“Eloquence belongs to the conqueror “ as Serj Tankian once informed us. “History is written by the victors” as Churchill and Orwell proclaimed. Expanding on that theme, if you let someone write the history, without are you just letting them win?
Controlling the media and what it commits to record as our shared, lasting memory is a powerful weapon. You can simply erase inconvenient facts and incidents from ever existing. You can direct how people think and what they come to believe. You can create myths from thin air and then have them transformed into accepted facts.
This is even more powerful than it ever was, especially so with the proliferation of search engines and now artificial intelligence. AI builds its answers on available records and as yet it has no real sense of nuance or motive or subterfuge.
For example, Celtic’s origin story has more facets than those typically presented. Its genesis would likely have been seeded by a desire within the Church to curb drift and assimilation and, like any enduring institution, structures are built to protect themselves and propagate their beliefs. That’s entirely natural. The “feeding the poor” narrative acts as a convenient catch-all, and understandably that is the line most often pushed.
I was recently listening to a podcast on the cyclist Jan Ullrich, who won the race in 1997 and was the competition through many of Armstrong’s Tour de France victories. Ullrich later confessed to involvement in a doping programme similar to Armstrong’s, but there was never the same clamour to strip him – or many others – of their Tour wins. The question posed is why not? Why was he allowed to keep his title? One conclusion was that there was just never a political will to pursue it.
This is the crux of many things in Scottish football. Nothing is truly absolute and outcomes only follow when there is political will to make them happen. Without that will and resolve to write that footnote in history then nothing is formally lifted above polemic, sour grapes or banter.
So back to this season. Many would’ve watched the post-split fixtures unfold and may have concluded that the officials actively assisted Celtic and handicapped Hearts (and Rangers throughout the season). Mr Collum then had his monthly televised struggle session to convince us that what we’d just watched hadn’t actually happened or was all just a happy honest accident.
To my eyes and the eyes of many it looked suspicious. A symptom of deeper, ongoing problems within the SFA —which are becoming harder to ignore with passing years. But one name which cropped up online was that of Jim Farry (exclusively from Celtic fans as a defence/deflection of Collum). I only had a vague recollection of this incident but ‘the experts’ were adamant that this and the use of legal tax efficient schemes were the only verified incidents of cheating.
The story goes that Farry and McCann had been at loggerheads for some time. Farry was seen as arrogant and overbearing, while McCann wanted things to change at the SFA. They had clashed over several incidents in preceding years and this came to a head in 1996, when the registration for Jorge Cadete was not processed on time, causing him to miss a match.
McCann believed the delay was not just administrative error but deliberate sabotage. So Celtic took legal action and after a significant amount of time an independent commission ruled that the delay had indeed been intentional. Only Farry will know his thoughts and motives but it was a sore one for him, with suspension swiftly followed by dismissal from the role. Celtic also managed to extract an apology and compensation from the SFA.
There are lessons here for Hearts and Rangers. McCann did not rely on dignified silence or quiet conversations behind the scenes. He identified an issue, pursued it for as long as it took, and ensured it was formally judged. It took three years, but the result was decisive.
Crucially, that decision now exists on record. Suspicion was transformed into an established fact through energy and determination.
The history books and search engines now reflect this – the incident was converted from suspicion into fact. This is why I’m really surprised neither Hearts nor Rangers have put down any statement or challenge on the behaviour of Collum and his team. There is the pattern of assistance, there is the lo-fi audio, there is the changing of interpretation to suit the teams playing, there are allegiances, there is probability. All clubs should really be putting something on record stating that it really isn’t good enough and that suspicion exists around the team and their professionalism. If only to commit those thoughts formally to record and to attempt to keep the officials honest next time.
The long game is important here. Rangers have missed many open goals in recent years and despite their performance and behaviour Doncaster, McLennan, Mulraney, Maxwell, Collum and friends remain in place to run and influence Scottish football for another year. Rangers strategy has failed. We have learned no lessons and we never really pushed to change things, not seriously. Not like McCann did.
Saying nothing and doing nothing achieves nothing. It lets cheats prosper and it allows others to define how events are remembered.
Celtic fans will laugh knowingly and claim that no cheating has been proven, in a way echoing Armstrong’s famous quip that he’d never failed a drugs test. Time and hubris caught up with him years later but only because there was the political will to make it so.
There’s been more than a wee bit going on in the stands and off the park recently that is worth expanding upon. A banner appeared in the stand in the Europa League game at Ibrox against Fenerbahce which stated “Keep woke foreign ideologies out – defend Europe“. I’ve not seen an official explanation but it does feel somewhat vague and cryptic. Whatever the intent behind it UEFA took the opportunity to charge Rangers under there “racist and/or discriminatory” rules. Amongst other things, it gave Nosferatu at the BBC the opportunity to crawl out of his coffin and talk about Rangers, and racism, and explain to everyone how terrible it all is.
Rangers issued an initial statement and then followed-up confirming a fine of £25,000 and a suspended sentence over the closure of the Copland. The club statements included these points.
“Rangers is a modern, progressive football club and we are fiercely proud of our diverse playing squads, workforce and support,” the club say in a website statement.
“For the club to be charged with such a matter in 2025 is shameful and the disdain for those responsible will be shared by the overwhelming majority of our supporters.
“For the avoidance of doubt, if you do not believe in 2025 that absolutely everyone is welcome to follow Rangers, whether at Ibrox or away, then Rangers is not the club for you and you should disassociate yourself with the club immediately.”
With the latter statement adding – “In response to the displaying of the racist and/or discriminatory banner at the Fenerbahce game, the club can confirm that it is in the process of issuing lifetime bans to the individuals responsible”
David at Heart and Hand made a valid and unarguable point on this. The reasoning, justifications, accuracy of the banner doesn’t matter. We are getting hammered and club can’t do anything about it. Therefore, all the club can do is to ask the support to not risk anything similar in the future. It is what it is. Saying that, it is worth looking at the context and how we got here.
Firstly, against the charge and the negative connotations of racist and/or discriminatory behaviour the club are absolutely right to highlight the diversity of the playing staff and our support from across the world. We have had players from countless countries over the years and they’ve been supported and appreciated as much as any home-grown player. We’ve been an international club for a long time. I think the idea of Rangers being supported across the world, growing that support, strengthening the club and moving onwards and upwards is something that everyone is on board with. This is positive. We all agree here, so everything is good then? Not quite.
There’s the gnawing feeling that the banner didn’t really undermine any of those points or beliefs, it was neither racist nor discriminatory and in that regard the clubs response is contradictory and heavy handed (although there is the possibility that UEFA insisted the club reacted like that to avoid heavier punishment?). They are right to question unsolicited banners, especially that bring negative attention from UEFA. They can be angry and demand it doesn’t repeat, for no other reason than UEFA are trigger happy on (some) political issues and won’t hesitate to hand out heavier punishments next time. However, you can’t claim everyone is welcome, and then expel (for life!!!) those displaying cryptic banners because they hold views you don’t happen to agree with. That isn’t a diversity of views, an inclusion of opinions – it’s more limited and intolerant. Whether or not Ibrox on a Thursday night is the place to trash out debates on different opinions and political views is a different question.
On to our slogan, we know that not everyone, anyone is welcome. Those numbskulls that pop up with the SS banner every couple of years or so, for instance. The overwhelming majority largely rejects whatever they think their message is and whatever they hope to achieve with it. So where is the tipping point? Who gets to decide what’s acceptable from year to year? It is suggested that part of the catalyst for the banner may have been the recent flying of the pride flag, and then the removal of said flag, to then celebrate Ramadan at Ibrox. Both ideologies have elements that the general British public consider far from settled and/ or acceptable. So how does the club decide what’s acceptable, or what should fit with the clubs latest worldview?
Leadership. One complaint at the running of the club is that we have lacked real leadership for years. We have had no real discernible direction or strategy and certainly no communication of thoughts and ideas. Bad decisions (primarily the Sydney Cup) and a lack of ongoing communication and dialogue allowed the Billy Boys to come back. Those running the club showed no accountability for themselves, so had they opened dialogues with fans or fans groups, then it would be a big ask to get compliance. And so TBB reappeared domestically and predictably it spilled back into Europe, where it will be very costly if not stopped. A functioning board would’ve seen this problem developing 3 years ago and nipped it in the bud back then. We (club, support, groups) all should’ve been smarter here because it has developed into something that’s cost us and brought negative PR and coverage back to the club. I would say the new board need to show that they are leaders and not just people in positions. However, real leadership is bringing people along with you, telling them what’s happening and why it’s happening. That means regular, clear updates that follow a natural logic and are not completely at odds with the clubs history or prevailing view. I’m a bit uncomfortable that the club demand that people with a unfashionable, old-fashioned or fringe views find another club if they don’t agree with whatever the latest board decides our identity is to be that month.
Bigger picture. Let’s step back and look at the bigger pictures. Politicians are largely an unnecessary curse and burden on society. They survive by creating problems and chaos and then proclaiming insight or solutions to those problems. We can all acknowledge that this is to serve masters other than the public. Currently (or maybe always) Western politics is a self-generating, self-perpetuating parasite which eats away at its host. The fact that the main issues pushed by the media and politics today are divisive or irresolvable is no accident – identity politics/conflicts in the middle-east/immigration/climate-change etc. These are huge sprawling grey issues with no binary or all-encompassing answer – you aren’t meant to be right, you are meant to think you are right and become entrenched and divided. And it provenly works.
