[Link] james mcfadden

Did anyone say about us only signing catholics FFS get a grip man stop trying to turn this into something sectarian when it's clearly not.

Read my post again, Did i say just scottish players no i did not, but it showed in the last game with brown back a scottish player with passion brought to the game. and we need more of that someone who is going to play for the shirt.

 

I think you could be failing to grasp the analogy. The point I'm trying to make is why should a players nationality be considered when deciding whether or not they're good enough for Celtic, or have the right 'passion'? And not other characteristics such as, for example, religion?

Brown performed very well at the weekend- not because he's Scottish- but because he's a decent football player. Whereas players like Stephen McManus and Gary Caldwell, for example, weren't good enough for Celtic- not because they are Scottish- but because they're not good enough football players.

 

Part in bold, no am not! you clearly have a wee agenda IMO you are clearly making a mountain out of a mo hill with religion.

Facts are brown is scottish and that passion we clearly need, like i pointed out before we have had others who are irish or british done the same but you forgot about that.

Also your point on big mic and caldwell, not good enough for celtic! really funny how we done 3 in a row and got into the last 16 of the champions league twice with them...... by the looks of it you have something against scottish players IMO

 

Every club should have a core of predominantly local-ish players, it's just how football should be.

I wouldn't like it if we had just a few British players.

 

With all due respect, I don't think you do understand the point I was making. People in this thread have implied that Celtic should be inclined to sign players based on the fact they're Scottish. I'm merely asking the question: should a players religion be taken into consideration as well? What's the difference between signing players based on their nationality and signing players based on their religion (for example)? What makes one policy acceptable and not the other?

I'll say it again, Scott Brown performed very well at the weekend- not because he's Scottish- but because he's a good player.

We'll need to agree to disagree on McManus and Caldwell. I would suggest the fact a Celtic team managed to reach the heights they did with a defence consisting of one or both of the 'Chuckle Brothers' makes the other players achievements all the more remarkable and great! But a debate about the 'qualities' of those two wasn't really my intention.

As for having 'something against Scottish players'- I think that's the crux of the matter for me. I don't judge Celtic players on their nationality, as others seem to do. Some of my favourite all-time Celtic players are Scottish; the Lisbon Lions, Tommy Burns, Paul McStay, John Collins etc. But the fact they're Scottish is completely irrelevant, they're nationality is not what makes them great in my eyes- and that's the point.

 

It seems like your arguing or the sake of it here...

It's common sense that homegrown players have more of an understanding about the club,the supporters as some have been/are and that is always a good thing to have around the club people who know what's about,it's that simple and I don't know of any successful club that doesn't have it..
United
Barca
Bayern
Juve
Celtic

 

I understand what you're saying, but this is 2013.

I think I'm right in saying that, arguably, Celtic's most successful team in recent years, lined up with only two Scotsmen in Seville. And yet, I don't think any of those players on the pitch could be accused of lacking 'passion' or failing to know what the clubs 'all about'.

 

It's a source of immense pride for me that we have won the European Cup with a team of local bhoys.

That's nothing to do with any sort of bad attitude or discrimination.

 

I agree, and I think it made the achivement all the more great, remarkable and unique.

But to seriously take a players nationality into consideration when deciding whether or not Celtic should sign them, particularly in this day and age, is shocking in my opinion.

 

No, it's not really.

I would take a Scottish boy; of equal standard over any other nationality. Few reasons for that though,

1) They know the league.
2) Anyone who knows Scottish Football know what it means to play for Celtic.
3) No settling in period.
4) They know the identity of the club

Now if you find me a Spaniard or Italian that would all apply to it would come down to wages and transfer fees etc.

But it's always good to have a core of local players in a team; who generally know the ethos of the club more than others.

It's like Carragher and Gerrard for Liverpool or Carlos Puyol and Xavi for Barcelona. Sometimes it just means more to the ones who grew up loving that club and following their every move.

 

He'd be a good replacement for Bangura, Murphy, McCourt and Miku who we dont need, Lassad might go to since he never gets a game.

