Think Before You Speak - Always Good Advice

KILMARNOCK was reasonably quiet on Saturday night - there were one or two young gentlemen wandering the streets singing the praises of their heroes, but, realistically, we got the expected outcome and Killie will now face either Celtic or Falkirk in the League Cup Final - I post prior to kick-off in the second semi-final.

I expected the Ayrshire Derby to be a tight affair: I actually thought it might take penalties to separate the sides, but always felt, the game was Killie's to lose. To be fair to Kenny Shiels - he has worked wonders at the club and he and his players deserve their final appearance. The boss is trying to get the players to play an old-fashioned Scottish passing game, it doesn't always work as he and the players hope it will, but, to go to Rugby Park these days is to be entertained.

Ayr were, as I expected, well set-up by big Reidy, but, the breaks they needed to offset the difference between a full-time SPL side and a part-time SFL one never came their way. However, they went down with their pride intact.

Now we come to the disappointing bit - Kenny Shiels' post-match comments to BBC Radio Scotland. He is not the first manager to be caught-up in his immediate post-match comments by the adrenilin still coursing through his system. One famously remembers Alex Ferguson and Jim McLean, to name but two, coming out with instant reactions which continue to haunt them.

Perhaps we in the media should adopt a 15-minute or so black-out before we approach managers for post-match quotes - although I don't see that being too-popular with the radio and TV guys, deeply in-thrall as they are to instant reactions.

With that black-out, Mr Shiels might have been saved from himself and his injudicious comments on Ayr's performance. Maybe Ayr did set themselves up not to lose - silly tactics in a match which had to be decided on the day - more likely, Reidy's plan was to offer Killie few chances and be ready to take his own: and what's wrong with this approach when you are the under-dogs?

As my old mother used to say: "If you cannot speak well of someone - say nothing".

WHICH brings me nicely to something which has been bugging me for some time. Back in the old days before the internet and wall-to-wall 24/7 football on TV, only the true fanatics bothered writing to the sports letters pages of the papers. We all knew the saloon bar bores who were experts on all matters football and who had apparently limitless access to managers - but by and large we dismissed them as generally talking through an orifice other than their mouths.

Today, with broadband, twitter and blogs - we are all experts, while the papers now have their on-line boards and forums, which positively encourage debate. This, in many ways is a good thing; although I don't think we are as yet making the best use of modern technology and, in particular, I think the clubs could make more use of the internet for better-defining their relationship with their fans.

But, one down-side of this is the rise of the cyber-warrior - normally viewed as some kind of sad sack, spending all day, every day, debating issues on-line with similarly-afflicted followers of other teams. Nothing wrong with this, except in Scotland, where the age-old differences between followers of Celtic and Rangers, on on-line forums, rapidly descend into rampant whitabootery: "70-years of not signing Catholics" - aye right: "Big Jock knew". "Masonic conspiracy by referees" - come off it - "Compliance officers favouring Celtic at the expense of Rangers".

Maybe, as received wisdom has told us, Rangers have traditionally had most of Scotland's referees in their fan base; but, these days are apparently passed. If so, does the SFA's compliance officer (allegedly) being a Celtic fan move things on?

If it was wrong for Rangers to have friends and allies at court - is it suddenly right for Celtic to now apparently have undue influence?

The schism is apparently growing. Well, from my point of view, it is maybe time some of the men in power at the other clubs grew a pair and stood up to the big two. When push comes to shove, the Old Firm will stick together. Their notion is that they are bigger than the game as a whole, they are bullies and the only way to deal with bullies if to stand up to them.

Now, that is the most-pressing piece of whitabootery in Scottish football today.

Just what are they going to do about it?

Better Player Discipline Will Avoid Trial By Television

AS I was saying just yesterday, it's a total lack of discipline which is one of the biggest things wrong with Scottish football today. Instgead of whining about "trial by television", it would, I feel, better help managers such as Messrs Fenlon and McCall, if they instilled some discipline into their players.

If they, the players, didn't make obscene gestures to fans, then they wouldn't bring themselves to the attention of the SFA's Compliance Officer. Simples - like the players.

That said, there is perhaps an element of "trial by television" coming into play. I do not hold TV and radio journalists in high regard - they deal in the instant reaction and immediate opinion, those of us who work in the print or online media - we can take a wee bit of time, reflect on what we pen and (hopefully) give a more-measured response to an incident, or take a more in-depth view of an issue than can our broadcasting bretheren, who must rect immediately.

