Whither (the hell) we go?

An unusual spat occurred recently that would be unworthy of comment were it not for the profile in the Celtic online community of the protagonists. 

In the green corner, we had the one-and-only Barcabhoy, erstwhile of the parish of Celtic Quick News but also known to break
bread at The Scottish Football Monitor. 

In the white corner was Etims – or rather its representative – engaging in a conflict of opinions that became heated to the point of nastiness on the bloody battleground that is Twitter. 

For those unfamiliar with either, Barcabhoy has, for many years, held court on the CQN forum, garnering a phalanx of supporters and being much garlanded for his insightful contributions, especially on the financial and commercial complexities of the football in the era of Celtic plc. 

ETims (as the pluralised non de plume suggests) is not a single person but a team of Celtic-minded writers who were at the very vanguard of the new media fanzine.

The Electronic Tims were harnessing the power of the Internet when many established mainstream media news titles were thinking of web pages as an ethereal manifestation of some black art that would be scattered to the four winds with the sprinkling of some holy ink. 

I am not up-to-speed with all the relative personnel changes that have taken place since the inception of the Etims but it is safe to say that no one person could speak for the collective authoritatively.

 

Some screenshots will give a flavour of the debate but the heatedness of the exchange between people who represent very different constituencies seem illustrative of much that is going on in these disquieting times for Celtic supporters. 

Barcabhoy often seems to be well-educated, well-informed, well-off and well-regarded, the latter being at least matched by self-appreciation. 

His offence was a scathing put-down of fans critical of Ronny Deila, with the implicit defence of the plc-before-the-club apparently being inferred. It is a charge that has been laid at his door before.

The ETims website is no longer in its heyday – first being surpassed by Celtic Underground (with some ETims defectors, I understand) – and the operator of the Twitter account chose to respond in a manner that could be euphemistically described as employing a direct use of industrial language. 

Both sides had their supporters pouring scorn on the other in equally disparaging terms, while other onlookers lamented the visceral discord. Both players have had their moments and are deserving of some recognition for their past contributions. 

The ETims could rightly be described as visionaries who helped Celtic occupy a new media space that put the club indisputably head-and-shoulders above any of its Scottish rivals, with few clubs from Britain or beyond matching the verve and colour of the Celtic online community.

Barcabhoy is not always everyone's cup of tea, including my own, but when he was riding the peak of the CQN wave, he was also one of the main energisers of that one-time seemingly revolutionary medium, employing a language rarely heard in sporting circles.

But, frankly, neither Barcabhoy nor the Etims Tweeter matter much in comparison to the division that their clashing of heads denotes. Recently, there have been vociferous arguments for and against the tenure of Ronny Deila. Both sides have been declared idiots by the other. Celtic are either enjoying acceptable times on the park with fiscal common sense in the boardroom or a managed down-sizing of expectation, with cynical operators who care neither for football nor fairness. 

The notions of the Celtic family, the Celtic way of playing – Celtic values – have all been derided, as well as the adherents of the “old-fashioned” or “pragmatic” outlooks. To demand better is now to fail to support the team, be “faithful through and through”, to be a trophy-hunter or – worse – to do the mainstream media's job for them. To call for moderation is to lack ambition, to be a board lackey, a happy-clapper. And there is a risk in all this. 

For full disclosure, this blog was a victim of an underhand attack by some supporters of a different view, currently descending from the crest of their own wave. And to your writer's shame and regret, he “chucked it”, lost his spirit, let the people who thought cyberspace wasn't big enough for the both of us, win. At least temporarily.

 

But Celtic and the club's fans (can we really discuss both as part of one entity?) risk throwing away much of what made the club great, even different – like no other. Celtic did diversity before it was even a “thing”, far less a buzz-word for the liberal chattering classes. 

Being “open to all” carries the inherent demand that a plurality of perspectives, experiences and opinions be heard – and respected. 

The club has faced unfair criticism from the established media for decades and that has led to suspicion of the branded news titles and those who would echo any of the views to be found therein. And, in that sense, the mainstream media have failed Celtic through excessive scrutiny, in that just criticism has been seen to be equivalent to unfair attacks of old.

But one of the things that protected Celtic from the fate of our formerly high-flying rivals was our ability to hold the people running the club to account. It can be strongly argued that that complaisant or complicit media machine that failed to scrutinise Rangers contributed strongly to their downfall.

