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

[TET]

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.

Im no really sure I understand

Are you suggesting Club should refuse to play Israeli teams?

The club hierarchy are anti Irish Unity? Wy would you say that?

IMO some of the above would be expressions of extreme politics, which has never been clubs principle that I am aware. Perhaps a small subset of the fanbase have extreme views? Nt for me to say. But you think Beer Sheva deserved a board at Celtic expressing, im still no sure I understand what action board failed to get involved in with beer Sheva?

Maybe im missing a huge chunk of news that I should be more aware.

The board are too stringent??

Our risk metric for income guaranteed is extreme high risk, so much so that just 1 bad season (this one) we are in danger of needing to actually cut back or adopt an even higher risk model with debt or massive bung investment.


Which in reality, not fantasy political shenanigans, but actual reality means we find a new model of squad investment in a market thats badly broken or cut our cloth to fit income.

Out of curiosity was Bob Kelly too stringent in 68

Im all ears to the better investment plans and how they are funded.

But so far I haven't heard a better plan that actually has solid foundation.

Speculate to accumulate

thats exactly what current board have done and for best part of "evil traitor" lawless tenure he has managed it much better than any other Celtic board in history.

No idea what his politics are

But I do know he gets tarred with a lot of accusations based on his silence.


I guess there must have been quite a lot of read between the lines in the good article you wrote, since its still not very explicit what the Politics the board should be about.

To my knowledge Ferencvaros play football and are stuck in their countries political world as are Beer Sheva?

And by the way speculating to accumulate can lead to death, just ask rangers shareholders and BDO.

 

[cfcliamk]

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?

I think that the Celtic support would have been against the imperialist actions of the Soviet Union. I don't think there would have been that much left wing thinking among the Celtic fans back in the 60s. There would have been a sense of standing up for oppressed, dislike of landlords and that type of feeling, but I don't think fans were of communist mind and certainly not as progressive as today when it came to issues such as homophobia and racism. The old songs in the Jungle demonstrate that.

I'd say the fans largely agreed that protesting against imperialism was more important than money, but not that money didn't matter at all to Celtic. Although football wasn't like today and we had the players to compete at that time, as evidenced by the European Cup runs in 67, 70, 72 and 74

 

[TET]

I think that the Celtic support would have been against the imperialist actions of the Soviet Union. I don't think there would have been that much left wing thinking among the Celtic fans back in the 60s. There would have been a sense of standing up for oppressed, dislike of landlords and that type of feeling, but I don't think fans were of communist mind and certainly not as progressive as today when it came to issues such as homophobia and racism. The old songs in the Jungle demonstrate that.

I'd say the fans largely agreed that protesting against imperialism was more important than money, but not that money didn't matter at all to Celtic. Although football wasn't like today and we had the players to compete at that time, as evidenced by the European Cup runs in 67, 70, 72 and 74

I think the Soviet Union would argue they were fighting against western imperialism on behalf of the poor.

And they were forced to oppress western ideologies in their union

Because these forces for liberty were capitalistic in nature.

They had the principles you seem to be advocating, if im understanding you correctly.

They dont care much for money, they just want to win at all costs.

And they believed capitalism was the root of all evil

 

[cfcliamk]

Im no really sure I understand

Are you suggesting Club should refuse to play Israeli teams?

The club hierarchy are anti Irish Unity? Wy would you say that?

IMO some of the above would be expressions of extreme politics, which has never been clubs principle that I am aware. Perhaps a small subset of the fanbase have extreme views? Nt for me to say. But you think Beer Sheva deserved a board at Celtic expressing, im still no sure I understand what action board failed to get involved in with beer Sheva?

Maybe im missing a huge chunk of news that I should be more aware.

The board are too stringent??

Our risk metric for income guaranteed is extreme high risk, so much so that just 1 bad season (this one) we are in danger of needing to actually cut back or adopt an even higher risk model with debt or massive bung investment.


Which in reality, not fantasy political shenanigans, but actual reality means we find a new model of squad investment in a market thats badly broken or cut our cloth to fit income.

Out of curiosity was Bob Kelly too stringent in 68

Im all ears to the better investment plans and how they are funded.

But so far I haven't heard a better plan that actually has solid foundation.

Speculate to accumulate

thats exactly what current board have done and for best part of "evil traitor" lawless tenure he has managed it much better than any other Celtic board in history.

No idea what his politics are

But I do know he gets tarred with a lot of accusations based on his silence.


I guess there must have been quite a lot of read between the lines in the good article you wrote, since its still not very explicit what the Politics the board should be about.

To my knowledge Ferencvaros play football and are stuck in their countries political world as are Beer Sheva?

And by the way speculating to accumulate can lead to death, just ask rangers shareholders and BDO.

I'm not personally suggesting that Celtic should refuse to play against Israeli teams, but just pointing out that the board aren't principled in the way that Bob Kelly was. Simply because Bob Kelly refused to play Ferencvaros to take a stand whereas we didn't again Hapoel. I don't disagree with Bob Kelly or the current board to be honest. I don't think refusing to play Israeli teams would achieve anything but if they decided to do that then I'd not have a problem with it.