OK, with modrn technology, their boobs can come back to haunt them, as surely as cuttings services can dig-up our written faux pas years later. But, if our carefully-crafted words end still end up as fish and chip wrappers, theirs dissolve into hot air - not a lot of difference.

As regards "trial by television" - this ought to level the playing field, since, given their greater exposure to the cameras, the Old Firm players' misdemeanours "should" become more apparent than those of the guys who play with the "diddy" teams - unless, of course, some technician forgets to remove the lens cap at half-time.

But, to be fair, the SPL should have an official camera recording every game, same level of coverage for each, and only that camera should be used to determine if, the referee having perhaps missed it, post-match punishment awaits a player. Anything else is unfair - and as the clubs have been saying, but not demanding, for years - all we want is a level playing field.

AS someone who grew-up in football playing: "Ayrshire Junior Rules", I am highly-cynical when it comes to players and managers moaning about fines and suspensions being levied on them after they misbehaved. If we all played to the AJR protocol of: "Nae bluid, nae foul" - we could simply get on with the game and the world would be a better place.

I have also been for ages an advocate of zero tolerance for on-field misdemeanours. The weakness of the principle of a referee and two assistants, as in use today, is that almost all referees are, at heart, football enthusiasts. I know there is a cynical view in Scotland that to even contemplate becoming a referee, you have to have serious personality problems and be extremely anti-social. OK, perhaps the odd referee meets that description, but so-too are a few players and managers, it's life folks. But, in my experience, the vast majority of referees are in it from a deep love of the game and, not being top-drawer players, they have found refereeing a good way of taking their love of the game further than their talent might otherwise allow.

So, referees are often guilty of letting minor dissent and law breaches go unpunished, the players are enboldened and the misbehaviour gets worse. Then, when the poor wee dears are finally brought to heel, they react like the over-grown, spoiled kids most of them are.

Then there are the managers, who scream blue murder if one of their guys is hit illegally or is the victim of unseemly behaviour, but tend not to see their own guys' bad behaviour. "They awe dae it but oor boays" is the managers' default position.

So, when guys like Michael Higdon and Leigh Griffiths step over the line, I have no sympathy for them when they are caught and punished.

That said, there are a lot more, far-more-serious issues on which the SFA adopts a laissez faire attitude. But, I believe they should be congratulated on getting to grips with the smaller issues, so long as they start sorting-out some of the bigger issues as well.

Footballers are, by and large, thick; their general behaviour is terrible, they lack discipline and the clubs seem quite happy to let them behave like neds in shorts. Brighter players, forced to behave in an orderly, disciplined manner, just might be the first step in Scottish football's recovery.



And Now, The End Is Near, And Now They Face The Final Curtain

ONE of the joys of being 64, semi-retired and a freelance is - I don't have to toe the party line. I can now write what I like and if I fancy submitting it to a newspaper or magazine, while it is still nice to see my piece in print, it doesn't matter whether or not it gets published.

Thus, I don't have to cow-tow to anyone, I can call a spade a fucking shovel if I like and it doesn't matter a jot. Which is why I'm happy to be on the sidelines when it comes to the seemingly endless speculation which is the Rangers' Tax Case.

Some Celtic-minded bloggers and journalists are becoming somewhat agitated at the moment, as the members of the tax tribunal who heard the case of Rangers FC and their EBT's v Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, a case whose outcome is due to enter the public domain within weeks. As far as these gentlemen are concerned, Rangers were always guilty as charged and they are wetting themselves at the prospect of Rangers being invited to find some £49 million to settle when what they see is the inevitable guilty verdict is revealed.

Now a wee glitch or two has developed. There is the wee rumour that Rangers may perhaps be about to win the case - which of course might well be wishful thinking on the part of some members of what is known as the Lap Top Loyal - in addition, there is a fear amongst the Celtic-minded that preparations are being made for a "new" Rangers to be fast-tracked into the SPL, should the existing Rangers be forced into liquidation by HMRC.

We are increasingly being told that: "Rangers are too big to fail"; that club "Cannot be allowed to go under".

Let me tell you this boys - no company is too big to fail, unless they have a lot of friends in government, in which case common sense goes out of the window. Rangers might be a huge club in Scottish terms and still a pretty big one in European or world terms, but, in the eyes of the government, they are small beer and IF the HMRC case goes against them - that club  could fail, and rightly so.

It has been mis-managed for years; this mis-management cannot go on and while it would, for many people, be a crying shame to see Rangers vanish - they are no more immune to the penalties for mis-management than were Third Lanark, Clydebank, Airdrieonians or Gretna.