And if Celtic should eschew criticism – what then? Where people care about the welfare of anything, whether child, family, club, party or country, there is commonly an intuitive understanding that all voices will be heard.

 

That we will exchange views, freely and forcibly, in the trust and expectation that such tough love will lead us from error and perhaps point the way to opportunity. 

When Celtic fans cannot listen to the views of others who love and care about the club without abusing or patronising each other, we will be a club like any other, without belief, identity or values. 

Why would we go there? Where would it lead us? --

The wheels remain on – but listen to the axle creaking

The good news after today is that we are top of the Premiership, a point ahead of Aberdeen with a game in hand. This is reason for confidence.

With the unwanted exclusion from European distractions, Celtic can focus entirely on the domestic season in pursuit of another treble, which we probably won't achieve.

At full strength, Celtic are comfortably the best team in Scotland with the added bonus that, despite the best efforts of Willie Collum, our nearest challengers Aberdeen seem to take stadium restrictions too literally and leave all their bottle outside the ground.

The golden boy of Scottish coaching Derek McInnes lauded because – well the Scottish media need someone with no Celtic connection to laud – has shown himself to be reassuringly whiny when resolute leadership has been required. This is precisely what Celtic need at the helm of their closest rivals.

Not so Robbie Neilson, who has shown the ability to instil resilient belief in a squad in adversity and see it through to the end. However, it would be surprising indeed if Hearts were to make up ten points on Celtic over 19 matches.

But the reason we are unlikely to secure a treble is that the domestic clean sweep is typically won by a team that is emphatically dominant in a way that Celtic haven't shown themselves to be.

The match at Tynecastle is a perfect barometer of our season. A point gained away from home while suffering two early injuries to a squad already missing its captain and top scorer, with certain culprits providing the ineptitude that will have critics rubbing their hands.

Thus the attackers and defenders of the board, coaching staff and players can unite in smug vindication and I-told-you-sos with which to bring in the new year.

No, despite rumours circulating over recent weeks that he would be replaced (by David Moyes, Neil Lennon or an O'Neill – Michael, yes, Michael!) the wheels have not come off the Ronny bus. But the signs are there that the axles are creaking.

In the absence of Scott Brown, the team seems to allow the tempo to drop, a leaderless confusion of players, rather than a unit with a coherent plan.

A shooting gallery of wide players and central midfielders interchange pressing, moving the ball quickly but without a sense of conviction that they know to what end. A defence barely weakened by the return of Tyler Blackett, again looked suspect, even before Dedryck Boyata was injured and both Mikael Lustig and Efe Ambrose hobbled out of heavy challenges.

Without Leigh Griffiths, Nadir Çiftçi continues to labour, plodding where fleet-of-footness is required, and raising the spectre of Anthony Stokes like the no-good ex-boyfriend, ever in the background, ready to romp without care or commitment and scorning the mayhem he might wreak.

There remains vexation about Stefan Johansen, division over Kris Commons, sympathetic disappointment over Gary Mackay-Steven and latterly Stuart Armstrong with increasing exasperation over James Forrest who, despite patience and predictions, has yet to up-and-come.

At full strength, the current squad should comfortably win the Premiership. But with absences, individual losses of form and a divisive tactical approach, there is room for genuine concern.

This must be resolved before February. Doubtless there are one or two players who could be allowed to leave but a reliable central defender, a quick goalscorer and cover at right-back are the least that are needed if Celtic are to push forward in the coming months.

There may be a time for speculative signings on John Parks's intuition that one of them may be worth a lot of money some day but this is not it. Ronny Deila needs to be allowed to sign players who can reliably be expected to perform now, because they have proven ability to do so.

Another crop of recruits who have flattered to deceive or spent enough time in treatment rooms to be consulted on the décor will not do.

And those making the executive decisions would do well to ponder something. If the squad is not suitably strengthened and the points gap at the top of the table does not increase, those currently happy to bicker amongst themselves may start looking in the same direction and even consider their financial support for a strategy that ignores their wishes.

No, the wheels have not come off but they're sounding rather squeaky. So grease them!
--

Ronny and Celtic's ills – is he the sickness or the cause?

Well, as so often, it appears we are divided. This will no doubt cause disquiet amongst the Scottish

mainstream media who enjoy “harmony” more than most – in certain contexts.

