Principled Football: “There Are Things For Celtic More Important Than Money”

[Winning Captains]

Principled Football: “There Are Things For Celtic More Important Than Money”...excellent article from Liam Kelly​

Principled Football: "There Are Things For Celtic More Important Than Money" | The Celtic Star

There's an age-old argument concerning sport and its association with politics. We often see football clubs disassociate themselves from political causes, and governing bodies of the game are qui

thecelticstar.com

 

[TET]

Principled Football: “There Are Things For Celtic More Important Than Money”...excellent article from Liam Kelly​

Principled Football: "There Are Things For Celtic More Important Than Money" | The Celtic Star

There's an age-old argument concerning sport and its association with politics. We often see football clubs disassociate themselves from political causes, and governing bodies of the game are qui

thecelticstar.com

interesting read.

Im a bit confused though?

Principled football?
More important things than money?

Is this a read between the lines article?

Reason im confused is secessionists wanted to secede from the socialist dream Union behind the iron curtain

And they mostly had no money and poor standard of living yet often had terrific football teams.

 

[Imatim]

These days it would obviously depend if any potential action would be "In the interests of the company"...

 

[cfcliamk]

interesting read.

Im a bit confused though?

Principled football?
More important things than money?

Is this a read between the lines article?

Reason im confused is secessionists wanted to secede from the socialist dream Union behind the iron curtain

And they mostly had no money and poor standard of living yet often had terrific football teams.

I'd love to be able to say I had some deeper /hidden meaning, but I'd be lying. The quote was just from Robert Kelly, which I took to be literal and to just simply mean that money from competitions and football itself is not as important as the values of the club. And the principled football part of the title was just something I felt matched Bob Kelly's decision to protest against playing fernecvaros as a point of principle against imperialism.

As an aside, a similar scenario could have arisen recently when we played hapoel be'er shava. The green brigade took their stance and fans backed it up with support for match the fine for Palestine but the board definitely wouldn't have contemplated refusing to play them. We wouldn't have given up the CL money. I wonder if Bob Kelly would have done the same with that huge amount of riches on the line, or if he would have stuck to his principles. Similarly, a lot of fans I know were dead against the flags at that game as they didn't want the club to be punished, but were also proud to hear about the story of Bob Kelly in 68. It's quite an interesting topic but divides opinion

 

[TET]

I'd love to be able to say I had some deeper /hidden meaning, but I'd be lying. The quote was just from Robert Kelly, which I took to be literal and to just simply mean that money from competitions and football itself is not as important as the values of the club. And the principled football part of the title was just something I felt matched Bob Kelly's decision to protest against playing fernecvaros as a point of principle against imperialism.

As an aside, a similar scenario could have arisen recently when we played hapoel be'er shava. The green brigade took their stance and fans backed it up with support for match the fine for Palestine but the board definitely wouldn't have contemplated refusing to play them. We wouldn't have given up the CL money. I wonder if Bob Kelly would have done the same with that huge amount of riches on the line, or if he would have stuck to his principles. Similarly, a lot of fans I know were dead against the flags at that game as they didn't want the club to be punished, but were also proud to hear about the story of Bob Kelly in 68. It's quite an interesting topic but divides opinion

Its a good point you made though. Thoroughly enjoyed the insight and the historical voice being retold.

Personally I think the silence from the board is awful.

And its allowed the misinformation to grow arms and legs.


Going back to the title of the piece.

Prncipled football.

Do you think the current board are principled about football?

I know they are principled about finance. But do you think their rigid financial constraints are too tight?

There are more important things than money for sure. But do you think the board should be more debt driven and monetary expansive?

 

[TET]

I'd love to be able to say I had some deeper /hidden meaning, but I'd be lying. The quote was just from Robert Kelly, which I took to be literal and to just simply mean that money from competitions and football itself is not as important as the values of the club. And the principled football part of the title was just something I felt matched Bob Kelly's decision to protest against playing fernecvaros as a point of principle against imperialism.

As an aside, a similar scenario could have arisen recently when we played hapoel be'er shava. The green brigade took their stance and fans backed it up with support for match the fine for Palestine but the board definitely wouldn't have contemplated refusing to play them. We wouldn't have given up the CL money. I wonder if Bob Kelly would have done the same with that huge amount of riches on the line, or if he would have stuck to his principles. Similarly, a lot of fans I know were dead against the flags at that game as they didn't want the club to be punished, but were also proud to hear about the story of Bob Kelly in 68. It's quite an interesting topic but divides opinion

My understanding of socialism is it strives to be international and by nature imperialistic command economy where state dictates the market.