USaid. Let’s take another tangent. Everyone really should getting up to speed on the long term going-ons with USaid. This has been a US soft power operation and networks spread across most nations. Whatever it initially started as, it has morphed into something truly grotesque. With the backing of billions of dollars, control has been obtained and built across media, legal systems and governments. To the extent that elections and political leadership can be dictated by USaid, and often with political opponents being smeared or arrested, using the aforementioned networks and reach. NGOs and charities are used to increase reach and strength. Money is syphoned into these and armies of loyal helpers are accrued as transparency and accountability is shed. This all provides an apparatus which can be used to serve the masters wishes, part of which is to inject ideologies and narratives into societies. It can, and is, being used to destabilise, divide or upset cultures if that suits the objective. Flash mobs, marches, riots, hit pieces, political arrests, kangaroo courts. It is a culture war.
Rangers Tax Case. To bring this back round to some relevance to Rangers Football Club, I’ve always struggled to define the substrate behind our tax case troubles. I’d always assumed that celtic people arranged it all, which is still largely true. However, the network that USaid controls would more than fill in some blanks. If the aim was to facilitate and aid the erosion and demolition of British institutions and identities then allowing a humiliating downfall of Rangers would tick that box. Of course, they’d have willing people above this layer to pick it up and run with it. Part of the same web is the SNP under Sturgeon. For a while Sturgeon had incredible control over the media and judiciary. Very much an identikit globalist puppet. Raining division and chaos down upon the nation. Ironically, some of the “woke” ideologies she pushed onto the nation ended her career. Convincing the general public that hairy-arsed men should have access to women’s spaces felt more like an initiation ceremony or dare than a serious political belief. A woke foreign ideology. You can debate to what degree this stuff is orchestrated but it is not up for debate that it happens.
Immigration. The current immigration crisis across the UK (and most Western countries to be honest) is another example of a destabilising, confusion-inducing policy. This is being directed and organised from somewhere, and is being allowed to continue from within the country. It may be USaid or another foreign network which is inducing or funding this, but our politicians are doing what they are told and not what the public are asking. Expecting our borders to be secure does not mean you are racist or a white supremacist (sic). Controlled immigration can be a benefit to everyone. Uncontrolled, unvetted, exploited, illegal immigration is deleterious for everyone. Simple as that. Questioning the continuation of this direction of travel and what it means for the host country and population is a valid and perfectly natural question. This could equally be applied to any country and culture in the world, not just the UK. This is being arranged with something in mind and it probably doesn’t involve protecting our rights or culture. You can understand why people are frightened or looking for answers. So when fans within the traditional support see the club platform and virtue signal using new or alien ideologies, then you can understand fans looking for a voice or platform within the club. The question is, I guess, what is the right way and best time to do that?
That’s my two cents anyway. The club needs to communicate its moves better. It needs to explain the game better. Patrick Stewart (and whoever owns the club) need to take the support along with it, we are the lifeblood of the club. Being so antagonistic or reactionary over a relatively nothing banner feels too much, especial since the board themselves has been asleep at the wheel for years. We understand we need to jump through certain gates to grow into the soulless, money-orientated world of UEFA and modern ownership, but it will be a tough journey if it means shedding everything that makes us Rangers. Should the banner have read “Defend Rangers“?
It’s almost 6 months now since James Bisgrove left the club and vacated the Chief Executive role at Rangers. Since then, John Bennett and then John Gilligan have stepped in on an interim basis. The Chairman and Director of Football roles do not have a permanent appointment either. Other key roles at the club require attention, and the important point is that the staggering and clunking along is long past becoming a distraction or inconvenience. Douglas Park was Chairman from 2020 for three years. Bennett and then Gilligan again thrust into that role too. Pressed or willfully, who knows?
In a way, to supporters at least, it doesn’t matter who is in there and who is in which chair, what matters is that each position is given full attention and that the club is held in a position of strength and moved forward with purpose. Only the output matters and we as supporters can see the output. Personality will go a long way, leadership skills and status are essential, but the right person could be almost anyone with the right skills. Any missing skills can be complemented by the blend of other people leading the club. As an example, Stewart Robertson was our Managing Director for 8 years. He was fairly bland and unimpressive but at least he was capable within his remit and provided a period of stability. He didn’t or couldn’t provide the political gravitas that Rangers require, but someone else should’ve been brought in to complement him. And then someone else to provide other skills, or contacts, or experience, or leadership. And so on.
Structure matters. Plans matter. Culture matters. The people working within that structure may change or move on, but the company must have mechanisms for processing lessons learnt, retaining experience and enabling it to be passed on seamlessly to incoming people. A culture of professionalism. Rangers are apparently a million miles from this.
Any competent, functioning mid-to-large-sized company would’ve had a plan to deal with departures (at any level of the club) and either scout a suitable replacement or put out an invitation for ambitious go-getting types to apply. Rangers are a well-known and high-profile brand and would surely have no problem bringing suitors to the door? The delay for all roles makes no sense. In saying that, the sizable list of missteps and calamities make no sense either. The lack of attention to detail makes no sense. A group of investors putting in their own money and proceeding to treat the club with so little care and finesse makes no sense.
Since it’s been headline news a lot, it’s hard not to think about the level of dysfunction and neglect from the custodians. What I expect from Rangers is to always have a plan and to always have competent people in place to execute any plans and move the club forward. On the field and off the field. Take the analogy of a boat. That boat might get from point A to point B without a crew. But equally, or in fact more likely, it might get smashed up on the rocks 20 minutes later. So why take the risk? Hire a crew. Make sure it’s a competent and trustworthy crew. Is it a valuable boat? Then add in the best crew. That’s the short-term stuff. Fundamentals.
Looking ahead, is the boat at risk from stormy weather? Then ensure that the boat is in a fit condition to ride out any bad weather. Obtain a regular weather forecast and charts, so you can predict storms, plot a course through any choppy waters or take evasive actions and sit in the harbour for a while. Again, fundamentals for a club like Rangers. Anything else is neglect.
I expect this from Rangers and more. We know first-hand what happens if we are not prepared or underestimate the ocean in which we sail. David Murray was a wretched Captain. He had no idea of the approaching armada and had no protection or avoidance systems to defend his ship. Our ship. Worse than that Murray had brought the cannons on himself and allowed his rivals to control the waters. The contrast in foresight and cunning, the general level of functionality, between our board and our rivals board was stark in that instance – as it still is today. They ran their club, they played politics, had a handle on the media, had influence in different sectors and had the long-term intelligence to know that the biggest gain in a two-horse race, is made by crippling the other horse. I expect Rangers leadership to always understand and acknowledge what happened and ensure that it can never happen again. I don’t think we can currently say this whilst we are being ran worse than a regional bus company.
None of this is great for the club and, best intentions or not, intent matters nothing when the result is damage to the club. General poor management and poor leadership is costing the club lots of money, arguably tens of millions in the last couple of seasons This has got to be affecting the manager and the players to some degree. The months playing out of Hampden had a negative effect. Earlier, the fallout from Sydney cup had an effect and cost us money. As do court-room skirmishes, inconsistent contracts, random new deals, poor man-management strategies, unsettled players, baffling scouting and targeting, assets running down deals, constant changing of personnel/management teams, in-fighting against supporters, lack of transparency, a general lack of people that command unwavering respect. This is just the basics and day to day stuff and we cannot continue like this.
I can see people wanting to play at football club owner, wanting to hold on to power, or being reluctant to hand over power. However, when the empire is crumbling, they need to recognise that they are doing more harm than good.
If you stop tending a garden then it ceases to be a garden. Over time it loses order and then succumbs to the chaos of nature. Our society, with the freedoms and relative safety we enjoy all exist within a framework, a structure that allows us to live our lives on this piece of land. Without this order, there are no human rights or freedom to protest, no democracy and no football. This varies from place to place, city to city, but these are the gardens that we tend and inhabit and the work that they require to look their best are respect, trust, tolerance and a general agreement how things should be ordered. The UK is far from perfect but its not bad.
I don’t mind admitting that I’m a tribal being. We all are. Having that awareness should be a strength and not a failing. Takes ones to know one, hunter turned gamekeeper etc. You learn from history and you learn from human nature and you have to understand and account for the worst and build from there.
Scotland has its history of tribal issues, primarily of religious/cultural origins and much related to or at least exacerbated by the movement of people from one place to another. Tension was totally predictable – it’s a science where compatibility of people and cultures can be calculated based on history, populations, respect, offerings, grievance, rate of change and adaptability/willingness to yield. It’s not cynical to suggest some movement was encouraged to create problems and cause divisions and that a lack of mediation and attention and the stoking of divisions allowed tension to fester.
This is where the bigger questions appear. Does a collective of people have claim to any land? Does any person have a right to live in that land? Does the indigenous population have a say over who arrives and what boxes must be ticked to join them in that country? This certainly seems to be the default across most of the world’s countries and not many question the rights of those people or populations to exercise some degree of control over their land.
