There’s nothing quite like being in the Champions League to quicken the pulse a little and that Wednesday morning rise seem a little more appealing (unless the match is on a Tuesday, of course), knowing that most of the cares of the day will likely dissolve with the excited anticipation of the match ahead.
When your team’s most recent outing has been a stirring performance and an encouraging result, the positive vibes resonate a little more strongly.
Celtic fans hardly need reminding that the 14 days covering our head-to-head with Borussia Mönchengladbach are likely to be the most crucial of the season.
Mönchengladbach are not just a very good team – the are a great club, as people of my age, who remember their “Golden Years” will know well.
An early football memory is of one of my primary school classmates asking me if I knew who was playing that night. “Borussia Mönchengladbach”, he said proud of his ability to pronounce the name someone had written on a piece of paper for him.
I went home and did the same thing. With a little bit of help from the Internet, I can tell you the precise date: 25th May 1977.
At that time, I was oblivious to the fact that it was the tenth anniversary of Celtic’s European Cup triumph in Lisbon (though the commentators would surely have said so through the fuzzy sound and apologies for picture quality that only seemed to add to the crackling drama of such nights) but the final against Liverpool that night was a clash of two European giants, in the days when the game seemed a little more pure.
Some of the names from that team, though, resonated through the ages, Berti Vogts, Rainer Bonhof, Allan Simonsen (one of the early greats of Scandinavian football), Uli Stielike. A certain Jupp Heynckes, who also played, would go on to managerial greatness.
Liverpool called on giants like Phil Neal, Jimmy Case, the late Emlyn Hughes, Terry McDermott and, of course Kevin Keegan.
Liverpool and Keegan would win the cup, before the poster boy of English football went to join SV Hamburg, replaced by our own “King” Kenny Dalglish, breaking the hearts of Celtic fans everywhere.
Allan Simonsen: The original Danish Dynamite
Keegan would take over from Simonsen as European Footballer of the Year, while Dalglish would usurp Keegan's place in Liverpool's history.
It’s apposite to recall these days now to remind ourselves that Borussia Mönchengladbach is a club of real European pedigree who will draw on that historic tradition over this Champions League campaign.
So forget Mönchengladbach’s away form – any notions that we will face anything like a comfortable task should be scotched right now. These two matches will take every scrap of our endeavour, every moment of skill and above all, unrelenting professionalism from every Celtic player on show.
It will also require every decibel of relentless singing and chanting that the Celtic faithful can deliver.
A win tomorrow will not be enough, despite some complacent comments to the contrary.
I believe that two wins is too much to hope for, just as I believe that Mönchengladbach will not leave the competition without recording at least one win.
Mönchengladbach don’t yet have a point on the board but we – let’s not forget – have a negative-7 goal difference, to their five. Going into the last two matches without a single-point advantage and an inferior goal difference would leave us perilously close to exiting Europe.
So a win tomorrow is vital; a win by two goals would be amazing. That would leave us all but guaranteed third place, should we secure a draw in Germany.
Failing that, if we should end up with a win each, at least levelling that goal difference would give us more than a fighting chance.
Spare a thought for Oskar Halliday and his family. RIP
Arguably the most dangerous outcome would be a narrow win at Celtic Park leading to the complacent believe that we would be almost home and dry, as far as European football is concerned.
The last round of matches is always a lottery as, should Barcelona or Manchester City have won the group before the last match, they would most likely rest several of their top players.
So, we should be cheering for our friends in Catalunya, too, (and maybe we’ve made new friends in Manchester), as it could be vital to our interests that City face Mönchengladbach, needing at least a point.
Brendan Rodgers isn’t talking about the Europa League and he’s to be commended for that. But our immediate job is to secure third place. Then we can dream.
* And a final note, with the notable exception of Kevin Keegan’s old German team, every Celtic fan I know has always spoken of how warmly received the fans have been in Germany. I expect that to continue in Mönchengladbach, so I hope that their fans will be accorded the welcome they assuredly deserve – until the game starts.
It was announced on
Friday, with no fanfare whatsoever, that John Park had left Celtic.
John Who? The
majority of Celtic fans who have taken a close interest in the club’s
operations over the past few years will know the name well.
Football Operations: John Park and Peter Lawwell
Having been at Hibs
and credited with the discovery of Scott Brown, Kevin Thomson, Derek
Riordan and Garry O’Connor, among others, it wasn’t surprising
that Park would have been seen as an attractive target for Celtic.
What club wouldn’t want a guy who had a track record of unearthing
local talent that went on to earn international caps?