Do you think the Celtic support generally were against Soviet Union and its principles?

Because I tend to think most Celtic supporters that I know think communist ideology is better than capitalism.

And thats why the piece confuses me.

The soviets also claimed money was not that important, yet went into super power arms race with capitalism.

Also lots of people think club didn't do enough back in 60s to grow club at that point having introduced the world to dazzling attacking football.

So if money isn't that important how do you compete with the best who do think money and monstrous debts are important?

 

[TET]

These days it would obviously depend if any potential action would be "In the interests of the company"...

the club is the company and vice versa

I tend to think the market being badly broken and club being left out of the subsidy pie is a huge factor for whoever is on the board.

The best players are costing much more every season and the difference between 100k player and 10 million player is not very much technically on football level, I give you wee frimpong as example, cant pass, cant cross, no very good at tackling or aware, awesome acceleration, 10 million quid. wtf

And thats from the Diddy market

What price for a dude who can pass it cross it and defend with awareness?

Dunno but im not so sure he wants to come to scotland if he can go to Germany etc

simply because standard of opposition is higher, wages are higher, less pressure and well money might no matter to celtic fans

but the players we want to sign all usually rate money high on their list



And therefore very difficult to keep the 10 million player on market at 10 million at our club since our entire league is a discounted league.

Unless the 10 million pound player is highly motivated he will drop in value and at a much quicker rate since the 100k player isn't that much less in skill.

Both because his wage demands grow every season and without the subsidy big clubs in the tv leagues get, he will easily drop his value rather than growing in value.

Why?

1 the non tv leagues dont add market value to players ability unless they are learning game at our level.
2 the wages available cant compete
3motivation in scotland is hard to maintain with players who aren't Scottish unless you can keep upping their wages.


So the rigid policy of board is very necessary, much more so today than 60s and even then we couldn't match big league wages, despite huge support (usually very poor people) and unless league overall gets higher standard, enough to produce excellence even against weaker sides the buying price we pay in broken market will be hard to recoup if player loses his mojo.

Money isn't everything after all

But try buying a high quality modern footballer without it.

The problem is not the board policy

the problem is tv subsidy and without it, throwing money at it will not compete on European stage unless you can throw more money at than the clubs who get subsidy from tv


board are silent

not good enough

need t go.

But the policy won't be changed by next board unless he a billionaire with a Brewster type dilemma

Add in the mystery funding and strange financial shenanigans at the crypt for dead clubs coupled with twisted read between the lines then you might need two Brewster types with deep pockets to compete even just in scotland

 

[TET]

I wonder if Jimmy mcgrory had the fans demanding he be sacked despite his love for club and legend status when club wasn't winning much?

was a whole different world of football back then.

 

[Frank Owen]

Socialism ? Ask 6 different people what it means and chances are you'll get 6 different answers. As I've already stated on an earlier post I'm passionate about politics, ( hence my monicker ) indeed, even as my 73rd birthday approaches, I'm still involved. At one time I would've been quite up for describing myself as socialist. I no longer use the word. Why ? Well, the answer is in the first line of this post. It has lost some of its meaning. Due to constant misrepresentation of the word over a long period of time, folk think socialism and communism are one and the same, ( the use of the word socialist in USSR is probably to blame for that ). They are not. I could go on and probably bore the backside off you, but don't worry, I won't.

As for the events of 1968, I have very clear memories of those times. Life was good. European Champions. Every competition entered the preceding year was won. ( Even quiz ball on the telly, thanks mostly to Jim Craig ). Music was brilliant. Work was plentiful. Ladies...well, as a twenty year old it was as close to utopia as it gets. Sorry, goin' off subject here. Where was I ? Oh aye; principles !

I was very comfortable, and indeed proud, of the stance taken by Bob Kelly in 1968. It seemed to fit naturally with the ethos of the club; ... have to ask though, principles in football ? Nah, that ship has sailed. Sevco anyone ?

 

[Lemon]

the club is the company and vice versa

I tend to think the market being badly broken and club being left out of the subsidy pie is a huge factor for whoever is on the board.

The best players are costing much more every season and the difference between 100k player and 10 million player is not very much technically on football level, I give you wee frimpong as example, cant pass, cant cross, no very good at tackling or aware, awesome acceleration, 10 million quid. wtf

And thats from the Diddy market

What price for a dude who can pass it cross it and defend with awareness?