To continue the metaphor, gardens can look totally different and there’s no right or wrong but there are undoubtedly better ones and worse ones. They can be bland, uninspired and lacking variety. Straight lines or curves. Structured or hectic. They can be crowded and have all sorts of plants, flora and wildlife. All types can work and flourish. Humans can adapt, live and enjoy most environments they grow into to. Problems begin when things start to change, and change too fast, without planning, permission or blessing, or without any underlying explanation or necessity.
We all agree there are behaviours that are unwanted and unhelpful and most of these become criminal acts as society seeks to establish order and protect itself and its citizens. Of course, not all seemingly unhelpful acts or ideologies are illegal and that’s the part of life and freedom. Sometimes these can move society forward and improve areas that need improving. As with immigration, people and ideas from other places can add the flavour and spice to a bland or stale society. Equally, deliberate disrespect and antagonization cannot be expected to be well received.
Promotion and celebration of terrorism straddles this boundary, for despite their being laws against it, it has largely been tolerated in Scotland where many openly and actively promote the likes of the IRA. Scottish society and police clearly do not know how to handle the problem. Perhaps thinking it is simply a childish or insincere act. There is a truth in this and that Scottish football plays out tensions more like a pantomime than a war-zone. But the tension exists and is proactively kept alive. The problem is that overtime these ideas can crystalise or transpose and the reality of terrorism isn’t something Western society should be playing with or encouraging.
I saw a recent tweet from a prominent union leader in the UK where he questioned Biden’s Irish credentials for backing Israel in light of the 07-Oct Hamas attacks. I would hope an 80-year-old POTUS who was born in Pennsylvania would have his primary loyalty to the US. But it does raise the question of mindsets, ideologies and loyalties. Why do some people refuse to integrate and yield? Does this loyalty always exist to the external entity, where’s the tipping point? To be passed through generations this must be deliberately cultivated and indoctrinated. And what if this grievance-driven identity then couples or resonates with a terrorist cause at a later date, or later generation? I think we can see how this would be undesirable for everyone.
And where some in Scotland may play with terrorism, and the disneyfication of terrorism, others aren’t so twee or harmless. The obsession some at Celtic fc have with Palestine has never sat right. Not because people and groups don’t deserve support or a better life but because of the reasons for support. There’s hundreds of valid causes and oppressed people and groups to show solidarity with, however, Palestine appears to have been chosen because of the anti-Brit angle, the mutual glorification of terrorism and the apparent problem that the Irish identity has with antisemitism. None of this is particularly healthy even if the cause is. Of course, the timing of the last showing of solidarity – after the Hamas attacks which killed 1400+ civilians of all ages and backgrounds – betrays they true reasons for backing from some in the Celtic support.
Claims of moral high ground, human rights and solidarity vanish when so many innocent people are massacred. Red flags should also be ringing loud in that community and across Scotland about some of the people they have sided with – Islamic Jihadis. This isn’t a football game; this is the real world where outsiders are considered less than others and those beliefs are acted upon – not through song or through t-shirts or flags but through blood and slaughter.
It has been that way for thousands of years so would be foolish to think otherwise now. And who’s to say it stops at Israel? Because we know it won’t – humans and history tells us so. So take a look around the garden we live in, in relative safety with our stupid feuds and squabbles, and then think if you’re really heading down a road to towards enrichment or societal improvement.
To beat the traffic, I arrived early before the Ajax match on Tuesday. I took some quiet time to walk around the stadium take in some of the architecture. Around the periphery, the world outside Ibrox was organising chaos past closed roads and road works. Home time, still long before match time. The din of distant engines layered with nearby rattle and chatter as stalls were set up and staff arrived and greeted colleagues. Police and stewards stepped out to set about their duties and began their demarcation of the area. A brief look behind the curtains as the Champions League entry music was blasted inside. And at the centre of this the main stand sits silent. Unmoving and immovable. The gigantic main stand puffs out its red Welsh brick chest and gazes South through lit windows in regal contemplation. And as the sun lowers to the West, so the shadows further highlight the handsome façade. It demands to be admired.
3,000 tonnes of Ruabon majesty, tens of thousands of souls passing through the gates tonight, a drop to the countless millions over its years. The weight of history and tradition is palpable. Nothing looks so magnificent, can be so enormous and well attended without meaning so much to so many. And with that thoughts turn to what this stadium has seen? What it must mean to people. What must it be like to be in charge of this building? The building, but much more – everything it stands for and everything that goes with that. An emblem and cradle for the 150-year-old club. There is so much responsibility attached to that position. It’s a struggle to even imagine it, for me anyway.
We know David Murray ultimately failed the club. For as Ibrox is a Castle to us, so it is a palace to storm for others. Murray failed to recognise this. Custodian was his word – a person who has responsibility for taking care of or protecting something. It is as simple as that and by his own measure he failed miserably and we almost paid the ultimate price.
It gives me chills to recall some of the characters that held the keys in the intervening period. The red brick would never know the threat to its survival. We have thankfully left those days behind but the responsibility with the custodians still stands, if not increases through the years. It’s not a single act, you don’t buy into the position and your duties end there. They only begin. It’s an ongoing process; to care and protect the football club.
That means many things. The team on the pitch has to be winning and challenging, that is the essence of the football club. It is the property and assets. It is the commercial stuff. It is the brand, the image. It is the relationship with the fans and that includes the product and service the fans receive. It is the culture, recognising the past whilst charting a course forward. All to secure, better, build and advance the football club.
One area where our club has suffered greatly has been in the realm of offensive chanting. In my opinion, our custodians, but primarily David Murray, failed to recognise threats – to get ahead of the play, open communication, address issues and fight our corner when it was justified. They haven’t always been helped by our actions as supporters, where we have often shot ourselves in the foot. Again, it’s a process but you have to go through certain steps and we work through things and come out all the stronger for it. There’s an important point hidden here; the fans have a responsibility to represent the club in the best way possible and hold the board to account, and the board similarly can ask certain things from the fans whilst protecting the club. We’re all in this together.
In the sectarianism debate, the absolutes and context can be argued over but what should not be up for debate is fairness and parity. If the powers that be are to lessen tensions or curb offense then justice must be just.
The recent ‘Kill all Huns’ banner from the Aberdeen fans last weekend made some papers. It is a sectarian term. Aberdeen fans claiming they’re using a different dictionary definition of the word is a moot point, it is used as a sectarian slur against protestants and groups perceived to be protestants.
Detractors will of course claim that Rangers fans can have no right to complain because we sing or have sung offensive and sectarian songs – they’d be correct up to a point, but that point ignores the 20 years of bad press we’ve accrued from that. That laws and legislation have been rushed through to punish it and too many have lost work and even gone to jail on the back of daft songs and banners. That’s not saying certain songs don’t still get aired occasionally, but this is usually as a response or defiance. This is the circular logic involved here – Aberdeen fans are somehow justified because of Rangers fans songs, so if others are allowed to be offensive as a response, then surely so are Rangers? This is where parity has to kick in. You have to condemn everything or nothing. It’s not a pick and mix.
This lack of parity from certain quarters was brutally exposed in October when the Republic of Ireland women’s team decided to celebrate qualifying for a World Cup at Hampden by singing up the ‘RA chants. Now this is offensive. It’s meant to be. It is aimed at Brits (collectively) and it’s celebrating terrorism against Brits. To be fair, it got nationwide attention and most in the UK were rightly highly critical of it, often calling for further action to nip this sort of behaviour in the bud. My opinion, it’s no different to the Billy Boys chant. The difference is most have agreed, with time, that TBB was over-the-top, unhelpful and should be left in the past, whereas the other side appear to quite enjoy singing their offensive chant and any esprit de concorde is thrown in the bin.
Over 20 years of frothing, faux-outrage over the most powerful chant in football™ from Scottish footballs’ moral guardians seems to have evaporated and morphed into collective support for their murder gang of choice. “I think it’s harmless”, “It’s like a joke, a school chant insulting the other team”, “It’s not derogatory. It’s not anything anyone takes seriously”. A pretty stark difference to rhetoric wheeled out for footballing banter from the Rangers support. Indeed, some of the most vocal in the press and at parliament in Scotland made themselves very busy twiddling their thumbs when they weren’t busy contradictory their earlier stances on offensive chanting. Remember that Tom Devine recently stated that sectarianism in Scotland is largely isolated within the Rangers support. Well, here we have a distinctly Celtic FC brand of sectarianism; literally, conceived and fomented within the Celtic support and passed back as their gift to the world through some daft, unthinking, bigoted women at Hampden. Yes, it’s clearly only a Rangers problem Tom. Our day will come. Never forgive, never forget. Blah blah blah.
I digress slightly, but this is an example of the world we find ourselves in and the all-too-apparent slope on the political playing field. And politics is the word here. The Aberdeen banner got very little comment from anyone bar a couple of papers. This low-key response would be unthinkable if it had been a Kill All Fenians banner at parkhead. It may be fairly trivial to most people’s lives but why is no-one prepared to call-out the unacceptable when the target suits them? It’s a fairly low risk, non-controversial position to hold. Is there really no politician in Scotland prepared to put in minimum leg work regarding Rangers? We are clearly not using our sizable voting mass effectively, even after all of these years.
