Celtic crushed in Catalonia. Disappointed – si! Despondent – no!

Sometimes you have to take your licks in football and tonight was one of those occasions.

Should we ever think that losing 7-0 is acceptable? Of course not.

Welcome to Catalonia: Thanks, I think.

But there are times to recognise the excellence of our opponents and to decline the invitation to panic.

Most Celtic fans had a gnawing suspicion that Barcelona could run run up several goals against us. We just hoped it wouldn't be too bad.

And while going into every match with the expectation of a chance of winning is what a top club should aspire to, it was difficult to see how we would prevent Messi, Neymar and Suarez from scoring, aided by the sheer mesmerising creativity of Iniesta and a host of other stars.

Simply, Scottish teams have had no difficulty in scoring against us and Hapoel Beer Sheva netter against us twice in both legs, so arguably the most potent strike force that football has ever seen always looked likely to score three or more.

That it was so many smarts, naturally, but how do we respond?

We can panic, start berating our players and choose despondency or we can take a broader perspective in our disappointment.

We have defensive shortcomings that have only partially been addressed, a dearth of players with top-level experience and a thin squad.

For some of those players, the size of the occasion appeared to be too much, which is no surprise when going a goal down within three minutes in the Camp Nou.

That exacerbated our problems as the tension showed in some of our passing with loose balls and a reluctance to commit to going forward exacerbating the pressure of a relentless Barcelona.

With one or two more years of experience, some of those passes would have been attacking and a little more accurate. That same hesitancy was also evident in some of the running, meaning that good possession was turned into more and more Barca pressure.

But this was quite literally the hardest task that football could offer and came at a very early stage in the Brendan Rodgers reign. It should also be noted that those squad shortcomings have been several years in the making.

Nevertheless, clear progress has been made.

We have some genuine young talent, a coaching team that understands what they have to do to make progress and – crucially – growing confidence in the squad.

And that confidence is what we must guard most preciously of all.

A result such as this could crush the confidence of some of these players and bring us right back to where we started on day one. Fans putting pressure on the team or coaching staff will only undermine our aspirations of improving.
So, however hard, let's take it, support the team and help them grow.

We have other hard tests ahead of us – and some key additions will be needed in the next transfer window – but there is more to come from this team and it can still make us proud.
--

Celtic - The Rangers: We don't like them or their people

"We don't like this team. We don't like their people."

It was in 1989 when the legendary Cincinnati Bengals coach Sam Wyche

probably summed up the unrepentant spirit of sporting contempt better than anyone else, either before or since.

The Bengals had just prevented the Houston Oilers and their coach Jerry Glanville from clinching the divisional championship - by 61 points to 7.

On the way, they had taken every opportunity to score that was available to them, including the sort of moves only usually made by teams ready to take a chance in order to score when desperate.

A fake field goal, an onside kick,  even a field goal in the dying seconds when their opponents were already thoroughly crushed. It was roughly the equivalent of a team that was 6-0 up sending the goalkeeper to their opponents penalty box for a last-gasp corner.

As Wyche went on to say,  "When you get a chance to [run up the score], you do it. I wish today this was a five-quarter game."

Was that in keeping with the spirit of respect for an opponent that normal etiquette demanded? Absolutely not.

Did every fan of every sporting team know how Wyche felt and secretly imagine themselves in a similar scenario? Hell, yeah!

Today, Celtic under Brendan Rodgers will, for the third time, face a club claiming one of the most toxic legacies in sporting history.

There will be no Wyche-like words at the end from Brendan. And there is no animosity between him and his former office junior Mark Warburton.

But the antipathy towards the visitors tomorrow will be real and justified. The aforementioned coopted legacy includes almost 140 years of willingly revelling in the persecution of minorities.

It includes bad debt, deliberate fraud and cheating, all of which were celebrated as if illustrating a sense of conspicuous entitlement, the like of which can only ever be demonstrated by supremacists desperate to believe that "lording it" over all others is their birthright.

At Aberdeen, Stewart Milne once endured years of criticism for never coming close to the success of the Alex Ferguson era, perennially pleading that the club consistently outspent everyone outside the "Old Firm".

After a sales glut,  Hibs chose to balance the books, in order to secure the future of the club, a decision that was widely criticised.

Hearts, suffering an administration event,  chose to pursue a strategy of recompensing the creditors, thereby avoiding liquidation and preserving the club's history,  though being relegated along the way.

And Celtic, let's not forget, "paid all the bills" under Fergus McCann.

All of the above would be considered honourable in any country in which the sporting authorities and media were not dysfunctional to the point of perversity.

But we're talking about Scotland, where those who chose to accept that one of the consequences of mismanagement must be a sporting penalty are decried as fools.

Where the cheats, the bad debtors and the fraudsters are simultaneously celebrated as both sporting and moral victors and victims, without dichotomy.

Where a cult has been created in which an imposed narrative is considered higher than truth itself; more powerful than accepted existential norms.

And the people who, without shame, pound their knuckles into the turf,  demanding that their inherited rights to "respect", "esteem" and deference take precedence over easily demonstrable facts - at gunpoint, if necessary - claim that occupying territory wearing a uniform and struggling under a historical name also lays claim to historical values.

These ideals they express through the most vile abuse, threats of violence,  guttural chants of prejudice and obscene accusations.

Their team lays claim to the legacy of its predecessor by signing the worst that football has to offer. If Rangers had El Hadj Diouf, The Rangers must have Joey Barton, who can insult Celtic, our captain and even our manager without his own "boss" being able or inclined to discipline him.