Dunno but im not so sure he wants to come to scotland if he can go to Germany etc

simply because standard of opposition is higher, wages are higher, less pressure and well money might no matter to celtic fans

but the players we want to sign all usually rate money high on their list



And therefore very difficult to keep the 10 million player on market at 10 million at our club since our entire league is a discounted league.

Unless the 10 million pound player is highly motivated he will drop in value and at a much quicker rate since the 100k player isn't that much less in skill.

Both because his wage demands grow every season and without the subsidy big clubs in the tv leagues get, he will easily drop his value rather than growing in value.

Why?

1 the non tv leagues dont add market value to players ability unless they are learning game at our level.
2 the wages available cant compete
3motivation in scotland is hard to maintain with players who aren't Scottish unless you can keep upping their wages.


So the rigid policy of board is very necessary, much more so today than 60s and even then we couldn't match big league wages, despite huge support (usually very poor people) and unless league overall gets higher standard, enough to produce excellence even against weaker sides the buying price we pay in broken market will be hard to recoup if player loses his mojo.

Money isn't everything after all

But try buying a high quality modern footballer without it.

The problem is not the board policy

the problem is tv subsidy and without it, throwing money at it will not compete on European stage unless you can throw more money at than the clubs who get subsidy from tv


board are silent

not good enough

need t go.

But the policy won't be changed by next board unless he a billionaire with a Brewster type dilemma

Add in the mystery funding and strange financial shenanigans at the crypt for dead clubs coupled with twisted read between the lines then you might need two Brewster types with deep pockets to compete even just in scotland

Lots of interesting points as usual TET but I have to question the one where you state that motivation is hard to maintain in Scotland for players that aren't Scottish...... needs a bit explaining that one. Doesn't sound like the independent Scotland that is being shouted for and more like a parochial backwater in which only the natives can survive and thrive.

 

[TET]

Lots of interesting points as usual TET but I have to question the one where you state that motivation is hard to maintain in Scotland for players that aren't Scottish...... needs a bit explaining that one. Doesn't sound like the independent Scotland that is being shouted for and more like a parochial backwater in which only the natives can survive and thrive.

OK put it this way

Your good football player from Scotland and Ferencvaros want to sign you.

You sign win couple leagues but wages could be better

Are you likely to stay if you can get more wages in Germany?

Same as Scotland unless your getting more wages here than elsewhere

We may be in the UK but we dont get UK market wages

We used to get those wages, so foreigner mercenaries liked here rather than other places

1 big club
2 big wage
3 lots of exposure at a good standard

We now only can offer number 1 relative to other big league clubs due mainly to subsidy from tv

mercenaries dont come for the big club only usually

its mainly the 2 we dont offer anymore relative to the uk market

people not from Scotland dont really have that much attachment to Scottish clubs and therefore money might no matter that much for Celtic fans but the non Celtic fan players from other countries usually want money much more than any particular Scottish club, unless that club was always in their heart.

And even then, money can make a difference since football is temporary for players and sometimes they dont have another big income stream beyond football.

 

[TET]

Socialism ? Ask 6 different people what it means and chances are you'll get 6 different answers. As I've already stated on an earlier post I'm passionate about politics, ( hence my monicker ) indeed, even as my 73rd birthday approaches, I'm still involved. At one time I would've been quite up for describing myself as socialist. I no longer use the word. Why ? Well, the answer is in the first line of this post. It has lost some of its meaning. Due to constant misrepresentation of the word over a long period of time, folk think socialism and communism are one and the same, ( the use of the word socialist in USSR is probably to blame for that ). They are not. I could go on and probably bore the backside off you, but don't worry, I won't.

As for the events of 1968, I have very clear memories of those times. Life was good. European Champions. Every competition entered the preceding year was won. ( Even quiz ball on the telly, thanks mostly to Jim Craig ). Music was brilliant. Work was plentiful. Ladies...well, as a twenty year old it was as close to utopia as it gets. Sorry, goin' off subject here. Where was I ? Oh aye; principles !

I was very comfortable, and indeed proud, of the stance taken by Bob Kelly in 1968. It seemed to fit naturally with the ethos of the club; ... have to ask though, principles in football ? Nah, that ship has sailed. Sevco anyone ?

What is the principle of socialism

And why do you think communism is not Socialism?

And if they are not same thing what is the difference in your opinion?

 

[Frank Owen]

Hi TET, The principle of socialism, for me, is the desire to live in a society which is not completely driven by greed and individualism. A society in which there is next to no homeless, a society where we have a more even distribution of wealth; but also a society where folk who work hard reap just reward for their work. Genuine socialism is not the politics of envy; nor is it the case that we should reward those who don't want to make a contribution. it would be a start if we could stop demonising the less fortunate and ask those at the top of ladder to pay their fair dues.