Beyond that, no one in Scottish football has broken cover and condemned it. Worse still, the Rangers board has not publicly condemned it. This is the one that rankles me most. We know Rangers don’t get favours so we shouldn’t expect too much. However, we must make them act when the opportunities arise. This is that opportunity. They may be working behind the scenes, but we need to see something.
Hun is sectarian and Kill all Huns is well over the top. Rangers’ custodians have a duty to protect the club and the support. We would face stand closures in European competition if such a banner saw the light of day at Ibrox. Our board have a duty to play the political game and ensure others are held to the same standards as we are.
This board is already under scrutiny, their communication and competence are being heavily questioned. Their commitment to the support has been questioned. For me, doing nothing shows that they aren’t up to protecting the club or not know how to. It shows that they are not working on issues important to the support.
One of my (many) gripes over recent years is the boards’ ability to miss open goals. This feels like an open goal moment. Call it out as unacceptable. Force Aberdeen and the SFA join in the condemnation. I’m not asking for TV cameras and lawyers, I just want it stated somewhere, officially, in black and white. And bigger picture, let’s see who in the wider political landscape is willing to back the club, and then ensure we reward that action by finding a way to show the gratitude of the support via the ballot box. It might be out-with the perceived remit of a football club, but this is what others have been doing.
Murray left us stranded and isolated on these issues but at some point, someone at Rangers is going to need to step up again. The country’s’ largest club with the largest support must have considerable political weight. Improving this helps the club in many, many ways and makes many issues so much easier. Bottom line, it helps to protect the club. The current custodians may well be working on these areas, doing things behind the scenes, but if there’s no discernible change or output over months or years then it’s not really working. It’s wasted time. If you cannot score open goals then what are you actually doing?
Disrespect is nothing new in Scottish football. It’s been there before anyone reading this was born and I have no doubts it’ll be there long after we’re all gone. Last week and the passing of Queen Elizabeth II does seem to have ramped things to a new level. Thankfully, there has been condemnation in the UK press it but there also seems to be a lack of discussion beyond that.
Let’s be honest, both sides are fairly entrenched and neither side is passing on tolerance or respect. Some will claim they are, but recent behaviour and events clearly suggest otherwise.
To my eyes there has been a few incidents in recent years that have directly or indirectly led to a ramping up of hostility.
The (deliberate) mishandling of the sectarianism debate is certainly one, although I don’t expect any contributors to concede as much. Dampening down offensive chanting is not a bad thing and if trying to sell our game and widen our horizons then it’s a noble enough cause – for Rangers and other clubs. However, it was never packaged as this. It was a point-scoring exercise that focused predominately on Rangers – since many of the main protagonists have long since shown their hand, I don’t consider this to be up for debate.
But beyond the general disingenuous rottenness of the agenda, it had several lasting by-products. It emboldened celtic fans, and others, that their chants (pro-IRA, sectarian or just plain nasty) were somehow acceptable because their lackeys silence and refusal to call-out or censor those chants let to them to be tacitly accepted (and therefore excused). Meanwhile, it embittered Rangers fans that they were being singled out. Those following things could see what was going on. Those on the outskirts and moderate fans of other clubs bought into it as established platforms like BBC Scotland were selling it (often and everywhere) and they especially bought into Rangers’ being the bad guy and being giving a kicking over it.
This dovetailed nicely with Rangers financial troubles in 2011 and the Indy referendum in 2014. My opinion is the sectarianism debate and events in 2011 (and its fallout) were largely orchestrated, in the press at least, to suit similar purposes to those of the nationalists in 2014. Regardless of cause, the effects were the same; more division, more outrage, more grievance and spite and more disrespect.
One of the many responses thrown at Rangers fans when on the receiving end of abuse is that you deserve it. That’s fine, it’s ok to dislike Rangers. It’s ok to be offended by songs. Ultimately, it’s ok to dislike rivals. But the logic is circular. If your hatred is justified, and you act on that, then perhaps Rangers fans then feel the same in return. An admission of an offensive chanting arms race that’s been going on for over a century would be a start. Trying to dismantle and diffuse that fairly would be a start. Rangers’ fans sing offensive songs, sure, but then so do others. To claim to be especially repelled by the word fenian but not those barking about orange, hun or English bastards or pro-IRA chants makes no sense to me. It’s simply one-eyed and perhaps (probably) the result of years of the media conditioning mentioned above, neatly fitting into existing prejudices (be it tribal, rivalry or politically motivated).
In recent years any bridge of respect between Rangers and celtic has been visibly torched. Previously I could recall regular articles or broadcasts playing on the same-just-different theme. Sometimes forced or contrite but usually well intended. These have largely disappeared, but then so is how we consume our media. I have no doubt celtic hammed it up during the sectarianism debate, knowing that the game was rigged and the media onside. I have no doubt many of the same people helped to direct Rangers troubles in 2011 to some degree. The reasons for this? Money, silverware, access to Champions League. But also, political – culture wars if you will.
The SNP made its rather unsubtle play to take voters from labour and that actively excluded Rangers. MSPs would frequently and frivolously attack Rangers or anything Rangers-related. This brave new strategy would later evolve further at Celtic with many of the club statements no longer acknowledging Rangers by name. No-one stopped to call this out or perhaps think it may not be best for social cohesion. This belligerence manifested itself in other ways too; the banners and tifo seemed to take on a more militant edge, always tribal but often a racial or sectarian undertone. As mentioned before, the IRA chants and paraphernalia was present before, if muted, was now pushed to the fore. Recent accounts of city centre pubs openly playing up-the-RA chants on match days can surely not be claimed as a positive for Scotland?
Perhaps time and distance from the bombings and troubles has allowed a new generation to forget what these actually mean and continue pushing the envelope of offense. Kevin McKenna wrote that Scotlands Irish voting SNP was an expression of their comfort in their Scottish skin. I wonder what the open celebration of the IRA tells us?
Back to that circular logic. How should normal people or fans of other clubs treat this open pro-terror militancy? Justified dislike? Mistrust? Disrespect? And if that had element had always been there, then why would attitudes have been different previously? Context. It would be nice if the media gave it a fraction of the exposure of some other chants. Is it a case of it’s not what you sing but who you sing about?
The deaths of Tommy Burns and Walter Smith also mark milestones along this path. A genuine affection between McCoist, Burns and Smith felt like it symbolised something bigger. Burns passed in 2008 and, with hindsight, this tied in with an escalation in hostilities – that now doesn’t feel like a coincidence. No doubt a knot of mutual respect was lost that day. Replace Burns with the likes of Lennon and the message was always going to change.
Of course, some people didn’t respect Burns and disrespect was shown. Unacceptable chants were aired and some people took it too far or expressed that at the wrong time. Again, these things are cyclical and disrespect would be returned.
Smith, similarly, had a very high standing across the nation. As close to universal respect as Scotland is likely to get. And so another lasting knot of respect unravelled.
Time is a healer but also time allows people to forget. A chant appeared soon enough including Smith and Jimmy Bell. Disrespect and offense the aim and the target was hit. These aren’t really minorities as it was clear many in the joyfully progressive and inclusive theme pubs were indulging in it. Condemnation was offered in some press but none of the analysis really cuts to the thick of it – we are a deeply divided society and it appears to be getting worse. The reason is that division suits some powerful players and no-one appears to have the inclination or platform to resist it or call it out.
I actively dislike my rivals but without some grounding we all lose here. There has to be some symbols of respect and some grown-ups keeping everyone honest. We don’t have that anymore, or they no longer have platforms. We have puppets having their strings pulled. The SFA and SPFL are a joke. The media spins narratives. Even the police has been shown to treat people differently. We have constitutional and racial politics setting rivalries and dictating what people find should offensive.
And this takes us to a place where a moments silence for the Queen is spoiled. In some cases, spoiled is too mild, it was turned into a circus. We are in a place where people are able to forget about the occasion, the environment, their peers, their fellow citizens or the loss of something symbolic to the country where most have spent their life and are instead projecting their own politics, rivalry and spite onto it. You don’t have to agree or care about subject of remembrance but on some level, you have to respect the act of remembrance. Be it club legends, heads of state or those lost in the wars.
This was a very good article around the time of HRHs’ passing in the Scotsman. It may not mean something to you, yet, but it could and it probably meant something, or even a lot, to people you know and care about. I don’t believe every celtic fan wanted to disrespect the Queen or hates the UK. I don’t believe everyone in Hampden didn’t admire or wish to spend a moment to show respect to her. It’s not a surprise that some did not, but it is disappointing that there’s no social filters left and no-one to kept the peace.
One last thought. This is unapologetically through a Rangers’ fan perspective. I want us to admit and own our failings, there’s plenty can be improved and a better Rangers-centric way achieved going forward, but others need to play ball too. In all of the events’ mentioned Rangers have been the focus or placed at the centre of it, but the club has been relatively benign throughout. It didn’t rabble rouse. It didn’t drag things to the gutter. It has took punishment when it had to, publicly criticised and banned its own fans, has been relatively pro-active, kept quiet on many matters when it probably should have but it seldom rocked the boat or poured fuel on flames. Maybe Rangers has been the bad guy in the past, maybe even revelled in that role for a while, but let’s not pretend it’s been that way for many years.