Don't think the board are anti-Irish unity. I don't think they care about it. But they don't like expression in support of it beyond a certain extent because rebel songs are controversial and so don't help with sponsorship or the media.

By speculate to accumulate I mean like we did with Brendan Rodgers. We spent more on a top manager and got the rewards by having 60,000 season tickets and the CL money twice out of three years. I'm not suggesting we go on a mad spending spree and go into liquidation. There's a middle ground. We had upwards of £30m in the bank so I'd like to see us be more ambitious in terms of qualifying for the CL groups regularly and then re-investing some of that money to try and build a team capable of going deep in the Europa League.

None of the article was my personal opinion, or intended to have any deeper meaning, just a story on what happened and what Bob Kelly said. The comment about things being more important than money was a quote by Bob Kelly.

 

[cfcliamk]

I think the Soviet Union would argue they were fighting against western imperialism on behalf of the poor.

And they were forced to oppress western ideologies in their union

Because these forces for liberty were capitalistic in nature.

They had the principles you seem to be advocating, if im understanding you correctly.

They dont care much for money, they just want to win at all costs.

And they believed capitalism was the root of all evil

I'm not advocating any politics/views. The only personal view I have posted on this thread was that I think Celtic should speculate a little more to accumulate, within reason.

I'm not a socialist or communist. I think people should be treated fairly and equally and I support a United Ireland. That's about the extent of my political views. You might be confusing my comments with my own views.

 

[TET]

I'm not personally suggesting that Celtic should refuse to play against Israeli teams, but just pointing out that the board aren't principled in the way that Bob Kelly was. Simply because Bob Kelly refused to play Ferencvaros to take a stand whereas we didn't again Hapoel. I don't disagree with Bob Kelly or the current board to be honest. I don't think refusing to play Israeli teams would achieve anything but if they decided to do that then I'd not have a problem with it.

Don't think the board are anti-Irish unity. I don't think they care about it. But they don't like expression in support of it beyond a certain extent because rebel songs are controversial and so don't help with sponsorship or the media.

By speculate to accumulate I mean like we did with Brendan Rodgers. We spent more on a top manager and got the rewards by having 60,000 season tickets and the CL money twice out of three years. I'm not suggesting we go on a mad spending spree and go into liquidation. There's a middle ground. We had upwards of £30m in the bank so I'd like to see us be more ambitious in terms of qualifying for the CL groups regularly and then re-investing some of that money to try and build a team capable of going deep in the Europa League.

None of the article was my personal opinion, or intended to have any deeper meaning, just a story on what happened and what Bob Kelly said. The comment about things being more important than money was a quote by Bob Kelly.

Its my opinion Brendan Rodgers was a mad spending spree but hidden as it was wages he was spending and the wage budget was way out of control and again too high risk to sustain.

Since then the market has spiralled further out of control to point wee frimpong is now out of our clubs affordable risk levels despite not being good enough for our club imo

the greatest signing spree in recent history has at celtic has been money down the pan

so much so the club could be in dire financial health in covid climate

And you think they should have went farther out on a limb buying higher grade players, but these higher grade players mostly come with even higher risk wage contracts and its just not sustainable model in this broken market especially when we are cut off from bumper tv contracts these players are attracted too

so again money is the problem

Rodgers was getting buttons at us in comparison to what he could be earning and his vision of signings although exciting were not within our operating budget

and still despite being way over our budget supplemented by player sales the current board are accused of being frugal

 

[TET]

I'm not advocating any politics/views. The only personal view I have posted on this thread was that I think Celtic should speculate a little more to accumulate, within reason.

I'm not a socialist or communist. I think people should be treated fairly and equally and I support a United Ireland. That's about the extent of my political views. You might be confusing my comments with my own views.

Its you who mention principles club should be upholding

And its you who have suggested the board have some unpopular political views

You mention more important things than money but suggest club should be spending and risking even ore beyond the already extreme high risk model we are using

Im all for principles

Im all for spending less money

Im all for better coaches and players who want to be here on reasonable wages

I think the speculate to accumulate model is failing badly

And we should be getting back to what club was always about.

Feeding the homeless and poor in a city that scape goats Irish catholics and putting on a show with the best talent the country can create.

 

[cfcliamk]

Its my opinion Brendan Rodgers was a mad spending spree but hidden as it was wages he was spending and the wage budget was way out of control and again too high risk to sustain.

Since then the market has spiralled further out of control to point wee frimpong is now out of our clubs affordable risk levels despite not being good enough for our club imo

the greatest signing spree in recent history has at celtic has been money down the pan

so much so the club could be in dire financial health in covid climate

And you think they should have went farther out on a limb buying higher grade players, but these higher grade players mostly come with even higher risk wage contracts and its just not sustainable model in this broken market especially when we are cut off from bumper tv contracts these players are attracted too

so again money is the problem

Rodgers was getting buttons at us in comparison to what he could be earning and his vision of signings although exciting were not within our operating budget

and still despite being way over our budget supplemented by player sales the current board are accused of being frugal

Its you who mention principles club should be upholding

And its you who have suggested the board have some unpopular political views

You mention more important things than money but suggest club should be spending and risking even ore beyond the already extreme high risk model we are using

Im all for principles

Im all for spending less money

Im all for better coaches and players who want to be here on reasonable wages

I think the speculate to accumulate model is failing badly

And we should be getting back to what club was always about.

