Celtic Supporters Thread (contains GB chat)

If they want to protest in silence its their perogative, not a big fan but I don't think it's anyone else business.. if you want to sing * sing ha..

100% in favour of what they are protesting and it's about time the board interacted with fans.. without us there is no Celtic..

Fan clubs and fans have made it clear we don't want Higgins at our club..

 

The guy must have skin like a rhino if he takes up the position after the constant show of opposition by fans. Agree with people saying the board don’t give a * what we think, they don’t, but in different ways we have shown that we want this guy nowhere near our club, hopefully he takes the hint. As far as the silence goes perfectly fine if that’s what sections of fans want to do but I’m glad singing broke out today a few times, joined in myself after the goal. It’s football, you sing and back your team.

 

That’s all they’re asking for.

As was stated AGAIN yesterday:

 

Exactly. Think a lot are not realising what the intent is here.

It's getting us, and others talking and taking notice.

Celtic park, famed for the atmosphere and singing, suddenly quiet two games in a row.

It highlights it to the wider community (the international one, not giving a * about the other clubs in the league fans), which is attention that I'm sure the guys involved in the protest are hoping they get.

The idea is that people outwith Scotland start to question and wonder why, they then realise it's against the potential employment of Higgins and the board may take note of the reputational damage this could do. Because clearly they don't give a * about the fans opinion on the matter.

And other than this, what else is there? Season tickets and European tickets are in - although the aged old "don't give them your money" is not ally met with "you're just harming the team" much like today is "harming the team".

News flash, everything the fans do will harm the team, without supporters football is nothing.

There is literally nothing else we can do that wouldnt harm the team.

We've done banners for years, they get us nowhere. We've done protests outside the stadium, they literally lock us out. We've done banners - we get fined or arrested (ahem, by the very man we are all against), we've done sit ins after the game, we've done letters to the club, signed by a wealth of supporters clubs, buses, media, everyone.


What else is it folk want the support to do? Because no one else is coming up with anything else here, apart from the same things that have already been done.




Edit: *affect the team, rather than "harm" the team


Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

 

Exactly.

The support as a whole (not just the GB as some like to blame), had the chance in the summer to say no more to this board. But the support as a whole said just enough out loud to pretend they wasn't going to, but when it came down to it, they all bought back in to this board - without a * manager even announced.


No offence to Ange, but it was so easy that the board then went and signed a manager that no one even knew and was cheap to come in (that's not a dig, it's literally he was a cheaper option).

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

 

Did @Mr. Slippyfist no used to be against the GB in a previous life on here ?

I'm firmly behind the protests. The board are horrible * to a man and need hunted.

 

I have considered the points that have been raised by the likes of @Notorious @Mr. Slippyfist & @MacDanny, and there is no one single point I disagree with.

My point is, the GB are the foundation and act as the lead for the support on matchdays, and it's undeniable others take their queue from the GB. They set the tone, and over the years have inspired some truly amazing atmospheres and to this end, the priority should always be about supporting the team, firsrt and foremost.At which, they've done brilliantly.

However, this is a role that they have taken upon themselves. And think we are all appreciative for that task as being the cheer leaders, but we still had a great support prior to the GB coming into existence, where there was no single focused vocalized group. Not since the days of the old Jungle and even then it wasn't just from one group, sizeable though they may be.

They were not elected to speak on behalf of wider Celtic fanbase, but take that on they choose to do anyhow, whether that is always in accordance with the wider Celtic fanbase or not is another matter entirely.

By redirecting attention to an off the field agenda and not what is happening on the pitch, what effect is this happening?

My analogy of acting like 'petulant kids with the strop' is not the image of throwing their toys out of the pram - that is not the impression I was going for - but the sullen, moody teen pouting that has been told have to wait til Xmas.

Which is kind of appropriate. The GB are not some fledgling group, but have been around for 15-16 years now, testing the boundaries of what they can get away with and how much say they should and can have. Not unlike a teen.

I agree with the idea that eveb the prospect of a Higgins appointment should be considered repellant. Not just as a Celtic fan, but as a football fan in this country, and his appointment at ANY football club in this country would be equally unpalatable irrespective.

I doubt anyone would dispute the righteousness of the cause. Higgins was a douchebag then and no doubt he is still one now. That is not being fickle and it is not about questioning the loyalty or the support of the GB as Celtic fans.

However, if this is really the only way the GB feel as though they can effectively convey their message, it shows a stunning lack of imagination on their part, as much as the Board's intrangency.

If you want solidarity, present something that everyone can and will get behind - and that includes how to convey that message and not simply the message itself, even with the best of intentions.

Because if the message is getting lost then it's not getting through.

It is clear that while every Celtic supporter can see which side of the dispute they are - or should be - on, that does not mean the choice of how to carry that campaign on is happening.

