Celtic PLC – Peter Lawwell Capitalism

I have never met Peter Lawwell. And I don't care to.

This is unlikely to cause him sleepless nights.

I somehow suspect that there would be a minimal interface between our values but that doesn't matter a jot.

I have no desire for titbits from the top table, the kudos of being considered "in the know" or being able to humble-brag about landing a high-profile interviewee.

As a minor blogger, I have little of substance to offer and, as a Celtic fan, my importance is inconsequential. Easily-dismissed, barely missed and of negligible cash value.

Like you – or at least the vast majority of people who may take the time to read this blog.

(I hope you will not feel insulted by my being so presumptuous as to lump you in with me.)

But, as someone with no traction within the Celtic support to offer, there are other reasons why I suspect that Lawwell and I would have little in common.

To do with Celtic – in terms of ethics, vision and values.

I should start with my caveats. I don't believe that Lawwell is incompetent or unethical in the sense that would debar him from other executive positions.

He's no Craig Whyte, Charles Green or Dave King.

I don't believe that he would break the rules or bend the law in the manner that people at some clubs have done and do. And nor, I am sure, would he sanction such practices.

But there are other values, ethics and even professional practices that are anathema to me and which I believe will continually hobble Celtic unless they are rooted out.

And that, I believe, will only be possible when Peter Lawwell takes a bite of one of those sweet, fat cherries that we are continually told are regularly dangled in front of him and brings his expertise to another club.

Apparently, there are many to choose from.

Now, there are many Celtic bloggers, including some which you and I know are "close" to Peter Lawwell and the board of Celtic plc.

These are popular as their adherents like to believe they are close to the inside track at Celtic. By being on first-name terms with some blogger, they may boast about "one degree of separation" from the head honcho at Celtic Park.

Many of these like to bring their own knowledge of the business world and the complexities that naive, plebeian fans could never hope to appreciate.

It's not "the economy, stupid", as William Clinton used to say, it's "asset-management, idiot", in case you didn't know.

Because, you see, there are things at football clubs that lowly football fans can never understand.

You may think that football players' primary value relates to their performances on the pitch.

Oh, how you are to be pitied – with as much kindness and understanding that will allow you to recognise your foolishness but not alienate you to the extent that you will stop investing in the club.

Let me delicately tell you that footballers – Celtic-players, if you wish – are like property (real estate, as our American cousins might say).

It doesn't matter how nice or impressive they look, and far less how well they perform their notional function.

No, you see – and don't be embarrassed (because a lot of fans are as misguided as you) – football players are assets to be bought low and sold high.

Stay with me.

Take Scott Brown. One major Celtic blogger, who campaigned against buying players from Dundee United and Hibs, considers the signing of Scott to be a disaster.

For years, the said blogger was advocating selling Scott.

Don't feel stupid if you disagreed – even the smuggest blogger in the Celtic blogosphere regularly boasts about thinking that Scott was a great signing.

But don't you see why signing Scott was an abject failure?

Yes, I know. In your innocence, you probably think that signing a young Scottish footballer with huge potential, one who went on to captain his country and our club to a historic double-treble was a success.

11 years of outstanding service, blah, blah. Taking his place amongst the Celtic all-time greats, yawn.

Have you no idea of how much money Celtic could have made if we had sold Scott Brown before he reached his peak?

Now, I know you aren't stupid enough to have thought that, because Brendan Rodgers clearly wanted to sign John McGinn (painfully great debut for Villa), that spending about a third of the fee that we recouped for Stuart Armstrong would have been good business.

McGinn was already a Scotland International and 23 – so not a young player – and so there may have been a limit to his growth potential as an asset.

These are just a few examples of Lawwell-omics, the view that the playing squad is simply a collection of assets to be managed –bought low and sold high – which conveniently makes Peter Lawwell the most money.

Is this in any way compatible with building a team and gradually improving, year-by-year?

Of course not!

Continually seeking performance improvements is literally inconsistent with managing an asset portfolio based on buying low and selling at peak value.

You see, ideas that you may have of seeing promise in the team and looking forward to getting a little better the next season – and again and again ad infinitum – simply show you to be a fool.

Like me.

A few days ago, I noted that no Celtic manager since John Barnes had been sacked but neither had any left for a better job,. That's pretty damned amazing.

Equally amazing is that none of these managers have uttered a bad peep about their time at Celtic.

There are various possible explanations for this phenomenon.