But if there is room for more than a hint of suspicion that some of their number sought, precipitated and even caused Celtic fans to question the future of a Head Coach whose team is top of the Scottish Premiership, having won his only previous attempt, that does not, in itself, de-legitimise the entire discussion. (We can, however, discount anything Andy Walker has to say and would do well to do so.) Take the European campaign, for example.

I have often been disappointed, but never been embarrassed, to be a Celtic fan. I have, however, been embarrassed by Celtic on a rare few occasions – Neuchatel Xamax, Artmedia Bratislava (I won't go on) and almost the entire campaign of season 2015-to-before Christmas. We barely played a half-decent team.

We showed that several were there for the taking but, given that we were offering a two-goal handicap, we did not come up smelling of roses, but rather “fresh, stinking flowers” every time we got from bed. So, is Ronny a man for all seasons? Well, it's hard to say at this stage.

First, the positives: he seems like an all-round-good guy, which would usually carry its own forebodings. Many fans, not least your humble scribe, were impressed by his presentation on player development, in Norway, demonstrating a thinking man possessed of a rare degree of emotional intelligence.

And he did win the league, as well as the Whoever-the-Hell-Sponsors' League Cup. He assuredly was cheated out of a Scottish Cup final chance (although the performance was poor).

Those who think winning Scotland's top division with the highest player outlay is easy, may consider the tribulations of the new club with aspirations of winning the country's second-highest championship with the second-highest player spend.

But he is “tactically inept”, “out of his depth”, “makes unfathomable decisions”, “has a deplorable recent home record” and “isn't delivering the football we were promised”, according to increasingly vocal concerns. And, verily, he did appear to make both make a buffoon and a hero of Jo Inge Berget in different jerseys – the wrong way round.

Are there unanswered questions about Ronny?

Indeed there are. And, at this point, I will make a rare confession – I have no idea if he is capable of answering them.

My heart and sense of decency say to support him; my instinct and meagre appreciation of association football gnaws at me that he is on a downward trajectory towards the ignominy of Mowbrayism. And yet, there are other factors worthy of consideration.

When Ronny was appointed, it was a shock for good reason. He quite conspicuously lacked the accepted credentials for the job. Never mind the Celtic connection – there was no evidence that he had the experience to handle the pressure of a club of major stature encumbered with immodest expectations.

 He looked like a punt presented as the smart choice. And, as often happens, the phenomenon of newly-clothed emperors requires people of taste and discernment to exalt in the sumptuousness that those of a certain calibre could hardly be expected to appreciate. And then there are the sort of guys who turn up at Celtic Park with placards saying, “Until Ronny, I was never happy”, uttering heaven-forfends at accusations of PR-stoogism, decrying ignorance of the Stone Roses.

Yes, Ronny has shortcomings and they may never acceptably lengthen. But, if he is indeed inept – and would Rod Stewart really have advocated his removal, while in the same breath volubly lauding his closeness to Celtic plc – why did the club take a chance on him?

In these times when the mantra is to “minimise risk” and avoid excess, thereby securing the future wellbeing of the club, why appoint a man who seems to offer little, other than the mentoring of Martin Ødegaard, to the most important role in the club, suggesting that he could oversee progress?

Could it really be that “buy-cheap-sell-high” is the driving force behind our club's great strategy?

The much-vaunted “plan” (which has changed since the days when signing players from our domestic rivals wasn't on-message) – is it just to make money on player-trading while keeping the baying mob of fans placated with domestic baubles and promises of deferred glories?

Would any manager or coach, previously considered qualified, have taken the Celtic job only to be landed with the discerned pickings of John Parks, hopeful that one would be valued in excess of £10m in order to tempt Southampton?

And could the current suits at Celtic be readying the club and fans for an unpalatable acquiescence to the “need” for a mismanaged club being allowed to gatecrash the top league with a strategy that they well know to be potentially disastrous?

If so, are they planning for a more experienced manager to give the club a better chance against a hell-bent-on-destruction-or-glory opponent? Such follysome speculation can only lead inexorably to madness.

There appear to be three major pertinent questions about Ronny Deila – should he remain, should he go and should he ever have been appointed.
If the answer to either of the latter two is negative, then there is another question: Why did he get the job? A convincing answer would be welcome before another appointment. If you are so-minded, you may get your scalp – but will you get a wiser head?
--