Professional football is an arm of the entertainment industry - the Alhambra and Empire Theatres used to be the biggest and glossiest in Glasgow, both are now gone. Green's Playhouse was one of the biggest entertainment facilities in Europe - gone too.  John Brown's at Clydebank built the world's two greatest ocean-going liners -gone; Harland and Wolff built the Titanic, the most-iconic ship ever built - shut. Ravenscraig was one of Britain's greatest steel mills - gone. Why should Rangers be different from these other icons?

And, if Rangers does go, will it be bad news for Scottish football? I think not. Other clubs will rise, the trophies will be shared around and the loss of an equally-big, if not bigger, rival across town might be good news for Celtic.

Instead of having to buy foreign to stay upsides, they could try breeding and encouraging young Scots. After all, the greatest Celtic and indeed Scottish club side of all time was 100 per cent Scottish - all 11 players and the manager born within 35 miles of the ground and with only two of these bought-in (OK, three if you count the cost of Bertie Auld being repatriated from Birmingham).

Don't give me the old: "These days are past, it couldn't happen today" argument. It could and should happen today and maybe, without the hindrance of having to beat Rangers, Celtic could settle down and make it happen; or maybe Hearts or Aberdeen.

No, should Rangers go under, don't throw a lifeline, let it go.

I have to laugh sometimes at the praise heaped upon today's football team captains. For at least the last 25-years, maybe longer, the position of captain of a football team has been repeatedly undermined by the rise of the coach as God - a phenomenon imported from American Football.

Football captains haven't really been important since the mid-1960s, or at leat the early 1970s. Sure, some captains have, even since then, had a more-significant impact on games than others - but, in all honesty I do not see in today's football, captains of the stature of THE captains of my youth - Billy Wright of England, Danny Blanchflower of Northern Ireland, Johnny Carey of the Republic of Ireland, John Charles of Wales; or the man who to me is The Captain - George Young of Rangers and Scotland.

When Young led Scotland, in the decade from 1948 to 1957, he was more than merely captain - he was in effect player-manager of the national team, which was picked by a selection committee. Occasionally that committee would be headed, or have as a member, a former internationalist or two, George Brown, Rangers director, former Rangers left half and himself a former Scotland captain, had a productive spell as chairman of the selection committee in the mid-fifties; but, mainly the selectors were the usual eclectic mix of butchers, bakers and candle-stick makers from Scotland's smaller clubs.

Selection was erratic, there was no long-term planning and with no team manager, it was left to Young to lay down the game plan and make sure the players stuck to it.

Amazingly, Scotland's record in those days was no worse than today, when we are playing Craig Levein a lot of money, for not great results.

Eric Caldow, himself an outstanding national captain, has told me that Young was magnificent. He could play his own game to a consistently high level, but, he could (and did), at half time, disect the other ten players' first half performances, suggest changes and provide motivation.

But, Young was just one great captain of those times - across the city there was Jock Stein; Hugh Long at Clyde was a great captain, as was Bobby Parker at Hearts, Davie Mitchell then Archie Glen at Aberdeen, Willie Toner, then Frank Beattie at Kilmarnock and while Gordon Smith at Hibs maybe wasn't in these defenders' class as a "sergeant major" figure, Lawrie Reilly has always insisted that the fear of letting Gordon down and of failing to match the standards he set was a great motivating factor for him and the other nine Hibs players.

Later, Dave Mackay was a great captain, as too, surely were Bobby Moore, John Greig and Billy McNeill. Billy Bremner appears on the face of it to be a great captain, but, alas, for me he falls down through his lack of self-control. Willie Miller, Terry Butcher, Graeme Souness, Pat Stanton and Roy Aitken were for me the last great captains - thereafter the men with the armband have been basically ball carriers.

And I include in that rating, Davie Weir, who has now left the Rangers' pay roll. He had the bearing of a traditional Rangers captain; he made much of the talent he was given; he never gave less than 100 per cent - but, for me, givent he nature of the modern game, he could never match-up to Greig, Caldow, Young, Shaw, Simpson and Meiklejohn - his predecessors.  He was sent-off from Ibrox to ringing praise at the weekend, yes, he deserves the praise - but it was, for me, a bit over the top.

But, that's the measure of modern football journalism - I sometimes think the guys writing in the papers today think Scottish football began in the era of Law, Bremner and Dalglish.