Feeding the homeless and poor in a city that scape goats Irish catholics and putting on a show with the best talent the country can create.

My article didn't mention principles that club should be upholding, just that Bob Kelly took a principled stand in 1968. That was fact, not opinion.

I'm not a financial expert and your posts suggest you know a lot more than I do, so happy admit that I'm wrong if it's not possible for us to push the boat out further. My thinking was that if we spent money on a top manager then we would get that back and more by reaching the CL. But as I say I am not a financial expert. I hadn't expressed that opinion until you asked what I thought. I'd say we are run but when we pushed the boat out to get rodgers it paid off - on and off the pitch as far as I am aware.

And just reading back from earlier posts, I'm not saying Celtic were wrong to play Israeli teams. By saying the board aren't principled about politics I don't mean that as a negative, I mean they frankly don't care about politics. That is in contrast to Bob Kelly who clearly was willing to put principles and politics ahead of football by opposing to play against Ferencvaros. Again, not saying it was right or wrong. I wouldn't oppose to Celtic taking a stand against an imperial power, but also don't have a problem with us playing against teams from imperialist countries like Israel, because I don't think it will make much difference.

Celtic have always had political connections to an extent. You only have to look at the club's public stances during the Boer War, their campaigning for Irish Home Rule, Michael Davitt being named patron, TD Sullivan being invited to sing his rebel song at the opening of Celtic Park, matches being held at the original celtic park to raise funds for the evicted tenants fund in Ireland, the club being the only sporting delegation at the Irish Race Convention to plot a route to Home Rule in the late 1800s. And this quote from Dr John Conway, who was a founding father of the club: "Glasgow Irishmen, we can emulate their (Hibs) example, not only in social but in political matters as well, so that the goal of every Irishman’s ambition – legislative independence of his country – will soon be attained."

But I think some fans stretch the political connections a bit far.

When you asked about whether I thought fans agreed with Bob Kelly, I gave my observation of what I thought the fans would have thought. None of that was about my own views. Like I say I'm not a socialist or communist. I don't have deep political views. I support a United Ireland and think people should be treated equally. That's the extent of it.

On the subject of the board not endorsing anti-imperialist expression. I'm not saying they should or should not, just simply that they don't because of the PR issues and sponsorship issues that Rebel song and Palestinian flags etc bring, as the main media groups in the UK are pro-Israeli and obviously not fond of the IRA either.

I think you've taken what I've said to be personal views or to have deeper meaning when it wasn't my intention.

 

[Winter]

My article didn't mention principles that club should be upholding, just that Bob Kelly took a principled stand in 1968. That was fact, not opinion.

I'm not a financial expert and your posts suggest you know a lot more than I do, so happy admit that I'm wrong if it's not possible for us to push the boat out further. My thinking was that if we spent money on a top manager then we would get that back and more by reaching the CL. But as I say I am not a financial expert. I hadn't expressed that opinion until you asked what I thought. I'd say we are run but when we pushed the boat out to get rodgers it paid off - on and off the pitch as far as I am aware.

And just reading back from earlier posts, I'm not saying Celtic were wrong to play Israeli teams. By saying the board aren't principled about politics I don't mean that as a negative, I mean they frankly don't care about politics. That is in contrast to Bob Kelly who clearly was willing to put principles and politics ahead of football by opposing to play against Ferencvaros. Again, not saying it was right or wrong. I wouldn't oppose to Celtic taking a stand against an imperial power, but also don't have a problem with us playing against teams from imperialist countries like Israel, because I don't think it will make much difference.

Celtic have always had political connections to an extent. You only have to look at the club's public stances during the Boer War, their campaigning for Irish Home Rule, Michael Davitt being named patron, TD Sullivan being invited to sing his rebel song at the opening of Celtic Park, matches being held at the original celtic park to raise funds for the evicted tenants fund in Ireland, the club being the only sporting delegation at the Irish Race Convention to plot a route to Home Rule in the late 1800s. And this quote from Dr John Conway, who was a founding father of the club: "Glasgow Irishmen, we can emulate their (Hibs) example, not only in social but in political matters as well, so that the goal of every Irishman’s ambition – legislative independence of his country – will soon be attained."

But I think some fans stretch the political connections a bit far.

When you asked about whether I thought fans agreed with Bob Kelly, I gave my observation of what I thought the fans would have thought. None of that was about my own views. Like I say I'm not a socialist or communist. I don't have deep political views. I support a United Ireland and think people should be treated equally. That's the extent of it.

On the subject of the board not endorsing anti-imperialist expression. I'm not saying they should or should not, just simply that they don't because of the PR issues and sponsorship issues that Rebel song and Palestinian flags etc bring, as the main media groups in the UK are pro-Israeli and obviously not fond of the IRA either.

I think you've taken what I've said to be personal views or to have deeper meaning when it wasn't my intention.

very well said cfcliamk and welcome to noise HH