Communism, while claiming many of the things above, does not reward those who work hard, and in my opinion, earn the right to a decent standard of living. It also more often than not, leads to repressive government. No freedom of speech. No freedom of action. Karl Marx's often quoted, ... " from each according to his ability,... too each according to his needs".. really is a kind of pie in the sky utopia.

As I say TET, socialism seems to mean different things to different folk. To me it is most definitely not communism.

 

[TET]

Hi TET, The principle of socialism, for me, is the desire to live in a society which is not completely driven by greed and individualism. A society in which there is next to no homeless, a society where we have a more even distribution of wealth; but also a society where folk who work hard reap just reward for their work. Genuine socialism is not the politics of envy; nor is it the case that we should reward those who don't want to make a contribution. it would be a start if we could stop demonising the less fortunate and ask those at the top of ladder to pay their fair dues.

Communism, while claiming many of the things above, does not reward those who work hard, and in my opinion, earn the right to a decent standard of living. It also more often than not, leads to repressive government. No freedom of speech. No freedom of action. Karl Marx's often quoted, ... " from each according to his ability,... too each according to his needs".. really is a kind of pie in the sky utopia.

As I say TET, socialism seems to mean different things to different folk. To me it is most definitely not communism.

I agree with your vision

Its what I thought socialism was about.

But sadly in practise the people who dont want that kind of world are often the most productive individuals and the redistribution of wealth creates animosity and in some cases moral hazard

Which drives a wedge between socialist ideals and free markets

Step in the strong man leader, either fascist inclined or Sociopathic extreme command version of socialism

And us v them appears

And Us being the Strong man leader and his muscle decide democracy doesnt work and its time to cull them.

The more I read on the topic

Im actually inclined to think Socialism to work must be international, National socialism is purely fascist in nature trying to solve the social situation for one nation at expense of them.

Orangeism is a form of national socialism masquerading as a democratic socialism for Ra peepo, Who believe in the class structure with their anglo Saxon birth lines at the upper class levels

Socialism cannot compete in open markets therefore it must become international

And the struggle between Pure socialism ie Communism must destroy all opposition or enslave it.

Vice a versa national socialism or fascist ideologies claiming social benefit for their favoured class structure also. just destroy all opposition

red v blue

And masonic hierarchy drives both extreme versions to the extermination of the middle ground.

the. socialism you, and I used to aspire, is idealistic and not competitive for sustainability

And therefore always prone to short period of power then 40 years in bin since production ground to a halt through its moral hazards


In short I tend to think the lack of tangible principles in middle ground social ideal lead to the strong men taking control to destroy THEM and whoever gets to power always seems to pick death for opposition

liberty fraternity equality and the 4th tenet of socialism often withheld these days is OR Death

French Revolution tenet
Russian revolution tenet

Both followed by imperial strong men murdering them

File:LibertyEqualityorDeath.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

 

[Frank Owen]

You are correct TET, for socialism to work for ALL folk, it needs to be accepted by all folk. You could make the same argument for the environment movement. They kind of go hand in hand. BTW, I notice you mention The French Revolution a couple of times. If you enjoy reading about such things can I recommend the works of Thomas Paine. He was heavily influential in both the French revolt and the American wars of independence. Sorry if you've already read his stuff. I'm a pain in the ass at times.

 

[MickyMcMick]

My understanding of socialism is it strives to be international and by nature imperialistic command economy where state dictates the market.

Do you think the Celtic support generally were against Soviet Union and its principles?

Because I tend to think most Celtic supporters that I know think communist ideology is better than capitalism.

And thats why the piece confuses me.

The soviets also claimed money was not that important, yet went into super power arms race with capitalism.

Also lots of people think club didn't do enough back in 60s to grow club at that point having introduced the world to dazzling attacking football.

So if money isn't that important how do you compete with the best who do think money and monstrous debts are important?

Some people see left and right politics as polar opposites I see it as a circle at the extremes of each you could not get a sheet of paper between them eg. Hitler and Stalin you had two tyrants that murdered millions had concentration camps and lived in opulence while their people suffered. two cheeks of the same arse.

 

[TET]

Some people see left and right politics as polar opposites I see it as a circle at the extremes of each you could not get a sheet of paper between them eg. Hitler and Stalin you had two tyrants that murdered millions had concentration camps and lived in opulence while their people suffered. two cheeks of the same arse.