I NOTICE Ally McCoist has been getting pelters from the fans as Rangers have stuttered in recent weeks. This Rangers/Celtic thing is all getting a bit too-hysterical these days, with fans, on both sides demanding that their team win every game, nothing less is acceptable.

They may still be paying over the odds for fairly average players, but the fact is, both clubs are nowhere as strong as they once were and the fact that they continue to dominate the SPL is more an indictment of the managerial policies of the boards of the other ten clubs than of any greatness from the two clubs.

I've been saying for years, if the other ten would have more of a go at the Big Two, they would enjoy more success. They have nothing to fear but fear, sadly, this is not a lesson they have learned.

Speaking of learning, McCoist is still learning his job as manager and for me, he would have benefitted from two or three seasons elsewhere, away from the influence of Walter Smith, before succeeding him. I question some of his purchases; I question his Smith-like refusal to trust in his young players, but, I will not write him off as Rangers manager after just over half a season. To do so is silly in the extreme.

THE battle lines are being drawin in my native Ayrshire this week, as the count-down to the Ayr United v Kilmarnock League Cup semi-final gets under way.

On paper, this SHOULD be a win for Killie - but - Ayr has by and large kept their best form for cup ties this season. Brian Reid never gets into the frame when it comes to vacant SPL jobs, but, look at his record at Ayr and he has worked wonders with little or no cash. Mark my words, Ayr could win this one, and if they do, get your money on Mark Roberts bagging the winner.

The Tax Man's Arrival Must Change Rangers' Mind Set

I HAVE deliberately steered clear of the on-going speculation as regards Rangers FC and in particular that club's problems with the tax man. I can, however, say from personal experience that HMRC does tend to go in for grandstanding and posturing when it decides to go after an individual or company; but, once you sit round a table with an individual tax man, they tend to bend over backwards to be fair and are always entirely civil in how they conduct themselves.

This perhaps explains the fog of half-truths, misinformation and speculation which has surrounded the case of HMRC v Rangers FC. It will all come out in the wash and I would never attempt to predict the outcome.

What I will say, and given he appears to be an intensely private person he has perhaps done himself no favours thus far, Craig Whyte really must up his media game. Being head of Rangers isn't like heading-up any other Scottish or British companies and he has not impressed.

If I was Craig Whyte I would have - several months ago - told Ally McCoist: "Rangers are no longer a buying club; you can recruit via Bosmans, you can recruit, in the short-term via Under-23 Scottish players, for preference through sell-on deals with other Scottish clubs - but, your principal means of freshening-up the team will be through getting more out of the young kids we have and ensuring that, in the years ahead Rangers consistently recruit and nurture the top Scottish talent.

"The days are past when Rangers will pay big money for foreign players - the club cannot afford this".

For too-long Rangers have bought their players. They have failed one, perhaps two generations of young, very-often, Rangers-daft Scots. This they can no longer afford to do and if their management is wedded to the concept of: "Buy, buy, buy" then they MUST either adapt or be replaced. There is no alternative in the current state of the national or Scottish football economy.

I return again to the on-going and vexatious question of Team GB's Olympic Games row. Yesterday, within 48-hours of contacting them, FIFA's media team got back to me with the answer to a series of questions which I asked them.

I also put several questions to - the FA - who have asked me to telephone a certain member of their media staff, who will answer my questions; the BOA, FAW and IFA - who have acknowledged my enquiry of six days ago but not yet responded further; and the SFA, who haven't even had the courtesy to acknowledge my enquiry.

As I have said before - the SFA's whole stance on the Olympics issue disturbs me. They could, with one move, halt the BOA's demands for an all-UK side, which they say threatens Scotland's international independence - but for some reason will not.

It's no big thing: simply invoke Article 8/3 of FIFA's statutes as regards governance of the game, and the all-UK team cannot happen. The relevant passage reads as follows:

Fifa statutes - Article 8/3.

Scratch teams consisting of Players not belonging to the same club or Member shall not be permitted to play clubs or teams representing Members or similar teams unless authorisation has been granted by Members concerned and the Confederation on whose territory the match is planned. If the Players belong to clubs or Members from different Confederations, the authorisation of FIFA is required.

"Members" in this instance means individual member countries of FIFA - England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It is therefore down there, in black and white, that if Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales tell England: "You cannot pick our players for the Olympics" - then they cannot.

Given these are FIFA statutes - why is Stewart Regan continuing to insist: "There is nothing we can do to prevent Scottish players from playing in London?"

