing an organisation that appears to be institutionally dysfunctional, I'm sure you would not allow such rumours to go unchallenged if untrue. That would have the undesirable effect of strengthening the suspicion in some quarters that the impartiality of the SFA cannot be presumed.

Indeed, it would be dangerous to the standing of the game in Scotland as well as the the SFA to allow malicious comment to spread when it seems to call into question your individual integrity and ability to remain in office or for the SFA as a body to administer the game.

Note, for example, the decision today not to ban two Rangers players who had been charged with misconduct, one of whom was guilty of laying hands on a referee in an attempt to physically prevent him from doing his job. Contrast that with the SFA's recent statement "regretting" that the Association's lawyers had advised it that punishing the Celtic manager Neil Lennon in breach of the Association's own rules was "legally unenforceable", indicating a preference to penalise the Celtic manager in excess of allowable standards. This is the sort of area that would come under increased scrutiny, should allegations of members circulating emails amongst senior office-bearers mocking a member club without comment or censure.

I understand from SFA sources close to that most erudite of journalists, Hugh Keevins, that you have been taking legal advice. I would urge you to launch a full investigation, which given the allegations involved, must necessarily be independent, and to publish its findings in full.

Should the allegations prove false, you can be sure of the same fair-minded and unbiased backing from the Celtic support that you have extended to our club.
--

Rangers chairman's loose tongue causes more problems

Jim Traynor says it didn't happen - but Chick Young was there!

--

The curious case of The Herald's low-key Rangers exclusive

Newspapers exist to deliver the news. That is a simple truism. Throughout the industry, there is an unending competition to beat rivals to the punch - to be "first with the news". And what newspapers or any news media crave most of all is the exclusive - the story that no one else has.

So you might think that when a newspaper gets first sniff of a story relating to an event that is to be the subject of a parliamentary debate that day, that they could be relied on to "big it up" - to shout it from the rooftops.

It is curious, then, that Tuesday, 8 March saw just such a story appearing in a paper but delivered in such a low-key manner as to almost send it flying below the Scottish football radar. In fact, if it wasn't for Celtic cyberspace, you might have missed it altogether. Other papers have yet to run with it, presumably because they can't establish the facts.

With the "shame game" still vexing pundits and politicians alike, days after the Chief Executive of the SFA had cited specific instances of unacceptable behaviour from Rangers players El Hadj Diouf and Madjid Bougherra, and with Celtic and Rangers set to discuss the events at Holyrood, The Herald almost apologetically whispered that they "understood" the players were in the clear with the SFA.

The Herald had information that no other paper seemed to have and yet chose to devote a mere 162 words to relaying the potentially explosive news that the abuse of the referee and inflammatory behaviour referred to by the SFA's Stewart Regan was considered a closed case with referee Calum Murray "reporting 'no additional misconduct' in his paperwork, the referee, at least, is content that both players were dealt with sufficiently at the time".

Equally intriguing is the name of the reporter, Martin McMillan. You may have read Martin's name on many a low-key match report and minor story. What a scoop for a reporter whose work is otherwise mundane. But you won't see McMillan on TV or hear him on radio.

Why? Because he doesn't exist. The name Martin McMillan is what is known as a house byline, a name of convenience added to stories, usually supplied by outside agencies or taken straight off the wires (streamed agency reports), to make it appear to readers that actual reporters are delivering news. It is a common practice in the industry and almost every title has them.

But if a news agency had such an exclusive, you would be reading about it first on the back page of one of the better-paying tabloids such as the Sun or the Daily Record. So we can rule them out as a source.

That leads us to speculate as to why the paper might deliver such a story without inviting full attention to it. Any journalist on the sports desk would want to put their name to that particular scoop, claiming the kudos for their investigative work.

Of course, it could be that the story is couched in such ambiguous terms, using terms like "Herald Sport understands" because they can't "stand the story up" - in layman's terms, verify it. But printing a story that just might be true doesn't sound like the approach of the Herald.

Could there be another reason? Could they be sacrificing the splash to protect the source who had presumably delivered the details of the referee's report in breach of his or her contract at the SFA?

Who could possibly be in the inner sanctum of the SFA with a strong connection to the Herald Sports desk?

• SFA Communications team

--

The unholy alliance - Rangers and the Scottish media at their worst

Isn't it remarkable? After a night of football in which one side set out to injure their opponents, allowing them possession only to hack and stamp on anything that moved, there is a classic Scottish media re-write taking place before our very eyes.

The "Old Firm" tag is being used again to create a story of equivalence that flies in the face of reality. Let's not lose sight of some facts.

The fans
Rangers fans chanted every vile song in their repertoire of filth. The famine song, Who shagged all the Boys?, the Billy Boys, I Was Born Under A Union Jack, to name but a few.

And lest anyone say that Celtic fans are the only ones whose songs sometimes recall Ireland's fight for independence, let's not forget Father's Advice, whose lyrics include: "Oh my father said to me 'I must join the Y.C.V' [youth wing of the UVF], With a rifle or a pistol in my hand".