I should state here
that no criticism of John Park is implied – I have no doubt that he
did hs job exactly as he was expected to do.
However, despite
constant denials from Celtic – and successive coaches, who may have
been contractually obliged not to comment on negative aspects of the
workings of the club – suspicions remained that Park’s role was
not always consistent with the footballing aims of the manager/head
coach, whatever we are supposed to call him.
The alarm bells
first started to ring shortly after Gordon Strachan left the club.
Overall, Strachan did an exceptional job for us and should be thanked
for that. However, shortly after he left he made a cryptic statement
indicating that he would never again sign a player he hadn’t seen.
During Strachan’s
time, Celtic signed Thomas Gravesen and Roy Keane – both of whom he
had assuredly seen, but neither of whom he apparently wanted.
Keane, in his
inimitable style, went on to say that his future manager’s absolute
disinterest in having him as a player was an extra motivation to sign
– an “up you, Gordon!”
Gravesen was a
different case in point, altogether. Stilliyan Petrov had gone to
Aston Villa, having been kind enough to sign a contract with Celtic,
meaning that the club would get £7.5 million pounds for him, when he
could have landed a much fatter deal by letting the contract run
down.
Gravesen was then
brought in, meaning that Celtic landed a Galactico to replace Petrov,
and pocketed a whopping profit at the same time. Great!
Gravesen was a
tremendous player – built like a brick sh*t-house, with an
irrestible drive and energy that allowed him to dominate the middle
of the park. In that regard, he was much like Victor Wanyama but he
also had an attacking instinct and a powerful shot that persuaded
Real Madrid that he could transpose those qualities to La Liga.
But there was a
problem – Gordon didn’t want him and this established pro was
neither able nor willing to change his style of play to suit the more
controlled passing game that Strachan favoured.
It still seems
surreal to recall that many people thought that Gravesen wasn’t
good enough for us. He certainly was – but RIGHT for us at the
time; maybe not.
Roy Keane was a
different case altogether. Keano is one of a select band of players
who I admired greatly in a pre-Celtic career before finding that the
reality of him in a Celtic shirt was one inextricably-linked to an
image of him as an utter ******le.
Both Keane and
Gravesen were known quantities – but the warning signs were there.
Our manager was being asked to work with players he didn’t know –
like Du Wei, for example.
Many of us rang the
alarm bells at the time but we were mocked by those who thought
themselves the more “intellectual” Celtic fans. You know them –
the ones who talked about “The Plan”.
The Plan (as another
blog noted this week) seemed to involve John Park being a de facto
Director of Football, with Peter Lawwell doing the contract stuff
while Park identified the players in his “roving” role.
We were told that this was what was needed, rather than the "homespun" approach of Celtic managers signing players they have identified.
We signed some good
players – Forster, Wanyama, Van Dijk – and sold them to
Southampton as soon as they offered eight figures. For this, Peter
was rewarded greatly and, we must presume, Park was, too.
We also signed
players who would walk into the all-time Hall-of-Guff, should such a
thing ever exist. But that didn’t seem to matter – six flops were
more than offset by one £10m pay-off.
Those of us who protested were decried as fools. We were asked how much money we wanted to
spend and told that amount would bankrupt the club – even though we
had never answered the question.
We were reminded of
the mantra of The Plan, an entity lauded by the followers of one site
(who routinely referred to its owner as if he was a knight of the
realm). Those who couldn’t or wouldn’t sign up to said scheme of
modernism were labelled as naive, wreckers who would see the club
bankrupted.
There was to be no
middle-ground between reckless spending and feckless recruitment with
a view to player-trading being the primary function of the club.
We were reminded of
Porto – we never came close to Porto’s achievements.
“Celtic fans” --
the new kind who understood business better than the common-or-garden
“beggin’-yir-pardon-sir” plebeians – told us that the balance
sheet was what mattered most of all.
What – you want to
watch a good team, playing good football with aspirations to raising
the standards year-by-year? “I suppose you think we should spend
£12m on the likes of Tore Andro Flo? No? How much should we spend -
£20m, £30m? Do you have any idea how well we’re run?”
Buy your ticket and
shut your mouth was the mantra.
And yet – look
what has happened.
The Plan has
changed. Why? (Whisper it.) Because The Plan failed.
The Plan, which saw
Celtic radically under-invest in the post-Rangers years, also brought
Euopean failure, fans expressing apathy and anger, the club giving
the Head Coach’s job to a virtual rookie and key players in the
squad sold from under him.