The Battle For the Soul of British Football

THERE IS a good-going argument in progress on the Scotsman's website: www.scotsman.com this morning, on the subject of the BOA's Olympic football team. With Stewart Pearce allegedly saddened and unable to fathom the SFA's stance on the matter. I am sorry to return again to this subject, but, it really is serious and yes, the future of Scotland as an independent footballing nation probably is at stake.

So, who is (as I see it) doing well and who is doing badly out of all this.

The FA is doing well (up to a point to which I will return later) - they control football in this country as far as the Olympics is concerned; they are still the only voice football has on the BOA, so, the FA's blazers will get their plush seats and prawn sandwiches at the Games.

Stewart Pearce and Hope Powell are (for the moment) doing well: they've got the coaching gigs and, in Pearce's case, if the team gets amongst  the medals, he becomes a credible alternative to "Our 'Arry" as Capello's replacement.

David Beckham is doing well: he has all but been guaranteed the captaincy of the Men's squad and, if they get among the medals, as an OBE he will be bumped up to at least CBE, more-likely KB as Sir David Beckham.

The BOA is doing well: they didn't like the "England as Team GB" option agreed by the four FAs, and forced the FA to renage on that and publish a UK-wide long list; this will have repercussions further down the line too.

Any England Under-21 player with a Championship club who shines at the Games will do well; he'll be in the shop window during the transfer window and could get a mega-move out of it.

Who isn't doing well?

The three "Celtic" FA's. They have shown their lack of professionalism by having been unable to force the FA to accept the compromise of the "England as Team GB" option.

They compounded their folly by not pulling-up the BOA; they should have pointed out to that body that FIFA rules prohibit the FA from selecting Northern Irish, Scottish or Welsh players without the permission of the IFA, SFA or FAW. Had they done that when the BOA insisted on an all-UK team, the row would have been defused.

Once the BOA and the FA ignored them, they ought to have been straight on to the Court for Arbitration in Sport in Switzerland - the CAS would surely have found for them.

The FAW and SFA have further compounded their folly by, while refusing to sanction the use of Welsh and Scottish players, happily agreeing to host games in Cardiff and Hampden. That's like going on a diet but refusing to give up chocolate cake.

Those Scottish players who opt to play are risking not doing well. The wilder elements in the Tartan Army will pounce on every mistake made in any post-Olympics matches, while some of the wilder elements within the SFA may well pressurise Craig Levein not to pick them.

In particular, Stephen Fletcher isn't doing well. Should he play in the Olympics, then, probably following Craig Levein's departure, end his Scotland exile - he will get a terrible time from the Tartan Army, unless he scores the winner against England.

Stewart Regan isn't doing well. Some of his pronouncements have been naive and foolish in the extreme. The future of his organisation might be at stake here - he ought to be getting tough with England.

Then, there is where the FA has, I feel, been short-sighted. They seem to be working under the illusion that, should the forces within FIFA who hate the idea of four separate FAs within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and who want - instead of the FA, the FAW, the IFA and the SFA having separate powers - football in this country controlled by a single UKFA: then that new UKFA would simply be the FA, with the other three added-on.

They ought to remember, the four Home Nations are entitled to have one FIFA vice president, that role could go; but, more importantly, almost always, that vice president IS NOT ENGLISH, because the three Celtic FA's gang-up on the English. They got their man in after John MacBeth made his badly-timed press statement about corruption within FIFA - their man was so gash, the other three got rid of him at the first chance.

IF a new UKFA has to be formed, the HQ might well be in London, but I think you would find the top jobs would go to Scotsmen, Northern Irishmen and Welshmen, as pay-back for English arrogance and self-interest, which has kicked-off during the lead-up to these Olympics.

I don't in all honesty see UEFA allowing their four longest-established members to vanish to be replaced by a single new member, who would be another big beast, so loss of independence is highly-unlikely - however, we should never say never.

I feel the real prize for FIFA is to get hold of three of the four places on IFAB, the International Football Associations Board - the body which does little other than tinker with the Laws of the Game.

This is a prize which the Home Nations have, but have neglected. They rarely speak with one voice at IFAB, if they did, they could make a start on sorting-out the mess which is the Laws of the Game as currently promulgated and the way these Laws are interpreted; they could be a genuine force for good in the game.

The FA/BOA stance on the 2012 football squads truly threatens that as yet under-used ability to influence and that is something worth fighting for.

The first battle is for an acceptable compromise to heal the Olympic selection wounds.