I’ve already written on Gersnet about my initial opposition to Rangers accepting a role as a support act in Australia in November. Since then I’ve listened to more views on this and have had some time to think about it. And I’m still raging.
James Bisgrove mentioned it was an unparalleled offer, too good to refuse. My question would be why was that? Doesn’t that point alone get the spider-senses tingling? Mid-season, during a World Cup, when the best players and footballing world is focused on Qatar, we get a previously unheard-of offer from the other side of the world? We know celtics current manager has links there. We know celtic will be there and we’ll be playing them. Doesn’t this start to feel wrong already?
As I saw it, it took approximately 60 minutes for the real reasons of our involvement to be revealed. This fixture was leaked very quickly on the back of the monumentally significant civil action suit against celtic being revealed. For me, this suggests celtic having a bigger role in this than simply just another team in the competition. I don’t know what our board expected to happen but this is a big deal. In the context of Scottish football and our own recent troubles this is all tied together and connected, and it’s entirely predictable. I don’t know what the contract states but I would suggest this could be seen as a reason to exit that contract, or at least cancel or replace the game against them? It could easily be argued that this looks like the soul reason for our involvement and it would certainly go towards explaining the fee put forward to lure us in. Who knows where that money has come from?
As a minimum, I would expect our club and PR to come out swinging on the back of this breach of trust and goodwill. I’ve seen nothing. Mr Bisgrove was obviously told to front up and earn his corn but that’s pretty much been it.
In our 150th year, I want to see us play every big club possible and I want games across the globe to celebrate it. I want old friendships renewed and history made, relived and reignited with any number of famous clubs. And I want us making money at the same time. The fact we’ve chosen to play a couple of random Australian teams alongside our shameless, dishonest enemies’ reeks of laziness. Why not arrange our own tour and play 5 or 6 games across Australia? How about something in Dubai, Baku or the far East on way out or return journeys? That way we’d make money, increase our audience/exposure/accessibility, and keep our pride intact. But I guess that might also involve foresight and some hard work and planning.
Another reason for my objection to this game is the ethical point of view. I regularly give opinions and commentary on the plights of both the Grays and Gordon Woods in their fight for justice in the CSA scandal. This is not just window-dressing, this is a real human fight against terrible deeds and a prolonged cynical cover-up. Any backing from me is absolute and extends beyond tribalism and club loyalty.
Any club contractually obligated to play Celtic I have no problem with. Any club who chooses to share a football pitch with them for financial gain only or for pre season friendlies are insulting the Celtic CSA victims after todays announcement.
— Name Withheld (Legal Reasons) CSA Victim/Survivor (@GordonW09225415) March 1, 2022
Gordon is absolutely right. It’s insulting for everyone. Mistakes are allowed, but once you realise that mistake you have to act to correct it. This is the crux of everything in life. The misuse of the fixture to cover celtics bad news should have seen alarm bells sounding around Ibrox. There should have been an immediate response to at least address this aspect and put that right, even before looking to cancel the fixture. I cannot express how badly the club have failed everyone here. Personally, I cannot back the club commercial until this is put right. Rangers do not need this just now as we try to pull together for a title charge. I hope I’m wrong but this decision, and prolonged inaction, will stink out Ibrox for a long time. Possibly long after those making these decisions are gone. We do not need this but I can’t sit back and watch Rangers be used like this.
A one final thing. Rangers has still not satisfactorily dealt with their own share of the CSA scandal. Reparations, consequences, footballing sanctions, PR damage do not stop at celtic. The scale and the framework surrounding it may be entirely different but Rangers have left some unwanted threads hanging ragged. Mark my words, others will come after Rangers with everything they have to save their own skin and share or transfer any damage. Do we expect Rangers to be remotely ready for this and deal with it efficiently? Based on this Australian farce, I’d say that is a resounding no!
To my knowledge, Celtic FCs separate entity defence first made an appearance at some point before 2010. The football club were certainly becoming hyper-political and legally-assertive in the preceding years. Also, around this time the Catholic Church was still deep in the midst of revelations and scandals about its seemingly bottomless pit of national and global abuse shame. Their sporting progeny Celtic FC are nothing if not astute when it comes to protecting their own interests and, knowing the scale of their own abuse shame more than anyone, it was to be expected that they’d pursue measures to put distance between events and any consequences. Later, in 2018, perhaps on-the-surface a minor or trivial thing but the epitome of this distancing would be having the Celtic Boys Club renamed.
Let’s start with some obvious conclusions. The reason for the separate entity stance is to protect Celtic FC to the maximum degree possible. Simple as that. And in its own way, to even pursue this path is an admission that some very bad stuff has occurred at the Celtic Boys Clubs and that it could be/should be very damaging – otherwise why bother?
We’re now starting to see and hear more about the real levels of abuse that occurred across Celtic’s Boys Club network thanks to many of the survivors standing up and calling out the parent club. And not just in Glasgow.
For example, Neil Strachan at Celtic Boys Club East. Strachan had already been convicted for indecency in 1985 before being allowed to join the Celtic Boys Club family. In 1997 he received a three-year prison sentence for abusing a child. In 2007 he was convicted for nine offences and received a minimum 9-year jail sentence for his part in one of Scotland’s worst paedophile rings.
We’ve seen the court-cases and convictions of predators chalk up gradually through the years. And thanks to the commentary and insight from the survivors we can now also see the lengths to which the Celtic community has gone to cover this up. This includes people of influence in the press (where there’s a distorted vacuum of discussion and exposure to a story of this scale), at the governing bodies (where they sit on their hands and hope this goes away) and, of course Holyrood (Scotland’s parliament). Justice Secretary and Celtic fan Humza Yousaf wants nothing to do with it or the survivors, presumably because he knows how damaging it should be to Celtic and neither he nor his backers want that. We know that Nicola Sturgeon has rejected calls for the Scottish inquiry into historical child sexual abuse to be widened to include football clubs and religious institutions. We’ll never know what goes on in political horse-trading behind closed doors but can only surmise when these horses are later turned out in public.
General Election: Scots bishops advise Catholics not to vote for Tories | The National https://t.co/7wPs6UXEFY
And very importantly, the recent SFA report on historical abuse stopped short on many fronts, and alongside a questionable author and troubling selectivity, it was also notably quiet on incidents outwith Scotland.
An excerpt from the SFA report states “there are a small number of individuals who spoke to the Review about alleged abusive experiences that occurred outside of Scottish football (either in relation to football in England or in relation to another non-football institution or organisation) and these fall outside of the Terms of Reference for the purposes of the Review”
More selectivity and a another important point – the abuse doesn’t stop at arbitrary boundaries. A holiday for a predator doesn’t mean they take a break from being a predator. In fact, if away trips are part of the abusers modus operandi then it’s very likely that abuse will occur on away trips – be it, in Scotland, in England or in the United States.
Kearny, New Jersey
In the 80s the Celtic Boys Club visit to the US had become an annual tradition, and this has been clearly catalogued and illustrated over the years in the Celtic View. And from Celtic FCs own official newspaper we know the yearly trips were organised to Kearny (a district in New Jersey) for up to 20 years. We know that trips would include up to 20 youth players of typically u16 level and would last for 2-3 weeks in the summer months. We know that Kearny would be the base with tournaments and games arranged against other youth clubs from Philadelphia and Boston. We know that players would be hosted at the houses of the Kearny team and staff. Trips would be paid for with fundraising on both sides of the Atlantic, although thanks is also given to Jim Torbett and the Celtic directors, presumably for cash contributions and support. We know that some future first-team players attended the trips (Paul McStay), Celtic directors would visit (Kevin Kelly), as would ex-players (Jimmy Johnstone). All good and wholesome so far.
We know that the Boys Club Coach (who cannot be named at the moment) was heavily involved in most, if not all, of these trips. Indeed, in 1990 the Boys Club Coach was awarded Honorary Life Members of the Philadelphia Old Timers Soccer Association. A number of the hosts and supporters’ clubs involved in the trips and tournaments were Glasgow ex-pats. Also present on various trips were some other notorious names like Jim Torbett, Gerry King and Jim McCafferty. These guys were neither strangers to each other nor unaware of the other’s secrets. To paraphrase Keith Jackson of the Daily Record “the sexual abuse taking place for many years inside Celtic Boys’ Club was systemic and perpetrated by an established, organised ring of paedophiles. This was not a case of bad luck, it was a network of unconscionably bad men preying upon children almost in plain sight.”
As a collective they had been an efficient, evasive, industry of abuse and they were able to abuse relatively undetected over decades. That should probably read undisturbed more than undetected, as there were plenty of victims, witnesses, and rumours, but the cloak of Celtic and the connected community allowed them the shelter to continue.
I cannot list previous crimes due to ongoing legal proceedings in the UK; however, it is known the Celtic paedophile ring has been convicted on a minimum of 28 counts (from many more charges), resulting in a minimum combined sentences of 19 years in jail between the dates of 1965 – 1996.
