Celtic chief executive, Peter Lawwell, appears to believe that the representatives of 10 Premier League clubs who met to discuss change in the Scottish game â without first inviting representatives of Celtic or Rangers to attend â have acted in a âdisrespectfulâ and âdivisiveâ manner. He could be right â who knows or cares? â although he certainly seems oblivious to his own hypocrisy, if fans' favourite Mark McGhee is to be believed. Whilst manager at Aberdeen (and following Lawwel's remarks that Celtic and Rangers were hampered by being stuck in a "small market" and the usual stuff about the lure of England), he said: "I'd like to go on the record and say Aberdeen would also fancy playing in the English top-flight." (This is news to me, I'll admit. I want Aberdeen playing in Scotland.) "We would appreciate Peter Lawwell including us in any conversations he might have regarding the application. I think all the other clubs in Scotland would feel keen to have a crack down south. The millions that are on offer down there would be hard to resist for any of us....Celtic talking publicly about this is rude to the rest of us. What are the criteria for being included in the application to defect? Clearly being champions is not one, so Aberdeen can tick that box. Perhaps winning a European trophy? Well, Aberdeen were the last Scottish team to do that. Aberdeen don't attract the 60,000 Celtic do, but we'd build an out-of-town stadium that would make Celtic's hemmed-in Parkhead seem antiquated." Would we? Will we? Oh, hurrah. But he may have had a point, no? When Celtic and Rangers discuss leaving Scotland they are doing so in the name of (financial) progress. When other clubs meet up to discuss making changes to the Scottish infrastructure that may lead to money - please, Sir, please - being more evenly distributed in the game, however, they are being "divisive" and "disrespectful". Did Lawwell ever once look in the mirror, we may wonder? Did he ever once hear himself speak? Whatever. I'm sure everything will come to nothing, in the end, and the rest of Scottish football would be utterly mad not to strike whilst Rangers are weak. This is a rare chance to force some change and lessen the grip the Glasgow pair have on the levers of power. Sadly, it's already being reported (Chick Young, granted) that "Celtic are adamant that the current voting structure will stay because Rangers will stand shoulder to shoulder with them". And well they might, of course, lest they open themselves up to something which may at least passingly resemble legitimate competition. Lawwell said "it is divisive and of concern to every Scottish football supporter at this very difficult time for our game. We could all do without it." No, Peter, we couldn't. Elsewhere on the BBC, chairmen of other clubs have been anonymously venting their spleen. (They should be brave enough to back their own words publicly, the cowards, but that's for another day.) One chairman said: "The rest of us are fed up of the Old Firm. Forget Rangers for the moment since they are in administration, what we have here is one club dictating to the top end of Scottish football. They are not going anywhere, English football doesn't want them and they have done their damnedest to get out of Scotland for the last 10 years. Do they want to play in a league of two?" It might be worth finding out. If only we could trust the "non-Old Firm" clubs (as Chicky Young so dismissively labelled them) to have the strength of their own convictions. I predict.....nothing.
Hmm. I'm suddenly left wondering if it's not entirely hypocritical for someone writing under an assumed name on an internet forum to lambast football chairmen - or anyone, come to think of it - for hiding behind anonymity? That's going to bother me. A lot. Surely it's different? Isn't it? Must be. No? I'm going to tell myself that it is. Phew, sorted.
I think you have a point. The only real defence is that Celtic are trying to extricate themselves from proceedings whereas the ten sides who met are excluding Celtic from something which they are already a part. Lawwell has no right or business talking about Aberdeen and their wants and needs. As for anonymity, I'd rather hear it all, or hear nothing and get the result at the end. The middle ground is child like sniping. That is small time. I am not sure it is about loosening the grip on the levers of power. Celtic have every right commercially to push the argument that they/we commercially bring the most to the league and should be rewarded accordingly. The weak and/or dying Huns still commercially bring in more than anyone else (Celtic aside) and can mount the same argument. Their weakness has not yet accompanied any contrition which, if/when that comes is when the gang of ten should strike. With that said, I am not convinced that this is the strategy Celtic should pursue. I would love to see someone put forward a proposal for profit sharing that benefits all clubs. If it is a no goer for Celtic, then fine but we are the big dogs who need to be convinced. I understand the inherent arrogance of that statement but I am trying to be matter of fact about it. We are potentially the biggest opponents to it. Knowing your real identity would be a let down. If your name isn't Angus Hamish McSporran, i'd be upset.