1. Everything was just peachy and these guys left for reasons unconnected to the activities of the board.

2. No outgoing manager since Barnes wanted to rock the boat (Wim Jansen did a bit of boat-rocking but only criticised Jock Brown. )

3. They all sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of their contracts with Celtic and therefore can't say that all in the garden is not rosy.

Think about the times we have had – the managers who have come and gone – the times of great hope that were followed by deep disappointment due to the quiet policy of managed decline.

What are your values, hopes and aspirations with regard to Celtic?

Mine are to see a team of players on the field worthy of carrying our tradition as one of the great clubs in world football.

I want the best players to be encouraged to stay with us in their best years.

I want to see us building on success, in a sustainable manner, and believing that the next season should be better than the last.

I want to see us supporting Brendan Rodgers in every way, particularly in his club-building efforts, and never undermining him.

I want to see us focusing on football, not obsessively on finance.

One of the biggest weaknesses we have, in my opinion, is the fact that we do not have football people by any measure working with Brendan Rodgers but, instead, have one of the best coaches we have ever had working with a specific form of capitalism.

You see, in my world, there is more than one type of capital.

For example, the people who buy season tickets, merchandise and plough their money into the club in various other ways, invest more than money.

To me, those fans who invest money – often more than they can afford – are also investing a kind of capital.

Sadly, it's the most easily-scorned form of capital, and yet the purist. It's the emotional capital of hoping that their investments in the club's vision will bring pride, joy and lasting memories.

But, as with the boiler-room scammers who robbed countless pensioners and other vulnerable people of their savings, Celtic's Peter Lawwell Capitalism cares nothing for those who staked their real money on an unreal dream.

And that is the problem for Celtic supporters.

The evidence of Peter Lawwell's entire tenure as Chief Executive points to a supporters' experience of constantly building hope, investing their money and being disappointed when things were really looking up.

Every tantalising dream results in frustration.

Again and again and again.

Would it be so bad if – this time – we kept our exceptional coach, Brendan, and experimented with a new Chief Executive, and one who doesn't make money out of selling our best players?

It could be win-win for everyone.

Peter Lawwell gets the money his talents apparently deserve; Brendan Rodgers has to deal with a "Head of Recruitment" he believes in and the club formulates a plan that sees continual improvement on the field as a good thing, rather than a reckless ambition.

Think about it – it's not so crazy.

Is it? --

We all love Emilio - but Izzy the answer for Celtic?

After a trying week for Celtic, one piece of news with the feelgood factor was the return of Emilio Izaguirre as cover for Kieran Tierney at left-back.

It's not at all hard to love Izzy and most fans do.

A player who is never gave less than his all (as he noted himself) those years of flying down the left wing have not been forgotten by the fans and he left to real affection and well-wishing from the supporters.

That's all well and good and I'm happy for him as he seems so pleased to have made his return.

From a football point of view, however, I'm not sure quite what this tells us about recruitment policy at the club.

Those who remember Izzy's early days will recall the expectation that those exciting early displays would lead to big-money bids from English clubs (with speculation that Manchester United were considering a move).

But, such is the power of social media that before long the wise amongst us were mostly agreeing online that there was a problem with his positional sense.

For my part, I predicted that Izzy would leave as, fine player that he is, I couldn't see him fitting into Brendan Rodgers's style of play.

His running and crossing can be excellent - he could easily have found a place in Martin O'Neill's Celtic teams - but I didn't think his touch was quite right for the quick passing that Brendan favours.

So, what has changed?

Was it a blunder to let him go and did Brendan really rate him and want to keep him? (He will have made good money in Saudi Arabia and good luck to him for that.)

Or is there more to the move than meets the eye?

Calvin Miller has looked promising but, at 20, is perhaps not considered ready to be considered as reliable cover for that 21-year-old veteran Kieran.

That's fair enough and if the Izzy move is to take pressure off Calvin while Kieran remains as our left-back, then we can all breathe a sigh of relief.

But let's be clear about something.

Having Izzy supporting Kieran is fine. Bringing back a popular player because, for example, Kieran might be sold is not fine at all.

We can all make mistakes and reversing a bad decision (if that's what letting Izzy go was) is smarter than ploughing on, rather than admitting a mistake.

But two days after Brendan expressed his displeasure at missing out on John McGinn, there is room for scepticism as to whether bringing Izzy back is a move that Brendan really wanted or an admission that Peter Lawwell and the board have no intention of supporting Brendan in terms of developing the squad.

So, who signed Izzy - Brendan or Peter?