Those court-proven charges against each of these men show a clear, consistent pattern of behaviour over a period of time. It’s worth considering a reality of this, this will almost certainly not be an exhaustive list of their crimes, far from it. It’s not easy for survivors to come forward – many are confused or ashamed over what’s occurred and try to deny or forget. Many don’t want to relive any incidents through the discomfort of investigations and court. Many will see it as futile to report the abuse – they may have seen the club deal with similar incidents in-house and then nothing happen e.g. police not notified, offender not punished and possibly even the youth themselves cut loose from the club. We can tell from Celtic FCs numerous internal investigations over the years that they didn’t investigate particularly hard and more likely these were exercises in identifying any threat, isolating it and protecting the club from it. Club pressure, court pressure, community pressure, a sense of futility, any number of factors and the default is to keep quiet. And so the majority would.
The question is what number of crimes actually occurred and were never reported, let alone secured a conviction? How many were reported to the club and buried? Are these cases only the tip of the iceberg? Testimonies and allegations from other survivors would suggest so.
The Kearny Incident
Kearny was the location of an alleged attack in 1991 by the Boys Club Coachand a newspaper article from 1996 states that:
“Ex-Celtic chairman Jack McGinn has admitted he was told the Boys Club Coach had abused a teenager on the tour. It prompted McGinn to call a meeting at Parkhead where he accepted the Boys Club Coach’s resignation. He said he urged Boys’ Club officials to alert police but they did not, allowing the Boys Club Coach to walk free.”
The incident occurred in the basement of a house in Kearny where some of the players were being hosted. As the article states, this was never formally reported or investigated by police in Scotland or in the US. The reason provided was that the children could’ve been taken into care should formal charges be made. It is understood that an investigation was opened in 2019 by the Kearny PD and Hudson Country Prosecutors Office. The current status of this investigation is unknown.
It is quoted that Celtic’s lawyers were involved and took statements from the involved parties at the time, it is also quoted that an outcome of the meeting was for all parties to keep silent.
It is known that the Boys Club Coach was very influential at Celtic FC and highly regarded by key board members, as many of the gang were. It is suggested that he even had he was heavily involved in the process of appointing a first-team manager in the mid-90s and was allowed to return and conduct tours after his dismissal in 1991.
Given the characters present, the setting and the period of time involved it’s doubtful that Kearny 1991 was an isolated incident throughout the 13 years of visits. It is also known that members of the Celtic paedophile ring would take boys on personal holidays to Florida and other locations.
Many parallels have been drawn between this and the Penn State scandal; indeed, many aspects of the Celtic scandal dwarves what happened at Penn State. The numbers of predators involved, the network, the outsiders, the planning, the intricacy, the span of time, the number of victims and number of incidents of abuse. But perhaps the biggest difference has been the scale of the cover up. The number of people that must’ve known and chose to put the club first – not in a passive, looking-the-other-way manner but by pro-actively hiding, burying and deflecting.
The Penn State assisted football coach Jerry Sandusky was convicted on 45 counts of child sexual abuse in 2012 and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Three Penn State officials were charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, failure to report suspected child abuse, and related charges. The NCAA imposed a $60 million fine, a four-year post-season ban, scholarship reductions, and a vacation of all victories from 1998 to 2011.
Justice was served on Sandusky and Penn State through a strong police force, a strong media and a strong governing body. Compare and contrast to the Celtic FC scandal. A degree of justice has been served through the courts to the individuals, many decades later. But that’s where it ends. There has been zero punishment or consequences for the club or it’s officials. The fact that the Celtic Commercial Director/Chairman over the period of the Kearny visits, Jack McGinn, ends up as the President of the Scottish footballs governing body (the SFA) and they then do nothing should be no surprise. Celtics direct influence at the SFA since McGinn’s retirement has been almost unbroken, and unsurprisingly, their reign of inaction is also unbroken. And in our increasingly corrupt little corner of Europe that is Scotland we have a press unwillingly or unable to hold either to account.
Is the difference that simple? That Celtic has more powerful friends and more zealous guardians than Penn State? In this example, where children have been abused and let-down, no-one should consider that to be a compliment.
Support a full public enquiry into the Celtic scandal and cover-up, in the UK and elsewhere.
For more information on this topic and others please follow @Spotlight_CFC66.
Please watch and share this excellent documentary from Adrian Goldberg.
Since yesterday, over 15,000 views of our film, The Celtic Boys Club Scandal, written, presented and produced by @GoldbergRadio, filmed, directed and edited by me.
It’s not often I’ll quote or reference Keith Jackson but I will here. And, surprisingly, it’s not that anything he wrote was actually wrong. However, the way his article was presented represents everything that is wrong with this subject and how it has been handled in Scotland.
When the SFA finally released its long-delayed ‘independent’ report it was to be both welcomed and met with apprehension at the same time. Welcomed because measurable progress is long overdue – many people have been hurt and let down badly and every day of waiting is another day too long. It should be a fairly straight forward process – there’s right and wrong, what’s proven and where things have gone wrong. It should be black and white in that regard. The apprehension aspect is because it’s just not possible to trust the SFA and those involved at this moment.
Those with most to lose/most to hide (i.e. Celtic FC and the SFA themselves) have been actively covering and deflecting from this subject for decades. They have agents in government, the press and football who have been happy to keep this subject off the menu or carefully ushered it off stage when it appears . That it is now being covered suggests that they are comfortable with what is being released. There are questions marks over both author and the process. There are question marks over whether others have had access to the report and had an influence in what stays in there and how it’s been presented. I have included a list of omission or oddities about the final report in the Appendix at the end of this article.
Back to Jacksons article as an example.
“And the truth of the matter is that for many years, Rangers believed it to be someone else’s problem. Or, to be more precise, Celtic’s problem. This too was understandable.”
Again, nothing wrong per se. Rangers have their problems. Celtic have theirs. They are neither comparable, equivalent nor glibly inter-changeable. They must be dealt with in their own rights. Which begs the question of how on earth can the following statement be allowed to rest so easily at the bottom of what appears to be a Rangers-related article?
“Where Neely can be regarded a rogue operator, the sexual abuse taking place for many years inside Celtic Boys’ Club was systemic and perpetrated by an established, organised ring of paedophiles. This was not a case of bad luck, it was a network of unconscionably bad men preying upon children almost in plain sight.”
This is an amazingly massive paragraph on many levels. This pretty much confirms the conventional wisdom that Celtic had been corrupted and was allowing predators to set-up and operate its boys’ clubs branches with the blessing of the club and its associates. Which then resulted in the abuse of approximately 100 youths. And yet there it is, Jacksons moment of clarity, buried within a Rangers-headed article. This isn’t an oversight or accident. The SFA report is also phrased and constructed to lean in this direction. All sense of scale and quantity has been stripped from the detail. Notorious predators shed of their identity and infamy and reduced to a letter. Emphasis has been placed on selected incidents and the easy conclusion to any reader (not up to speed on Scottish football) would be that this is a true and trusted reflection of events, but it’s a mirage and a delusion.
For those not up to speed, I have provided a catalogue of questions in the Appendix at the bottom of the page, whilst below is an eloquent résumé by Mark Dingwall of the Follow Follow website on what the SFA report has casually omitted.
“I can’t but help mention the elephant in the room – Celtic Boys Club. Whilst predators were at work in other clubs no club provided a 35+ year canon of evidence, trials and convictions. It was a club which saw an organised ring operate over many years with multiple deviants and which crucially embedded itself with the business structures of the club in a way which saw one of the preparators enrich himself with £250,000 a year contracts and ultimately saw two members of the Celtic FC board join company board. It is a scandal without parallel in Scotland”
Still, many in the media took the opportunity to follow the narrative laid out in the SFA report. Notably, Chris McLaughlin at the BBC led with his own interpretation stating that.
“Senior clubs including Rangers, Hibernian, Motherwell and Partick Thistle were all named in the testimonies. Celtic Boys Club also featured in often distressing personal accounts of sexual abuse.”
It will come as no surprise that the Celtic-cheerleader chose to colour his picture in this way. BBC Scotland has been Celtic-friendly (or allowed it’s staff to be Celtic-friendly, same thing) on this subject for a long time. The BBC are not an entity shy of dwelling on subjects when it fits their politics; however, for some reason they seem incapable of covering Celtics problems in a professional manner. As merely one example of this long running practise, it is known that Gordon Woods gave an interview to John Beattie for BBC Scotland and that this interview was never broadcast.
BBC's John Beattie did a radio interview with me with regards my experience with Celtic Boys Club. Despite preparing myself mentally for a 1 hour interview, which was difficult, reliving my ordeal once again, his bosses at the BBC have refused to air it? This was many months ago.
— Gordon Woods • My Fight for Justice v Celtic F.C. (@GordonW09225415) August 31, 2020
Post-SFA report, Gordon Woods also gave an interview with STV and his assertation that the SFA report “does not give me any confidence that the issues have been addressed in the way victims would expect & deserve” was cut from the broadcast.
Only part of my interview aired: My most critical statement omitted. "I have not had the time to digest or read the entire report. The small part I have read certainly does not give me any confidence that the issues have been addressed in the way victims would expect & deserve".