And what was the
response to this failure?
That is something
you are never likely to hear from the “new realists” who lavished
praise on the Celtic knight, while they munched their prawn
sandwiches, laughing about their pie-eating, team-on-the-park days.
How many dissenters
ever said we had to spend £10m-£20m, however hard the saints of
Peter’s rapid news site asked? Few, if any. On the other hand, many
welcomed the change of approach for this season.
A manager – not
just Head Coach – who is in charge of the football operation
because he understands it better than anyone. I’ll admit that I
wasn’t convinced that Brendan Rodgers would be the best choice for
us because I’ve always been suspicious of “highly-regarded”
picks.
I cannot give him
the backing that he has given to Scott Brown as both regular readers
of this blog will know that I never give more that 100% to anything –
it’s illogical.
But what have we
seen – Moussa Dembele, who had shown his potential in the English
Championship, persuaded to come to Celtic for the next stage of his
development.
This was not part of
The Plan.
Those of us who are
old enough need only cast our minds back to the tears Henrik Larsson
shed when it seemed as if Feyenoord would scupper his move to Celtic.
That was not to do with love for Celtic at that time but, as Henrik
said, he had seen how Pierre Van Hoojidonk had developed.
Neither was it part
of The Plan – it was a straightforward reaction by a player who had
potential, recognising that he could emulate or exceed Van
Hoojidonk’s achievements, if only given the chance.
That’s one of the
reasons why Dembele is such a great signing for us. It’s not just
because we have such an exceptional player (whose comments on
receiving player-of-the-month were just what every Celtic fan would
love to hear).
But, when Moussa
signed, Zinedine Zidane said it was a logical move for a player he
had been watching. Zizou said he had to score in the Champions League
– Moussa duly scored. France Under-21 caps – two goals in two
games, drawing praise from Didier Deschamps, who has already
discussed bringing him into the top squad.
This seems lost on
some people – we have a manager who was influential in the
development of Raheem Sterling and Luis Suarez and who Steven Gerrard
described as the best one-to-one coach he had ever worked with.
His initial work
with Dembele will also be noted by other players whose aspirations
match Moussa’s – to play in the Champions League and get the
attention of the coach of one of the elite European national teams.
If Moussa can get
his full call-up for France, why couldn’t any other French, German,
Italian, Spanish, Portuguese or English player seek to follow his
path at Celtic?
That wasn’t The
Plan – find some potential, give them a couple of seasons to show
their licks, sell the best for big money. Figure out what to do with
the rest.
The Plan would never
have brought Henrik to Celtic and this is the time for those
criticised for objecting to it, to recognise that.
There are two other
distinctly “off-plan” signings but the sort who idiots like me
always sought (you know, we were hell-bent on the destruction of the
club).
Signing Kolo Toure
did not fit The Plan. He was a “diminishing asset” before Brendan
Rodgers persuaded him to leave Liverpool, where fans expected him to
be offered another contract.
What Kolo has become
is more than a defensive rock – he is the defensive coach in-situ;
the guy who knows exactly what has to be done, where players should
be and the decisions they should make. Any defender who doesn’t
learn from playing with Toure will demonstrate much about his future
potential.
(In this, he is
adding value to his defensive cohorts, Plan followers.)
And the third
“off-plan” player is – of course Scott Sinclair. Sinclair
epitomises something else that we should be seeking to exploit – a
player with abundant skill, who has had a hiatus in his career, but
who an astute manager can assist towards fulfilling his full
potential.
Players like Scotty
don’t make any sense according to The Plan – you take someone who
is paid a massive salary and invest a great deal to persuade him that
he should come to Celtic and, if he has sufficient belief, might
flourish again; even maybe play in the Champions League.
Once upon a time, it
was Chris Sutton – devastating with Norwich City and Blackburn
Rovers – but discarded by a too-rich club who paid £10m for him
while most of the English media chose to forget how good a player he
was.
Chris Sutton is one
of the best Celtic players I have seen with my own eyes. Scott
Sinclair need only look to him for inspiration.
There is, though, a
fourth issue, and that is about keeping players. For that, look no
further than Kieran Tierney. With major clubs said to be ready to
offer in the region of the magic £10m, Kieran actually chose to sign
a long-term deal with Celtic, the club he supports.
I’m not the only
Celtic fan who gulped a little bit of emotion when KT chose to stay
with us, a Celtic supporter ready to fulfill his dreams in a Celtic
shirt. But again, many of us suspect that the prospect of working
with off-Plan Brendan Rodgers was significant.