You are correct TET, for socialism to work for ALL folk, it needs to be accepted by all folk. You could make the same argument for the environment movement. They kind of go hand in hand. BTW, I notice you mention The French Revolution a couple of times. If you enjoy reading about such things can I recommend the works of Thomas Paine. He was heavily influential in both the French revolt and the American wars of independence. Sorry if you've already read his stuff. I'm a pain in the ass at times.

I read one of his famous replies to English MP

But I will read his stuff at some point

at minute im reading a book on the German Empire that was neither holy or roman

Quite a good read itself and the French Revolution stuff isn't that far away

I didn't really realise till recently the franks were germans



feel free to offer good reads on the politics of europe

I tend to look for old cheap kindle editions

 

[Lemon]

OK put it this way

Your good football player from Scotland and Ferencvaros want to sign you.

You sign win couple leagues but wages could be better

Are you likely to stay if you can get more wages in Germany?

Same as Scotland unless your getting more wages here than elsewhere

We may be in the UK but we dont get UK market wages

We used to get those wages, so foreigner mercenaries liked here rather than other places

1 big club
2 big wage
3 lots of exposure at a good standard

We now only can offer number 1 relative to other big league clubs due mainly to subsidy from tv

mercenaries dont come for the big club only usually

its mainly the 2 we dont offer anymore relative to the uk market

people not from Scotland dont really have that much attachment to Scottish clubs and therefore money might no matter that much for Celtic fans but the non Celtic fan players from other countries usually want money much more than any particular Scottish club, unless that club was always in their heart.

And even then, money can make a difference since football is temporary for players and sometimes they dont have another big income stream beyond football.

Celtic can offer young talent from anywhere the stage to perform. We have to have the coaching staff in place to improve those players. So called bigger teams will notice them and see how they handle high pressure matches in front of a packed stadium, both hostile and supportive,and our club should reap the rewards from their increased value. Where we have missed a trick imo is very few players recently have been brought through, increasing our wage bill and meaning we end up paying top dollar for loan players. I agree that there might be better value in the home market but we have also made good cash from many of our foreign investments and no matter where a player is from if they are good enough the top teams will be calling. Being Scottish these days unfortunately means in many cases not being that good.

 

[TET]

Celtic can offer young talent from anywhere the stage to perform. We have to have the coaching staff in place to improve those players. So called bigger teams will notice them and see how they handle high pressure matches in front of a packed stadium, both hostile and supportive,and our club should reap the rewards from their increased value. Where we have missed a trick imo is very few players recently have been brought through, increasing our wage bill and meaning we end up paying top dollar for loan players. I agree that there might be better value in the home market but we have also made good cash from many of our foreign investments and no matter where a player is from if they are good enough the top teams will be calling. Being Scottish these days unfortunately means in many cases not being that good.

I think your model is the current model

And its not popular since it usually risks titles during the growth period of talent.

The better coaches usually get offered bigger wages also in the big leagues hence the lack of top name coaches who usually want the best players available to work with which again usually costs top dollar.

The subsidy at big leagues is killing the talent across entire Scottish game as well as non big league set ups

And its gonna decline while the arbitrary system of allocation of tv money is not properly distributed by the Eufa protocols which exacerbate the problem rather than help lower end of game.

Besides the entire youth league set up outside big money leagues is declining so young guys will be less and less likely to come here for less wages unless they getting first time games regular and that again risks short term honours as well as losing them if they make grade.

System needs fixed but while Eufa allow FFP protocols to have massive loops its not gonna be a short term solution for Scottish football

You either over pay into the broken market for players or you blood yound risky signings

 

[cfcliamk]

Its a good point you made though. Thoroughly enjoyed the insight and the historical voice being retold.

Personally I think the silence from the board is awful.

And its allowed the misinformation to grow arms and legs.


Going back to the title of the piece.

Prncipled football.

Do you think the current board are principled about football?

I know they are principled about finance. But do you think their rigid financial constraints are too tight?

There are more important things than money for sure. But do you think the board should be more debt driven and monetary expansive?

I don't think the current board are principled about political aspects such as these in football. As the Be'er Shava example demonstrates. Similarly, they aren't fond of expressions in support of Irish Unity and other anti-imperialist causes. Their focus on this will be to do with the media, sponsors and finance.

As for football itself, I do think the board are too stringent and should be more ambitious without going over the top. A bit more speculating to accumulate would get us European progression and would pay dividends in terms of finances with the larger crowds, prize monies and merchandise that follows.