 

The free transfers available in Scotland this year are quite good. Chris Humphreys goal and assist at the weekend were class, McFadden scored again, and there are multiple strikers scoring 20-30 goals.

Then their's Johnny Russell and Mackay-Steven, expensive in scottish terms, but really cheap considering what their value could be if they turn on the style in Europe.

 

As I asked previously, what's the difference between that attitude and someone saying, for example: 'Celtic was established by a Marist Brother, the club has links to Catholicism, we should sign more Catholics as they'll no doubt understand the identity of the club'?

Just out of interest, did you think any less of players like Henrik Larsson, Johan Mjallby, Chris Sutton, Lubo Moravcik etc because they weren't 'homegrown' or 'Scottish boys'? Genuine question by the way, I'm not trying to be funny or a smart-*.

 

Because that's a lot of bollocks where religion has * all to do with football; knowing the club and knowing what is required in the Scottish Leagues. You might be Catholic; from Timbucktoo and never heard of Celtic and be as exactly as good as Scott Brown as a player but I'd sign Broony because it's less of a gamble because they know the Scottish League and they know Celtic.

Who said I think less of any players who weren't homegrown or that every player should be? How in the * did you get that idea? But even in that team you had a core of more homegrown players who knew the club and Scottish Football - not necessarily Scottish but who fit the bill of players I'm talking about in the likes of Jackie McNamara, Paul Lambert and Neil Lennon.

I think at any club you need a core of players that know what a club is about and the league they play in. With Celtic that is most likely Scottish or Irish players.

Look at the likes of Miku, class player who was doing very well in the Spanish leagues (a league far better that our own). He comes over hear not having a clue what is involved in Scottish football or Celtic and it just doesn't work for him. I've no doubt Miku is a better player than Johnny Russell but I bet you Russell would be better for us.

It is a safer bet; I like the team to built around a core who know what we are about. Sometimes players come to us and grow into that role, as Larsson, Mjallby and co done. As Joe Ledley, Beram Kayal, Adam Matthews and Gary Hooper have done and that's all credit to our manager but then, there's a reason that Charlie Mulgrew and Broony are usually the shouts to wear the captains armband because they know what the club is about; they know what the league is about.

I like to think people who grew up in amongst Celtic fans know what level is required at Celtic from the get go. Rather than someone who grew up only vaguely hearing of us.

 

When it comes to judging players on the pitch nationality should be considered the same as religion- irrelevant.

I never said you thought any less of players who weren't 'homegrown', I merely asked you a question.

I understand what you're saying, but for every Jackie McNamara or Paul Lambert there's a Kenny Miller or a Craig Beattie, for every Miku there's a Henrik Larsson or a Chris Sutton- I don't think nationality matters a jot.

When I read your post I couldn't help but think of the talent Celtic would have missed out on, if the club had went with the policy of the 'safe option' or being inclined to sign players because they're Scottish. It certainly brings the 'John Spencer or Lubo Moravcik question' to mind!

 

Agree with absolutely everything you've said,worded it a lot better than me ...

I can't work out why he's arguing about this :smiley-laughing002:

 

That is entirely missing the point. Entirely.

There is difference between ignoring * given talent like Lubomir Moravcik and Henrik Larsson, clearly far better players than any other option we had at the time and just going for Scottish players and making sure you have a core at the club who know what the club is about; which is the full point I am making.

That isn't the safe option, that is the dumb option. If you offer me a Scottish guy or a better player I'd go for the better player every single time. If you offer me two players of the same quality and one of them have no idea who we are and the other knows every little thing about our club I'll take the latter everytime; no matter of the nationality.

I have no idea why you are trying to bring religion into this; it is not a metaphor that squares up with the concept we are debating.

 

It wasn't 'clear' at the time, most people had never heard of Moravcik! And yet if Celtic had taken the 'safe option' and went with a Scottish player who knew the league and had heard of Celtic we would have had the likes of John Spencer at the club, as opposed to Lubo Moravcik who had 'no clue what is involved in Scottish football or Celtic' (much like Miku funnily enough).

It's merely an analogy. What's the difference between signing a player based on their nationality and signing a player based on their religion? What makes one policy acceptable and not the other?