And, if the answer is the latter, then no amount of love for Izzy is going to bring us much joy in the time to come.
--

Celtic in Crisis? No, but bad omens after Lawwell loses John McGinn poker game

Too often blaming the mainstream media gives an easy out to Peter Lawwell and the Celtic board. We could lose Brendan Rodgers

Commodities

I once watched a documentary about craftsmanship in which a man proudly showed off one of his greenwood chairs. (A traditional method of woodworking using the natural moisture of the wood to create strong joints without glue or  metal.)

"That costs £700," he told the shocked person who inquired.

As justification, he said: "Well, I like to try to pay myself £10 an hour and it takes me 70 hours to make one chair."

Fair enough but when you can get a functional chair from IKEA for one twentieth of that price - both of which will support your backside quite acceptably, it's a tough sell.

But for some, only the greenwood chair would do while others will shell out even more for the one-off designer seat that captures their heart.

Now before you kindly offer help in recovering my marbles, let me say that I do realise that footballers are different to chairs in a number of key ways.

Firstly, they are people, not commodities, though the archaic transfer system might lead you to think otherwise.

Secondly, they have minds of their own and are capable of making their own decisions.

But, as a third point, footballers have something in common with any other item for sale - they are worth whatever someone is prepared to pay for them.

It is not clear that Peter Lawwell or the Celtic board recognise any of these key points. And that's a problem - perhaps a big one.

The John McGinn saga is one of the sorriest Celtic affairs of recent times, though by no means

without precedent.

Steven Fletcher and Kevin Thomson both spring to mind as players who the manager clearly wanted but who Lawwell either thought surplus to requirements or that he had a better-value alternative on hand.

With McGinn, you have read many unqualified opinions on the player's ability or lack of it - including from this blogger.

But a more expert opinion was apparently scorned - that of our manager Brendan Rodgers.

And, even if you have already declared McGinn of insufficient quality to get a game for Celtic, that should give you cause for concern.

The pluck of the Irish 

I have already put my  hands up to the fact that I was totally wrong about Brendan Rodgers before he took the reins at Celtic.

I could make excuses but the fact is that I didn't rate him as a candidate. And that causes me embarrassment. Because I really should have informed myself better, with a more open mind, and recognised just how good Brendan was and is.

We are extremely lucky to have him at Celtic and the shakers and movers at just about every switched-on club in Europe see that, too.

We have had a lot of excellent coaches in many ways but, in terms of being at the cutting edge of top-level football knowledge, I have no hesitation in saying that Brendan is our most outstanding manager since Jock Stein.

Anyone who reads this blog (and, if we can get the numbers, we might get a five-a-side team going) will, I hope,  realise that, while  not shy with my opinions, I rarely indulge in hyperbole.

But, as an admirer of Martin  O'Neill, Gordon Strachan, Neil Lennon and - yes - Ronny Deila, I have seen a level of coaching at Celtic that we would have been highly unlikely to have enjoyed had we not been a magical club who just happened to have a real Celtic man - a genuine one of our own - amongst the top tier of coaches.

The media will conveniently forget that the fantabulous Steven Gerrard, having played under Houllier, Eriksson, Capello and many more described our Brendan as the best one-to-one coach he had ever worked with.

But now, I fear, that's under threat.

3-5-7

When Brendan took over at Celtic, I listened to his interviews and he talked of having been "in a hurry", as young men usually are, in his earlier coaching career.

It was wonderful - let's not forget that he was made the bookies' second-favourite to be the next England manager within a couple of weeks of signing on at Celtic.

So, that, logically, brought the  numbers of 3, 5 and 7 to my mind.

If true to his word, he saw the Celtic job as lasting a minimum of three years - anything less would be consistent with a "man in a hurry", itching to get his next big opportunity.

As a coach and manager who has a reputation as seeing himself as a club-builder, five years would seem a more likely period in the job.

And, as Brendan has also said that he expects to be a coach for more than 20 years, a productive five years at Celtic seemed a solid prospect. Club-building, you see, involves player development with a view to the future.

To leave a club with a solid foundation for the future and to lay the groundwork for replacing a legendary captain over the next three or four years. Leaving something lasting.

For example, signing the player who Scott Brown himself praised to the heavens just a couple of weeks ago. Less secure players than Scott might have felt threatened by efforts to recruit a footballer who is so often compared to the great man himself.

But Scott signalled that there would be no tension between himself and John McGinn.

Can you see just how much McGinn was wanted by the football people at Celtic?