These are the same people who sang taunts about the death of Tommy Burns from a support which thought it funny to abuse a homeless man and throw him in a fountain.

The players
Not for the first time, Rangers attempted a systematic destruction of their opponents' most skilful players. The trouble is that, at present, Celtic have too many of them. Gary Hooper, Beram Kayal, Emilio Izaguirre and Kris Commons in particular were subjected to out and out brutality in a bid to injure them. Rangers under Walter Smith have form for this. Wednesday night was one of the worst examples and resulted in a glut of red and yellow cards.

Among their ranks in the spiritual home of the gormless, undignified fool, is El Hadj Diouf. For some reason it has become accepted that Neil Lennon was partly to blame for confronting a player who had stopped to make aggressive contact with a physio who was running on to treat an injured player, while en route to the Celtic technical area - running all of 30 yards to do so.

The confrontation resulted in two members of the Rangers staff encroaching on the Celtic area (admittedly Kenny McDowell seemed only to be trying to harness the snarling buffoon in the blue shirt). For this, Ally McCoist and many in the Scottish media seem to think the Celtic coaching staff are to blame. Had Smith or McCoist taught their players any manners, they would be observing the same unwritten rules as teams all over the world - players don't engage with opposition coaches or approach their bench.

But the lower Rangers go, the worse their problems become, the more they respond by dispensing of a pretence of basic dignity and indulge in the boorish behaviour of the thug.

We also witnessed the spectacle of Madjid Bougherra manhandling the referee at least twice. For players of any other club, one instance of such behaviour results in a red card, a fine and an extended ban. Bougherra's second offence came while trying to physically prevent the referee from sending him off after a malicious challenge on Kris Commons that would be best described as an attack.

In the meantime, Scott Brown was booked for pulling out of a challenge with Davie Weir, who nevertheless sprawled on the floor as if pole-axed. We should be kind and presume he just wanted a rest.

The coaches
McCoist and Smith sent a gang out to destroy a football team. Neil Lennon, Johan Mjällby and Alan Thompson sent out a group of professionals to pass the ball, play attacking football and maintain their discipline.

Neil Lennon should keep his composure better, I will concede. At the same time, the message that the coaching staff at Celtic will not take abuse lying down is resonating with fans and players alike. There is a fighting spirit, a passion and a pride at Celtic that appeared to be in serious jeopardy in recent times. The coaches are to be praised for their defence of the cause, even if Lennon's temper can be to his detriment.

Instead of reprimanding Neil Lennon, McCoist should deal with the likes of Kyle Lafferty, who publicly mocked him on Twitter or their new 19-year-old idiot Kyle Bartley who, despite being two months into a loan deal now seems to be authorised to single out the Celtic captain in the media and square up to Johann Mjallby. When on-loan teenagers behave like that, without reproach, it says much of the culture of the club.


The Chief Executive
Putting the cherry on top was the bronzed figure of Martin Bain - you know the guy who sort of suggested that singing the racist Famine Song might be a bad idea because some fans might get in trouble with the police? Bain is obviously aware that the camera images show a picture of indefensibly indisciplined behaviour. How do we know this? Because his only defence is of unsubstantiated provocation by things that were allegedly said out of earshot to his shrinking violet players.

As if briefed by Media House, Bain's response is to resort to smearing the opposition, rather than asking better of his coaching staff who, in one more of his delusions, he believes are respected the world over. In doing so and in pointing to the referee - without a word of criticism of his own players - he is endorsing their behaviour. It's the Rangers way.

The referee
Let's get one thing straight - there have been three decent performances by referees in recent meetings with the R-word. But Callum Murray has not bent over backwards to help Celtic.

At Ibrox, he wrongly sent off Fraser Forster - not his fault; he was cheated by Steven Naismith and given no help by his linesman. He also wrongly ruled Giorgios Samaras offside when onside by yards - again at the behest of the same linesman.

On Wednesday, he wrongly booked Scott Brown, as mentioned above and failed to award a penalty when Bartley used both hands to block the ball. There could be no argument about the yellow cards to Mark Wilson or Daniel Majstorovic. Otherwise, his major crime was being overly lenient towards Rangers players.

However, under appalling pressure from Rangers players, he kept his head and punished clear fouls and dangerous play, though Bougherra should have been sent off much earlier.

In his criticisms, Martin Bain seems to be calling for a reversion to the recent days when Rangers booted opponents with impunity while the world watched. It can be interesting to hear the language used by commentators from other countries. For example, when Lafferty tried to break Andreas Hinkel's leg, Spanish commentators branded him a "criminal bastard". The Scottish media were rather more kind.

And the day after all this carnage, what does Hugh Keevins focus on? The Celtic manager, of course.

The fact is that Rangers are an institution the like of which the world has never seen. The club has no sporting ethos but is comfortable being a vehicle for bigotry and hatred. They should be isolated and condemned.

We are not like them and never have been. We must never stop challenging lies to the contrary.

--