— Gordon Woods • My Fight for Justice v Celtic F.C. (@GordonW09225415) February 11, 2021
Again, why not just deal with all facts openly and honestly? Why not report that survivors of abuse are asking questions of the author and report?
Public Enquiry
It seems topical to reference the on-going Salmond/Sturgeon enquiry at this time. People, institutions and systems can all be corrupted. We can see that power has been abused in the Scottish government and that party or tribal loyalties can over-take professional duties. If this can happen at the top levels of devolved government, then it can most certainly happen at BBC Scotland or the SFA (where it did happen at the SPFL in April 2020). If the press won’t hold others to account, how can they be expected to hold themselves to account? This is the circle of corruption. Worse still, the BBC has previous for abuse and cover-ups with Saville so you’d think it would be hyper-sensitive to it.
Elsewhere in the media, take Clyde FM as an example, where we can have a senior broadcaster (long-term reporter on Celtic affairs and club zealot) simply refusing to discuss a scandal without parallel? Quite a position for any journalist to hold and all very convenient for his football team. But unfortunately this is a position repeated across Scotland. And despite what detractors say, this is against the wishes of the survivors, who need the oxygen of publicity for their cause.
One reporter who has done more that others is Alex Thomson of Ch4 news. He has backed the survivors and called out Celtic on a lot of this, when many of his Scottish peers have chosen the easy route and avoided it all together. However, he has stopped short of joining the dots and questioning the glaring omissions in the SFA report, and the reasons for those omissions.
Please listen to Adrian Goldberg’s latest interview with Michelle Gray. This is exceptional stuff and had it not been for the bravery, determination and dignity of the Michelle and Helen Gray, or Gordon Woods, or Bill Storrie and others, then we wouldn’t hear about any of this. The SFAs behaviour has been pretty abhorrent throughout the whole thing. Conflict of interest would be an understatement and as it is too an explanation. I noticed that the former SFA chief Stewart Regan had not commented on the SFA report on his twitter account. For something so seismic and important, something that should represent such a positive step, this seemed very strange – that is unless the report isn’t anything to be particularly proud of?
Of course, the SFA report not only failed to cover or represent all survivors’ testimonies it actually managed to twist many facts too. The Gray’s found themselves to be the target for untrue and malicious content within in the SFA report. Again, this seems inexplicable – unless you consider the possibility that the SFA and its agents see any outspoken survivor as an inconvenience or a danger. In my opinion, this was a barbed and personal response from the report’s author to the Gray’s for being too outspoken. A warning to others to keep quiet and do not disturb things?
No Response from Rangers
One thing Alex Thomson has pressed on, as others have, is the apology angle. The SFA report actually praises Celtic for expressing sympathy, regret and sorrow despite the club still publicly peddling its separate entity angle and expressing sorrow isn’t actually apologising (of course, praise in view of the magnitude of their failings is more than a little inappropriate). Indeed, there has been a clamour in the media to have everyone involved show suitable contrition. A statement recognising the report has not yet been provided by Rangers and this lack of comment had created a vacuum which has been dutifully filled by the press. Somehow, despite the known gravity of events elsewhere, sections of the Scottish press has managed to work Rangers around to be the biggest villain of the piece.
There’s various angles on Rangers non-response. Perhaps Rangers didn’t want to give credence to a compromised report? Perhaps they saw something hidden in the report which would take time to digest or investigate?
There’s also the inescapable truth that if the report covered all incidents equally to the detail it covered those at Rangers then it would run to over 2000 pages long. This is something that will resonant with Rangers fans and I dont mind admitting that I am bitter and jaded with the press coverage in this country. There should be no hiding place for anyone on this subject, but they’ve have consistently ran interference for celtic on this (on real crimes), but not once was the decried burdens of sectarianism or tax avoidance ever shared or mitigated. Without wishing to disrespect any incident, the SFAs and medias behaviour around this report has been akin to leading a story on EBTs with a Celtic crest and details of Juninho’s EBT. And publications like The Athletic should know better than taking something so enormous and blithely hiding it under a Rangers crest. By all means give each club their own article, their own shaming but do not hide Celtic’s scandal behind other clubs.
Rangers have their own questions to answer. Perhaps they feel these have been adequately dealt with in previous comments and statements? In which case they should reiterate them. My personal opinion is that Rangers should’ve been years ahead of this report. All investigations should’ve been completed and any debts, reparations, apologies sorted out well in advance of this report landing. None of this could’ve been unexpected. We knew the report was on its way and we knew how the SFA through Martin Henry would play it.
If we’re talking about politics and point-scoring then the SFA report more than indulges itself in those. In my opinion, its main purpose is to bury Celtics dirty washing amongst those of others. Calculating and deliberate. From that point of view, I can see why the SFA report should not dictate when Rangers should deal with their problems. Rangers have to make amends with the survivors in a way that attempts to repair any damage to the maximum extent. They should do the right thing – to an extent that satisfies survivors. And if that happens to test the integrity of the SFA report, or the integrity of others that have been hiding or think that a half-hearted apology ends the matter, then so be it. Rangers should’ve done this years ago.
One more thought
There’s a quirk that runs through all of this. For years our MSPs, our reporters, phone-ins/talk-shows have hidden behind the unreleased SFA report as a reason not to talk about it. For as long as I can remember we have been told that we cannot discuss abuse at Celtic because there are court cases on-going. Even now court cases are still active involving Celtic employees. And still in the last year and month documentaries and interviews have been pulled using this ‘excuse’ – how convenient that the ones with the most to hide can even use the acts themselves to hide behind? Pathetic.
A full public enquiry, more than ever, is the only option possible to expose this fully and get answers to this whole sorry affair.
Appendix
Below are a few comments from the Spotlight team on the final SFA report and many of its puzzling aspects. Please read and digest these and then question why would the report would ignore or omit these items and who would benefit from that?
They said that they couldn’t produce the report time and time again due to on going cases, yet they release the report a matter of weeks before the trial of one of the main perpetrators meaning that all mention of him had to be removed.
There was a huge attempt to balance the blame across Scottish football. We find it strange that they put so much focus on what is still allegations of abuse at other clubs but fail to mention so much solid convictions where we know what happened?
Why are so many perpetrators at Celtic missed out of the report?
Jim McCafferty is mentioned in the report but only for his abuse of players outwith Celtic when he has already been convicted of abuse at Celtic/Celtic Boys Club – Why?
The standard of the investigation is very poor and could have been done over a week or two by reading news papers with no real groundwork – Spotlight has managed to uncover so much more with so less resources.
Why was martin Henry allowed to lead this review given his links to the worst paedophile ring in Scottish legal history? His business partner was James Rennie and one of the paedophiles in that ring was a Celtic Boys Club coach, Secretary and registered SFA referee Neil Strachan
Given that former SFA President Jack McGinn oversaw the 1986 investigation into abuse at Celtic Boys Club, that saw the perpetrators cleared to continue to abuse and also worked with the perpetrator (Jim Torbett) at the time – why would this not be included in the report with the failings and the consequences?
Malcolm Rodgers testimony was removed as it involved cross border incidents so why was the Neely cross border testimony included?
Given that we know abuse happened in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, America, France, Germany, Norway etc etc why was this not mentioned?
Given that the report talks of on-going issues for victims and touches slightly on suicide – why do they not know what we know about the scale of suicides?
The comment by Kenny Campbell that it was common knowledge and that players were abused in front of one and other is staggering and should have been headline news.
Why has the SFA report not concluded that a full public inquiry must be held – What are they trying to hide?
There was no mention of the removal of Hugh Birt for raising the issue at Celtic or Gordon Woods father having sent a letter to Jock Stein – The report cant hide behind these being allegations as they have included allegations at other clubs.
Kevin Kelly and Peter Lawwell both stated that Celtic didn’t know anything about the abuse allegations until the mid 90s – This is lies as the club investigated the claims in 1986.
They never mentioned that Celtic made Jim Torbett an honorary president of the boys club only 4 years after he was caught abusing players.
In the aftermath of any major incident an investigation will look for the root-causes and failings that contributed to the incident. It’s seldom that one singular act or accident leads to a large disaster. It’s more often a series of oversights or short-cuts, human error or system error, poor design or poor behaviour, all of which compound to escalate events or allow that final mistake. And so it was with the Celtic child sexual abuse scandal.
Of course, this isn’t human-error by way of accident, this was by human design. A calculated targeting and exploitation of any weaknesses in the system, and in society, by the predators. The normal checks and barriers bypassed and left ajar to allow them to carry out their depravity.
In this instance the course or scale of events cannot be separated from the club that facilitated it. In many ways it’s central to it and despite appeals of deniability and unaccountability it was the name and resources of the parent club that provided to platform for the predators to build upon. It was the culture and community that allowed them to meet and pool together to identify the opportunity. Celtic FC then provided the tools and resources (people/locations/time/money) that built and enabled the operation. And institutionally, it provided (and still provides) the protection and shelter that allowed the abuse to hide, after reporting, then continue for so long.