(For my part, I'll say that we might just have lost the captain of Celtic in 2021-2025).

My expectation was for a three-to-five-year tenure of Brendan. My wildest dreams were of seven years.

I dream of that no more.

Language, Timothy! 

Now, while the search facility offers copious evidence of my complaints against the Celtic board and Chief Executive - the vast majority of which I stand by - I am as sceptical of and hostile to the mainstream media shills who often do, in fact, mischievously sow the seeds of grief amongst Celtic supporters.

I've slagged almost all of them and, again I stand by almost all of it.

This week, the BBC's Chris McLaughlin was getting it for saying that the board were unhappy with Brendan's comments on the transfer window activity.

But, while I am decidedly NOT one of those "in the know" bloggers with impeccably-placed sources, dear reader, I do know a few things beyond the fiduciary duty of other clubs' executives (I know you read it, guys, because you parrot it occasionally with never a "chapeau".)

One of my interests is in the art of coaching, to which end I have read several biographies and autobiographies of football managers.

A recurring theme that I have noticed, from Alex Ferguson down (in the modern era) and from all the great Celtic managers is the importance of psychology.

And I can say, without fear of reasonable rebuke, that there is no manager in football more aware of the weight that his words carry than Brendan Rodgers.

(Trust me - you'll see this in other blogs, claiming that they always knew this.)

Now, remember that I don't know Brendan. If I did, I'd surely have trumpeted him from the heavens as the next Celtic boss.

But I do know, for example, that Brendan has studied neuro-linguistic programming for several years.

If you aren't aware of NLP, it can be roughly summarised as a practice attempting to achieve positive results through managing thought patterns through specific techniques, with a strong emphasis on language.

For example, when you make a silly mistake, do you say to yourself, "I'm so stupid", or something similar? Many of us do.

NLP theory says that the first voice we hear is our own and that we undermine our own confidence by using that language to ourselves.

Instead, why not say: "I made a mistake so I'll learn from it and do better the next time"?

Do you remember Jack Hendry after the Rosenborg match? (I don't believe that Brendan is educating players in NLP, but that they are echoing his positive language).

How often have you heard Brendan criticise the team or say anything negative about them?

How many times can you recall him saying, for example, "We didn't finish well enough" or "We didn't defend well"?

They are both negative statements, whereas "we could have scored more goals" and "we can defend better" are the sort of positive statements Brendan usually prefers.

On top of that, having been at one of the richest clubs in Europe, Brendan has had top-level media training.

That's partly why he is so adept at sidestepping the booby-trap questions that the media throw at him.

And the point of all of this is that Brendan is fully aware of the impact of his words.

So, when he chose to speak so negatively about transfer activity on the day his side had a vital Champions League qualifier with AEK, you better believe that he really is angry and that's not just another media fabrication.

I am confident that he will remain with us until the end of the season. Because, apart from anything else, he is on record as saying that managers should take new jobs before the season starts.

And, of course, in May he will have completed the minimum three-year period of a man not in a hurry.

Que sera, sera

But, dedicated to Celtic as Brendan is, he is also clearly conscious of his reputation and future aspirations.

For example, never mind the English Premier League, he is known to aspire to some day work in Spain.

He will not be so loyal to Celtic as to see his own reputation damaged due to the "Plan" of Peter Lawwell, who - let's not forget - gets a player-trading bonus each year and is therefore incentivised to favour selling over buying.

And the sad fact is that I doubt that Lawwell cares.

He has increasingly been allowed to run Celtic as he sees fit, seeing managers come and go, and using friendly "independent" Celtic bloggers to tell us that's just how it had to be.

He also knows that Neil Lennon and Steve Clarke would both likely jump at the chance to replace Brendan.

It's a remarkable fact that the last Celtic manager to be sacked was John Barnes.

It's equally remarkable that no Celtic manager since Barnes has resigned because he was lured away by a better offer.

Every single one has chucked it for different reasons that were never really made clear.

Time and time again, Celtic fans have thought we were on the road to something special, only to find that some unforeseen change had set us back.

Peter Lawwell and the board can keep Brendan Rodgers for the key five years and maybe longer if they want him.

But that will involve supporting him in his vision of building a strong Celtic for the future, not just pocketing the tens of millions of pounds that he has already made them.

So, do they want Brendan to remain at Celtic, continually building supporters' hopes in a manner that requires funding or do they want someone to make the most money out of the least possible investment while doing deals between Lawwell and his son, Mark, at Manchester City?

What is Peter's plan this time?
 --