As @The Prof said, the only one that you 100% know that the Board are going to hear is a purely financial one.

So if it's not impacting on this or even aiming at that, then you have to find other more impactful and unmuddled ways that get the message through clearly - as clearly the current strategy is failing at.

Remember, there is a very definite shift that the powers-that-be don't see supporters - they see customers.

The GB have, for a long time, sought and fought every issue as being the hill on which to die upon, as the idiom goes.

And by doing so, time and time and time again, it dilutes the importance and the impact when they truly have something that they feel it essential to be heard about.

There is only so many times can go to the well where it is the same group who are making themselves heard that it comes across as them, not all of us united as a single support all in this together.

In other words - solidarity.

Did the GB consult and get the wider Celtic support to agree to their tactic prior to implementing it?

Did the GB publicize their position and conduct a campaign to educate all on why the necessity of the stance?

Not just on forums such as here, or social media, where the die-hards tend to be, but I mean really reach out to the 70-80% of the support who wouldn't know Bernard Higgins from Missy Higgins?

Did the GB consider the impact their protest might have on the team?

This season was always going to be a difficult one to bounce back from the clusterf*ck that last season's collapse was and to re-energize and re-invigorate the support after being locked out of last season, and yet here we are.

Again, if you want solidarity you have to get something that everyone gets behind - not just the righteousness of the issue, and again I have no dispute or argument with this - but the means on which to get that message across.

Shouting out loud for the longest time hasn't worked, so what then? Going silent for the longest time?

And what if the Board then went ahead anyway and decide that Higgins is the man they want anyhow? Does this mean that the GB will never sing another Celtic song again?

And what does it say about setting precedents? Where does it end? A new Celtic manager is appointed but the GB don't like that person, because they have a background they don't like, or played for a different club, or any other reason. What if in 5-10 years a woman is appointed manager, not because she is a woman, but because she is the right choice and a tactical genius, but no doubt there will be some that will hold objections to that as well.

If there are enough of those types of fringe misogynistic and fringe voices that band together and protest that person being manager, should they be bowed down to?

I get this is entirely theoretical, but there is historical context for this also. What would've happened if Jock Stein had simply accepted Robert Kelly's assertion - and popularly held belief in the 1950's, that no Protestant could ever be Celtic manager? Player? Yes. Captain? Why not? But manager was the line too far for some.

Thankfully by the mid-60's times had changed. But I digress...

Celtic fans turn up close to 60,000 strong every home game because they want to cheer and support Celtic. They want to see the team performing and want to celebrate and be part of somethign bigger than themselves.

The GB are a big part of that overall matchday experience, even if their numbers themselves are only a 10% reflection of that overall 60,000 attendance. They are - or should be - considered a valued part of the overall matchday experience and support, in being that loudest set of cheers, or leading the songs, of providing energy and vitality and give a pulse and a lift to the team when things are not going flawlessly.

So when the very vocal group remains silent despite the team's efforts, how does that impact on everyone else? It becomes the tail wagging the dog.

Does it turn supporters against each other, as was clearly audible today - smething I don't think anyone thinks is good for us as a collective support, or for the image of as a collective fanbase on the wider community.

It may be a law of unintended consequences, but turning fans against other fans seems a pretty big own-goal if the goal is to try to get a sense of unity and solidarity.

The Board's intransigence on this issue is wrong, that is beyond dispute. Nevermind the flawed thinking on those powers-that-be that felt that Higgins' role 10 years ago would be forgotten about or even the optics of his suitability in being considered when surely there are others equally qualified that could've been taken into consideration.

Yes, the Board have made yet another sizeable blunder in all of this, but what happens if whoever they appoint is worse or just as bad in different ways, will that be acceptable because it's then an anyone but Higgins?

The GB's stance on how to address all of this needs to be reconsidered, because it's not helping.

After so many times, so many controversies and confrontatopms it doesn't come across as a Higgins appointment issue, but that a section of the Celtic support - and purely on stadium grounds and using that as a rudimentary optics level - that, for better or worse, is this is coming across it being about them, rather than being about Celtic, the Bhoys on the pitch or the wider Celtic support, but about them and a historical grievence.

 

Sorry but I consider myself a realist going by how the board already treat the fans. They couldn't give a monkeys about what we think.

 

Great post!

 

That is because German fans as a wider collective, not just a fractured section of the support of one club. Because there was a unified sense of what they were about, and how it impacted all clubs etc, not just one or some.

Those silent protests that were held in Germany were just part of a larger strategy and how to convey that. While the silent protests were widely noticable, it was used in co-ordination and in conjunction with other means to protest this also.

Speaking of Sky though, here in Scotland to actually get them to give proper coverage of the game and give proper investment when it comes to negotiating the next TV deal? Or better still - get them to f*ck right off and leave it to someone who will do it properly?