Hello, hello. How are you doing? True dat. (Iâve been re-watching The Wire, sorry.) Oh yes, they certainly have the right â no arguments there â I just wish they lacked the inclination. Rangers and contrition? That would be a beautiful sight to behold. Iâve been waiting a lifetime, however, for the smallest glimpse of humility â a moment of self-awareness, perhaps, or the hint of an understanding that other Scottish teams are not simply there to serve the greater interests of Ibrox â and have never once felt confident of being rewarded. (I might say something similar about Celtic, of course, with a few clauses and reservations, but don't particularly feel like being hauled over the coals. So I'll keep my trap shut.) Me too, although right now I'm trying to work out (as an intellectual exercise, nothing more) how every club in Scotland - barring Celtic and Rangers - may derogate from any and all articles that may bind them to the SFA/SPL/SFL etc and start again from scratch. (I've never really looked at these things before and it practically fuses my head.) I think it can probably be done - or, more accurately, I don't see any insurmountable obstacles to giving it a try - and I'd love to see them take the plunge, presenting Rangers and Celtic with the reality of a league of their own (or perhaps someone else will take them, I don't know) and an invitation to join the new set-up as equals. Nothing more, nothing less. As a way of focusing minds and ushering in radical change, I'm not sure I see anything better. We're always told we wouldn't survive without Rangers and Celtic - as a (notional) Scottish nationalist, I'm quite used to hearing this type of argument from the English and those Scots who, for whatever reason, have bought into the idea that they are somehow incapable of running their own affairs - but I don't see this as being true. We'd have less money, this may be so, but why on earth would I want money to dictate my (sporting) interests and life? Look what it's done to England. I'd love for Scottish football to be banished to the TV hinterland - a highlights package on BBC Scotland, say - and would relish the prospect of severing all ties with Rupert Murdoch. Being in partnership with such a man is immoral, to my mind, and his money reeks of vulgarity. (I need to stop buying The Sunday Times, for sure. Immediately. Yes.) But I digress, sorry. (And no, I've not thought everything through, obviously, I'm just giving you a glimpse of the mess inside my head. Don't mention it.) No, it doesn't sound arrogant, it sounds pretty factual and straightforward. It's often a terrible thing when interests collide, however, so I'm not exactly confident about the outcome. Who the **** have you been talking to? There is clearly a snitch on this site......
I reckon we may have reached a premature accord. The only difference is that I am not sure that I am not being disingenuous. I'm sure that even if a compelling argument is mounted that there will be at least part of me that won't really want to give up what I feel is ours by right. Certainly with regards to TV and prize money and probably with regards to voting rights.....Basically I'll talk a good game until losing revenue becomes a reality. I'm also a slave to Murdoch and having seen what they have done for the rugby league super league which is a much better deal than the SPL despite providing a lower return in terms of viewing figures, I think (despite their ills) they may provide the expertise, drive and know-how to oversee a revamp. The same would apply toe espn. Money might not be the be all and end all, but it does help and what they can do in terms of redefining, refining and promoting the SPL has to be given consideration.
Ha. Fair enough. Well, that's the problem with Sky, of course......it's sometimes really, really good. I entirely abjure the saturation coverage of (specifically) English football, however, although I suspect I may be in a minority. In Scotland, I would love to see live transmissions of games vanishing from the scene - save for cup finals, say - and feel almost certain attendances would eventually rise as a result, which, in turn, would lessen the financial blow of losing the TV money to begin with. Blah blah blah..... But yes, Sky certainly has the expertise and confidence to provide a revamp, although one may need to be a fan of the Sky model, I suppose, to see this as being (potentially) a good thing. (And this Sunday, the bestest Sunday ever, folks, is going to be Super Sunday, as Morton take on Brechin in the Fortwilliam Vase qualifier. If you're not there with us to watch the action unfold - in your living room - it seems certain you'll be struggling through your life in some unsatisfactory way.) Ho hum...