And in all this, they are supported by the media while the authorities at best look away.

There was another notable quote from that famous Bengals - Oilers match.

It came from the Bengals iconic quarterback Boomer Esiason:
"It's like playing against the bully in your high school. You finally reach up and slug him in the teeth and he runs away."

The team we will face today claim the legacy of Scottish football's ultimate bullies. In that, they play a dangerous game as they are poorly equipped to do so.

Esiason was not, of course, advocating violence and that should not feature in any form.

He was talking about dishing out retribution in a sporting sense - on the public field of play.

Celtic have a bigger game this week when we take on probably the best team in the world in the Champions League, so any fulsome thrashing is likely to be tempered by resting key players.

For that reason, it is probably unrealistic to expect a record-breaking five or six goals.

And,  yes,  The Rangers are better on paper than Red Imps, who beat us,  so anything could happen.

But remember that we don't need to recognise the continuity myth to dislike this team or their people.

And we needn't hesitate to say so.

Game on.
--

Celtic v Hapoel Be'er Sheva: A right to protest – but right to protest?

Here we go again.

In the spirit of navel-gazing nostalgia that has come with the tenth anniversary of this blog, I have found myself compelled to self-reference again.

Because, yes – you've guessed it – Celtic have been drawn against another Israeli team in the Champions League qualifiers and some people just HAVE to demand a protest.

As I said almost seven years ago, when Celtic were drawn against Hapoel Tel-Aviv; I am no supporter of Zionism. In that, I am joined by the most orthodox Jews,

I abhor the oppression of the Palestinians, brutally denied their rights by a murderous regime.

I do not believe that Israel should be part of UEFA because, quite simply, Israel is not part of Europe, by any stretch of the imagination.

And I particularly note that the Israeli Defence Force has been accused of attacking young Palestinian footballers, which should be enough to mobilise the entire football community in a demand to stop such attacks, even to the point of suspending the Israeli football association from participating in international competition.

But how and when is it appropriate to protest?

Not for the first time, Celtic fans are being told what they must do, when they must do it – and being told that dissenting from this means abandoning Palestinian children.

All very well-meaning, avowing noble intentions but carrying the logical weight of the Manic Street Preachers saying that pacifists are willingly condemning their children to death at the hands of Fascists.

You remember them – those young Welsh lads born just too young to join the International Brigades or to take arms with Ernesto "Che" Guevara Lynch in pursuit of the international liberation of the

Che: 'In my son's veins flowed the
blood of Irish rebels'

working classes – so they formed a preachy pop band, instead. (Great tune, though.)

And much of the cry for an anti-Israel protest during the match is similar in nature.

We'll just fly some flags, take the fine – the club has plenty of money – and declare ourselves sedentary liberators of the Palestinian people and the international working class.

And if you don't – well, then take a good look at yourselves. You obviously don't care about the Palestinian children who could have been saved by that protest.

Who are these people and what to they actually DO to make a difference, (in the event that you don't consider Tweets and Facebook postings to be actually “doing” anything of substance)?

What sacrifices do they make, I wonder, in defence of Palestinians, in their daily lives. Boycott Israeli goods? Probably – that involves laying off the Soda Stream, eliminating 1% of your available wine list and being careful to avoid kosher salt.

How many of these people, for example, protest outside the Israeli embassy or risk arrest and incurring criminal records and fines? I have no doubt that there are a few – but, as for the rest, do they only notice what is happening to the Palestinians when Celtic are playing a team from Israel?

They insist that it will “only be a fine” but that's not clear at all. Do they want Celtic to play European matches with a stand closed – to make a statement? Perhaps they can dedicate that empty stand to Nir Bitton, so that he can watch the game in an atmosphere of acceptable solitude.

And, no, being Israeli or Jewish is not he same as being a Zionist but we do well when we remember to recognise the sensitivities of those closer to the issues that rightly inflame world opinion.

Why stop at the risk of a stand being closed? Surely the only morally defensible protest would be to refuse to play any Israeli club, risking expulsion from the tournament, as the club did under Bob Kelly when he took his stand against Warsaw Pact nations who had crushed the Prague Spring?

Why aren't they calling for that? Is it because Celtic being deprived of European football is too high a price to pay to save the Palestinians?

Where are the protests against Celtic's involvement in the International Champions Cup, given that it is an American tournament? The US is the greatest sponsor Israel has, without whose support, the IDF could not defend its country, never mind act with impunity in oppressing the Palestinians.

Why should we tolerate dealings with companies from the country that has done more to spread terror across the Middle-East and Latin America than any other?

Would it be too inconvenient to target American institutions? Would the costs to the club be “too high a price to pay”?

And who do these people think they are to dictate the exact nature that any protest must take?

Why can't they buy their tickets and refuse to take their seats, for example? They could have a public ceremony – away from the ground – burning their tickets, which would surely draw media attention.

They could raise funds for Gaza, take the opportunity to start a campaign to place pressure on UEFA and FIFA to expel the Israeli Football Association from its competitions, unless attacks on Palestinian players end.

There are a million causes and that of the Palestinians is one of those most deserving of support. That said, there are as many ways of supporting the people of that region as there are people there.

A pointless banner or flag-waving exercise that brings the club closer to the closure of a stand – depriving the team of support and fellow fans the opportunity to attend European games – will not achieve anything.

If someone can tell me or anyone else just why the above statement is wrong, please let them do so.

And before Wednesday – I'd quite like to watch the game.
--