The Celtic scandal stands apart in many ways but essentially this wasn’t solely a failing where a single predator slipped through the net. It was more intrinsic and contrived than that. Where the failure was allowed at source and seeped through from there.
Celtic East Boys Club
Take the example of Celtic East Boys Club, this was initiated and resourced by Celtic FC in 1989. It would be their gateway club in the east, based in Edinburgh, and would form part of their planned nationwide network. The official club coaching structure includes Edinburgh (Celtic East Boys Club), alongside other boys clubs (Dundee, Aberdeen, Ayrshire and Ireland), all of which followed a similar genesis and were very much part of the clubs strategy. Much of this was overseen by Celtic Youth Development Officer Benny Rooney and Willie McStay. Any details in this article are all documented in Celtics official newspaper, the Celtic View, and these boys clubs were very much considered part of Celtic FC. Funding and resources had been provided by the parent club. Strips and equipment shared. With training/awards/competitions regularly hosted and attended by senior staff and players.
The date of 1989 was very much within the abyss of the Kelly / McGinn reign at Celtic. Hindsight would show us this to be a time when many predators were at the club and its boys clubs. A time when abuse and behaviour (through reports, accusations and gossip) would have been well known to Kelly and McGinn and the wider Celtic community. By this stage, any respectable institution should’ve been hyper-sensitive to the issue and even a cursory level of vigilance would’ve prevented it. But this was Kelly and McGinn’s Celtic and things had gone very, very wrong.
Info: Jack McGinn began his time with celtic in 1965 when he started the Celtic View newspaper. Given his success he was appointed Commercial Manager in 1981 and with that a seat on the Board. He was appointed Vice Chairman 1985 and in 1986 he became the Chairman, a position he held until 1994. During this time he was a business associate with Jim Torbett, alongside Kevin Kelly. McGinn went on to be appointed as Treasurer of the SFA and later President of the SFA in 1997. It seems incredulous that, as he claims, McGinn would not be aware of rumours and complaints against Torbett (or any of the others).
Info: Kevin Kelly followed his family into his role as Celtic Director from 1971 to-1994. Kelly was also a business associate of Jim Torbett and brought him back to Celtic in 1980. Both Kelly and McGinn would’ve gave blessing for the formation of many of the boys clubs. His time at Celtic also spanned that of convicted predators Jim McCafferty (Celtic youth team coach and kit-man), Gerald King (boys club coach) and Frank Cairney (boys club manager and coach). Both Kelly and McGinn presided over an internal investigation into the abuse in the late 80s, which found no wrong-doing and cleared Torbett of any wrong-doing. Kelly has been claiming no knowledge or no memory of events for some time now. Given the now known facts and incidents that occurred on their watch, these gentlemen cannot by any measure be considered good decent men (sic).
Back to 1989 – the now notorious predators Torbett and McCafferty were around Celtic at this time and McCafferty was known to both take interest and get involved at Celtic East. Accusations against both would’ve been public knowledge by this stage (the open secret). The only explanation for continued involvement of both was that they had the blessing (tacit or otherwise) of Celtic’s management.
Neil Strachan found his way to Celtic East and worked as a coach and also club secretary. Strachan had already been convicted for indecency in 1985. Who allowed his involvement at Celtic East? He was later jailed for life for horrific acts of abuse in 1997. As an aside, one of Strachan’s co-accused was James Rennie. James Rennie was a registered director for LGBT YOUTH SCOTLAND (Company number SC244805), alongside a certain Mr Martin Henry. Who just happens to chair the SFAs murky, compromised and long overdue ‘independent’ review in historical child sexual abuse. It’s a small, co-incidental world for some.
Through the benefit of hindsight, we now know at least 8 convicted predators worked across the Celtic network. Some survivors suggest the number is closer to 14, This cannot all be put down to isolated or unhappy accidents. This is failure after failure by those employed within Celtic and those working tirelessly to brush it all under the carpet.
The objective of the boys club was to tap into the stream of celtics chosen identities, and the ambitions of any young wannabe footballer, and provide players for Celtic FC. And Celtic East boys club achieved those objectives, which some of the players, like Mark Burchill, making it all the way through to the first team. Others like Darren Fletcher, Marc Anthony, Sean Kilgannon, Lawrence Haggart, Tadg Moriarty, Charlie King and David Devenney all passed through the club. There’s some familiar names in there and there’s no doubt they believed they were in the official Celtic system.
One name that may stand out is that of Lawrence Haggart. Reported to be a very gifted footballer, fate cruelly offset that gift with more tragedy than anyone should have to suffer. Haggart was known have had contact with convicted predators Neil Strachan, Jim McCafferty and Brian Beattie. Haggart later moved onto the Celtic youth teams until he was murdered in 1996. Brian Beattie was later charged with his murder. Here we have networks of criminality intermingling, which as an isolated incident then perhaps Celtics involvement and failings could be written off. But it’s hardly isolated.
Singular Entity
The separate entity argument isn’t just a furtive legal pretence thrown out to the general public. It’s a direct disrespect to their own players (and their families) that have been through the system. No-one dismantles the separate entity fallacy better than the Celtic View and other established reporters for the celtic family at the time (amongst others the ubiquitous Hugh Keevins). Article after article, feature after feature, year upon year – it’s all there in the official magazine. But then we know that ‘the cause’ is paramount for some people. For them writing celtic news translates to writing only what they choose for people to hear, however, there’s a line crossed where nothing but good news becomes misleading, becomes propaganda. Unfortunately, this is a trait that many at Celtic View have carried with them to the outside.
Later on, as conviction followed conviction, the normal response from colleagues and associates would be to disown and denounce, especially if they had been in your presence for so long that it shades your own character and judgement. Surely you would want to criticise the perpetrators, the system and its failings. I haven’t seen any of that. Just stonewall. A stubborn, misguided and immoral adherence to what? And for why? Only they can know that. And the same for Kelly and McGinn. And other board members. And other staff. And those outside the club working on its behalf. Silence or obstruction or even worse aggression towards survivors or those questioning the whole thing.
Consequences
Let’s be clear, no explanation is required for demanding action against those that abuse children. Tribal allegiances/point-scoring/vested-interests/whatever, it’s irrelevant – the crime is absolute. No-one asks for an explanation when voting, or when giving to charity, and no explanations are required here. From any angle my underlying thought on this is that I cannot see how Celtic can escape this without assuming full responsibility and a commensurate level of punishment or sanction. Justice demands something to happen.
My line of reasoning follows that any institution should be responsible for the actions of those running it at the time, pretty universal stuff. For example, should the directors choose to withhold tax then they are acting for the club and the club deals with the consequences. Should the club (directors/management) find out about a predator in their employ then it has a duty to act. Should the club choose to ignore abuse or complaints then it should face consequences. Should the directors choose to cover it up – consequences. Should the club knowingly re-employ predators – consequences.
Similarly, should the club decide to start a boys club, and use it’s staff and resources to set it up and run it, then it is responsible for that. Should they employ a predator, or a known predator, should they ignore abuse, should staff and directors choose to cover up any abuse – it has to face the consequences.
Headlines
Which leads on to how it has been played out. There’s two striking abnormalities concerning this scandal. A lack of continued exposure or pressure from the media. A lack of discussion/action on consequences. Of course, both these aren’t mutually exclusive and the control of one inhibits the occurrence of the other.
Part of me thinks that to achieve their aims the survivors need to push their starting demands out much further. To realign their bargaining point and/or as deliberate sensationalism to force the press to look twice – to set headlines, to grab the public’s attention and give their cause some oxygen.
This course of action would not be without reference. The Penn State scandal saw huge monetary and sporting sanctions. Of course, in Scotland a similar response may less forth-coming with the SFA appearing to be up to their necks in this as well – with their own investigations thoroughly compromised and conflicted.
Other clubs aren’t without failings and a full public enquiry would be the only way to allow facts to be established. It may be that Hibs and Rangers and others should face consequences and deserve sanction. So be it. Let’s start talking about fines and compensation in the millions of pounds. Let’s start talking about deducting points. Of course, based on available evidence Celtics scandal looks to be an order of magnitude above others, which presumably explains why they are content to maintain the silence.
Perhaps expulsion from the top league would energize the press and remind others of the gravity of the crimes? The journey back would give Celtic time to reflect on the decades of crimes and litany of collective failings. A collective penitence? A chance to give back to Scottish football and allow it to heal. And importantly, to send the message that serious crimes are met with serious sanctions and cannot go unchecked.
A Basic Right to Innocence
My own memories of boys football are faded but generally happy ones. I recall training after school, muddy pitches, games on a Saturday morning. Occasionally there was travelling farther afield to competitions, typically once or twice a year to Glasgow. Staying in youth hostels. New places, new experiences. It was just good to be a part of it with friends and schoolmates. I’ve no idea now who any of the competition was or whether they went on to make it in the game. In my mind it remains a bubble of innocence and naivety, the way it should be. To be honest, I have gone decades without really thinking about it. I couldn’t imagine those days being damaged to a degree where it spoiled every day of my life. No child deserves what happened there. Every incident of abuse in football is a scandal in its own right. Collectively, the Celtic scandal is a major disaster. As well as a continuing injustice and insult, which is why it should be everyone’s fight.
Upping the output 