Celtic Supporters Thread (contains GB chat)

Only just came across this, no one had bothered to post it for some reason. Taken from a BBC article:

Good to see the group have finally taken responsibility, behind closed doors at least. Also blows out the water the idea that the club were refusing to meet with the group as has been suggested.

Regardless, delighted it's all been sorted out and hopefully both sides are on the same page now. Club must accept the group expressing political opinion (within reason), and the group must accept that the club have regulators and governing bodies to answer to.

 

I don't think it does. The group explicitly said there had been no contact at that time and I don't see any reason to doubt their word. The only thing the BBC article shows is that there has been contact at some point, which could easily be later (there's been plenty of time since then).

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, many people (including me) will incline to think there must have been contact since. You might disagree and fair enough; but nothing has been blown out of the water.

 

Suppose it could be argued that the club have panicked because of recent results and eventually decided to sit down with the group. Those of a mind to automatically go against the club at every turn will no doubt see it that way, just so happens a lot of those same people couldn't even admit the GB were causing safety issues.

The onus was always on the GB to accept responsibility for their safety breaches, that was always the starting point for any discussions. The club were always willing to get the issues sorted out.

 

There's something a bit weird almost every time this happens, though. If I had to guess, I'd say it seems probable to me that the group have been breaking some safety rules and of course the club has a right to deal with that. I can't deny that, at times, some of the things the group does seem a bit childish to me; not that it's any of my business (to be fair to them). But it's the club itself, rather than the group, that so often leaves me feeling puzzled.

On this occasion, it's the timing that's weird. I suppose it's possible that the safety issue came up and/or the club decide to move on it exactly at the time of the banner controversy and it's possible that they've reached agreement with the group exactly when the atmosphere has turned a bit toxic and folk have been chanting for board members to go. It's possible, I suppose.

But these occasions are mounting up now and there is so often something a bit weird, from strange obsessions with lateral movement to comments from senior board members about giving the group enough rope to hang itself all the while with a real lack of open communication with the ordinary fans about what's going on.

It's just very odd. Anyway, they're back and that's what matters. We move on.

 

No doubt there will be other clashes down the line, think it's just the nature of it. An ultras group like the GB are always going to be 'anti-establishment' even against their own club, and will voice their opinions regardless of consequences.

Problem for me is people's reaction to the club stepping in when things are going too far. They simply have to take a stand, and the wider fanbase has to accept that, even if you support the GB. If the group were more clever with their banners and the timing of them they'd get a lot more leeway with the club.

 

I've said it before but I always take that apparent quote of giving them enough rope to hang themself with a huge pinch of salt, the reality is the club can refuse to sell tickets to anyone, that quote is about a decade old, if the board genuinely wanted them gone it would have happened by now, in reality they've been given a huge amount of leeway over the years, and allowed to increase their presence in the standing section over time, which itself took years of work from the board behind the scenes to get permission to build, that's not how you treat a group you want rid of, they've been given pride of place amongst our support.

 

What criteria would you use for going too far?
I'm also genuinely curious about the bit in bold: what do you mean by "take a stand"?

What I mean by that is that I would have thought (perhaps naively) that there would be more grown up ways of dealing with the problem, for example by communicating openly with both the group and the wider fanbase along the following lines:

Here are the relevant rules that were broken.
Here are the occasions on which they were broken.
Here is the evidence we have used to reach this conclusion.
The following is the sanction that will apply on this occasion.
The following is the date the group will be allowed back in.

 

It was reported by a third party and the fact that it was a decade ago just strengthens my argument, because my whole point was that these strange things have been happening for a long time. It's not a normal thing to say.

 

Well we'll have to agree to disagree, I don't think it strengthens it at all, the GB are still here and bigger than ever, giving them rope to hang themself implies waiting for a chance to get rid of them, but they're still here after all this time, if the board wanted them gone they'd be gone.

 

It was never any single issue, more a culmination of things over time. The club gave multiple examples of rule breeches by the group in one of their statements.

The club had been concerned for a long time about the increasing problems the group were creating, and it came to a head because of the delicate situation at the time in Palestine and the 'resistance' banner was flown. The club were under severe pressure from all corners. It was merely the tipping point and they had to act.

The GB were not willing to accept any responsibility so the club had to take a drastic measure. It has been a nightmare in all honesty, the negative impact the whole episode has had on the team is huge, but hopefully it will be worth it in the long run if the GB are now willing to work within the rules (for the most part, don't think anyone is expecting them to be choir boys).

 

"Following consultation with the group, the club has now implemented an updated Rail Seating Safety Code of Conduct, which has been accepted by the group, allowing for a return to a situation where rules and regulations around operating safely are respected and complied with," Celtic said in a statement.

It was never any single issue, more a culmination of things over time. The club gave multiple examples of rule breeches by the group in one of their statements.

In a past life, I was a steward at Crystal Palace and Millwall..if there were safety issues, why wasn't it sorted by the stewards / club? That's on the club that is. Millwall (who are always being attacked by the media) were 100% bang on sorting out any potential safety issues at the ground as they knew if they didn't, they would be in big trouble.

My take is, they just wanted the GB banned for the Champions League.

 

Boards are more complicated than that. On a lot of issues, it's not always possible to see the leaders of an organisation as being of one mind and, of course, boardrooms come with their own politics. Moreover, even a single individual, such as Peter Lawwell, will usually have multiple motivations and goals that can sometimes conflict with each other. For example, the fans as a whole are the club's biggest source of revenue, which gives Celtic fans a power that fans of EPL teams no longer have. Lawwell would have to weigh all that up (and many other factors) each step of the way.

I don't think it's possible to just take this idea (that if the board wanted them gone, they'd be gone) as axiomatic.

 

I can't work out if you have connections in the boardroom and know something I don't or if you're just in the habit of stating your interpretations as if they were self-evident, incontestable facts. We all do this a bit TBH (including me); but by my count you've stated your interpretations as facts 5 times in 7 sentences in your post above (I've put them in bold). Moreover, you also presuppose one of your interpretations in another sentence (which I have underlined), which brings the count up to to 6.

6 times is a bit much, mate. It really makes it hard for me to know how to approach this discussion as I feel like I'm having to spend a lot of time trying to disentangle fact from interpretation.

 

He sings rebel songs at gigs mate , he is more of a Tim than us

 

So, is that the GB back then?

 

Who sings rebel songs ?

 

About half the forum.

 

Aye...but who's he on about ?

 

I know, I just couldn't resist.

He's quoting my post, which was in answer to one by @Double Dutch.

 

it happened a number of Years Ago back before the standing section was built when the GB had the back Corner at its Early Stages , this played a part in the split between certain Members and some stayed with the GB and those who didn’t agree With the Boards decisions splintered and sat in the 444 (BHOYS).

it was rumoured at the time the GB had been getting very much affiliated with the Board which certain members didn’t agree with. It’s not the whole story but it played a part along with other political reasons.