Get fans together, across the board. Not just fans of the two Glasgow clubs but all of the clubs. Put the pressure not on Sky, because Sky don't care - because they have the money from the subscriptions and Scottish Football is very much a sideshow for them.

The pressure needs to be brought to the SFA/SPFL. Remember, those governing bodies wanted to have Sevco to be allowed straight back in to SPL until the fans pressure of all the other clubs forced them to start at the bottom of the professional league system (they didn't start right at the bottom, as Spartans let them take their spor in the old SFL.

Anyhow, that's a different topic for a different thread.

 

Like what ? Got any ideas ?

And please remember this has to include * with verbal diarrhea that will never go anywhere near Celtic Park, however have the self-entitlement to presume to lecture those * that do.

 

Agree that is probably for a different thread. However there are a lot in here saying " silent protests achieve nothing" that is just simply not true. Whether it achieves anything here we don't know. The tactic though is not doomed to failure as some * on here want to claim.

 

We all do also realise this isn't just the green brigade?



Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

 

A very well thought out post Taz, but unfortunately full of romanticized waffle.

Your analogies of "petulance" and, or as "sullen-moody teenagers" as you corrected it to, is so far wide of the mark it's unbelievable, and in fact I actually find it quite patronizing of you to equate the appointment of this fiend to "moody teen pouting that has been told have to wait til Xmas" - really? Nah pal, this is more akin to the turkey awaiting slaughter at Xmas time, is the turkey expected to still gobble away and get fattened up before the farmer slits it's throat aye?

This isn't a group of children, this is a multi-aged section of fans with their own minds mature enough to reach their own conclusions and come to their own opinions. They have engaged on multiple occasions with the club in order to try and get lines of communication started. Guess what? The board haven't even had the dignity to answer them. Silence, if you will. So where do you go from there when you've attempted to open up conversation, other than to be met with the proverbial palm of a hand?

The tales of woe executed by this cretin and his cohorts are widely available for all to educate themselves on. The guys in the North Curve, GB, FAC, THe Celtic Trust, and all others involved in this campaign have been making it known for months, handing out flyers at the stadium, highlighting the stories of injustice on social media etc, they have flown banners in the ground making their stance known, online petitions involving hundreds of CSCs, Celtic social media sites etc have all been on board with this and have gave their support - now it seems that because there has been a bit of silence in the stadium now that it isn't appropriate? This is the age-old tale of what happens when folk don't speak up...


Did the GB consult and get the wider Celtic support to agree to their tactic prior to implementing it?

Did the GB publicize their position and conduct a campaign to educate all on why the necessity of the stance?

Not just on forums such as here, or social media, where the die-hards tend to be, but I mean really reach out to the 70-80% of the support who wouldn't know Bernard Higgins from Missy Higgins?

Did the GB consider the impact their protest might have on the team?

To all boldened parts there - the answer is yes. It isn't the "job" of these guys to reach each and every single supporter individually, much the same as it isn't the "job" of them to be Celtic's cheerleaders, even though you perversely state that because they've been doing so for long enough they've essentially made themselves so

In line with the old statement of "They don't speak for the entire Celtic support" - well, it seems that's the case when it suits people. Folk don't want to know what goes on at games, other than the nicey nicey moments, well guess what pal , the match day experience isn't always the best for everyone - but lots of folk would happily turn a blind eye to the grotesque actions toward members of the "supposed" Celtic family. Wonderful.

Again, you and many others have attempted to paint a picture here of a group of petulant idiots with no idea how to put their point across in a manner befitting the views of superiors like you and others - so instead of demonizing folk for putting their own ideas and opinions forward in the public eye that you don't agree with (even in spite of it being absolutely none of yours OR my business) why don't you suggest something more "acceptable" instead of simply stating that you don't agree with it.

As for the rest of what you were going on about in terms of hypothetical misogynistic views, and that wee example you gave about Jock Stein, I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer because it's complete rubbish that has no place in the current conversation.

These people have said that until they are met with the respect of the board (in particular acting CEO Michael Nicholson) of being given the dignity of a meeting to discuss an exceptionally important subject that they will remain silent on match days, considering the silence they have been met with by the board.

Fair play to them for showing balls in the face of adversity, which is even more appalling considering it's coming from the Celtic "family" - if that bullshit term even has a place in conversation anymore...

 

Never been against them, but I'll support and criticise what they're saying where appropriate.

 

In fairness to those who renewed I think the better part of not being able to go for the previous season and a half had more to do with it rather than what the board was doing

 

Why does the board want Higgins ????

 

Not keen on the silence personally, but the board need to engage with the fans.

Mental that it’s got this far tbh. I could be wrong, but it feels like a role that could be filled with any one of a number of people, with the only real task the board has in this case being ‘don’t hire someone the fans despise’.