This is not The Plan
– but neither are Celtic facing bankruptcy. In fact, the club is
enjoying just the sort of financial rewards hoped-for by non-Plan
exponents, while The Planners were espousing the benefits of the
Europa League, instead of the other tournament we were supposed to
qualify for, three years out of five.
It is worth
remembering that nothing has been won this season. Fans and players
need to be conscious of that. And it was wonderful to hear Pep
Guardiola defining what it means to pull on a Celtic shirt – to win
every week. When Pep is paying homage to the values of the club, it
can also serve as a reminder that complacency never fits with being a
Celtic player.
We respect the
opposition, no matter who they are, and play to win.
We know that we do
not have a divine right to win and that every point or victory must
be earned on the park.
These are the values
and ethos of the club – not any immutable Plan, supported by people
who could well be called propagandists.
A proper manager who
knows what he is doing (with astutely-chosen professional
assistants), leading the football operations of the club – in
charge of signing policy.
That’s not The
Plan – but it’s what reckless fans like me thought could work,
all along.
A free, fearless and
impartial media is one of the pillars on which any society
Due diligence: Two Scottish sports
hacks discuss standards and ethics
claiming
the accolade of “democracy” rests.
In various corners
of the world, journalists have been pressurised, intimidated, sacked,
arrested, imprisoned, tortured and even killed for their
determination to get to and report the truth.
It is through
journalism that presidents have been held to account, crimes
revealed, spying exposed and more. And so we should be careful to do
nothing to support the suppression of truth or the journalistic
freedoms on which a just and transparent society depends.
And yet, that sacred
implied contract of society defending a free press is based on a
number of clauses. The journalism cannot always be fearless, it is
rarely free in the truest sense but it must always strive towards
such impartiality as is possible, allowing for – but guarding
against – unconscious biases.
It must never, ever
stray from seeking to uphold those ideals and when it does so –
stray from the seeking, rather than attaining these ideals – it
loses its claim on our protection. It becomes something weak,
spreading error, misinformation and even disinformation. It becomes
something anathema to all journalists everywhere; a thin cloak of
journalistic privilege over a body of PR or even propaganda.
When that happens,
the rules change fundamentally. The so-called journalists and the
publications they represent distort their core mission for reasons
that are not always clear – fear, self-interest, blackmail,
bribery, intimidation – and they become something not only unworthy
of privilege, but demanding to be challenged.
And this is
pertinent now, perhaps more than ever. It is indicative of the
absurdity surrounding one part of Scottish society that such issues
are being bandied about over the subject of football.
Once, Scotland might
have been said to have excelled at the journalistic game, far more so
than the one of beauty in which we invest so much of our time, money
and emotional energy.
In recent decades,
however, Scottish sports journalism has rarely sought to set the bar
as high as a Fosberry Flop. We can be in danger of presuming that we
have too much and too perfect knowledge of motivations – that is
largely irrelevant.
What matters is the
evidence of the output and, while it is problematic to talk of
“empirical evidence” in something that doesn’t lend itself to
statistically-rigorous analysis, we can take another approach.
If we were to
evaluate the output of the Scottish media in terms of positive or
negative media coverage, what conclusions would we draw?
We needn’t and
shouldn’t seek PR spin from the media. That invariably obscures
truth, which followers of a once-famous club know can, in the most
extreme circumstances, prove fatal.
Is the coverage
negative? Overwhelmingly, yes, which is remarkable, given that this
seems to be the case in promising, as well as challenging, times.
This raises issues, to which we will return.
However, there is a
third question: in a scenario in which a competitor saw itself as
being in a polarised market, despite there being other legitimate
(and longer-established) players, would that competitor be likely to
think that their PR budget had been well-spent, both in promoting
their brand and denigrating the brand of their rivals?
The answer to that
would also seem to be an unequivocal yes.
On the subject of
Celtic receiving negative coverage in times of success, we could
conclude that the club’s public relations strategy or
implementation is flawed – it certainly has been in the past.
On the other hand,
we might equally ask if what masquerades as objective media coverage
in this country is, in effect, PR for our would-be rivals. And, if we
conclude that the answer to that is “yes”, that doesn’t simply
validate action consistent with challenging a hostile PR machine –
it positively demands it.
Imagine a scenario
far removed from football. Coca-Cola and Pepsi see their competition
as a zero-sum game – what’s good for Coke is bad for Pepsi and
vice-versa. There are other brands out there but the media focuses on
the big two, no matter what. (As if you didn’t know, the world’s
third-best-selling brand is RC Cola – in red & blue packaging
but unlikely to be sold at at least one Scottish football ground).
Let’s say Pepsi
have gone through really bad times (they haven’t – it’s just
pretend) and the company is really worried about where it goes from
here. Their results are bad, their innovations are damp squibs, Pepsi
drinkers constantly disgrace themselves in public.
On the other hand,
Coke is flying high: buoyant on the market, great new products and a
feelgood factor surrounding it because people just like it.
If the trade press
constantly banged the drum for Pepsi, against all evidence, and ran
bad news stories against Coke every time things got really serious,
would you expect the Coca-Cola Company to just shrug awkwardly and
say: “There’s nothing we can do”?
To continue the
analogy, it’s like Coke going strong where a company that thinks
it’s Pepsi – but is in fact, not RC Cola, not even Strike Cola,
but Solripe, whose branding has been bought by The Sticky Sugar King
NewCola Company – is getting all the good press, while chunks are
being taken out of Coke, to the detriment of the brand.
Without trying to
speak for Coke, Pepsi or Celtic, the point is that, regardless of
what Celtic do on or off the park, the media coverage seems to
diminish the good, exaggerate the bad and run smears on the club when
our over-inflated “rivals” are in the darkest of places.
And at that point,
it is more than legitimate to question the press privileges given to
certain publications and simply say: “The ba’s on the slates!”
Many Celtic fans
baulk at the idea of “media bans”, with a quite admirable
appreciation of the principles espoused at the beginning of this
article. We should laud and respect them.
However, while the
principles of media freedom are eternal, the prevailing conditions
and practicalities of the modern age are radically changed.
Firstly, let’s not
forget that this is football – the entertainment business as surely
as the popular music industry. (Look, straighten that face – you
get awful live concerts, too!)
We are not talking
about central government, institutions substantially funded by the
public purse or matters of pressing social concern.
We’re talking
about football. It means a lot to us, is important in its own way,
but is not intrinsically relevant to democracy or larger
quality-of-life issues.
If that seems to be
trivialising the issue, it is the same logic used by sports desks and
sports hacks, allowing them to concoct and print unadulterated
garbage, with the defence of: “Lighten up, it’s only a game!”
But, by the same
token, those who absolve themselves of professional standards also
lose the right to claim the status of loosely-defined “colleagues”
who actually do journalistic work. To fail to recognise that is to
stand behind the scribes who reported the World War II bomber found
on the moon or exposed Freddie Starr’s taste for hamsters.
Secondly, what is
offered by football clubs – much like the music industry – is
privileged access, based on the “legitimacy” of the media outlet.
When people in
important positions at Celtic agree to the odd interview with the
independent websites, most of us appreciate it. When the club offers
regular exceptional privileges to fan sites, it often provokes
suspicion.
Why? Because
privileged access is not a right – the clue is in the name. It is a
recognition of a certain journalistic standing as well as standards,
also known as “legitimacy”. And, while it is not something to be
traded as currency, neither should it be given out unthinkingly,
because – you know – “people might talk”.
And this leads us to
a third point – the protocols surrounding a “free press” –
originally meaning printed media – were established when there were
few means through which the general public could glean information as
to the events and decisions which intimately affected their lives.
They were never
designed to defend the right of idiots to represent the interests of
their favourite football clubs, to the detriment of competitors.
There should be no
suggestion of Celtic trying to pressurise journalists into writing
whatsoever they choose, as long as it remains within the realms of
truth, legality and basic journalistic standards.
And decades of
experience have told us that they will write anything about Celtic
without fear, which may not be the case when reporting on others who
demand favour.
But the club does
not have to extend media privileges to those who eschew the
principles of journalism, any more than it has to give every blogger
a press pass to eat sandwiches and free tickets to the game.
In the 24-7,
multimedia, social-media age, no one can stop people reporting on the
matches, if they buy a ticket or watch it on TV (which some hacks do)
or reporting the outcome of press conferences, which are often
streamed, anyway.
You’ll find a
dozen Celtic fan sites doing the same.
They, too, are
informing the public, equally deserving or undeserving of privilege.
So there is no need
to talk of “bans” or attacking press freedoms, if privileges are
withdrawn from those who do not feel bound by professional standards
and values, instead leveraging those principles in order to damage
our club.
Celtic must protect
Celtic, with or without those “legitimate” journalists who seem
hell-bent on damaging us. Cut them off, without fear or favour.
If they’re hacked
off, sobeit. What’s the worst they can do – relentlessly and
unfairly criticise us?
