Last night, I did something I haven’t done in a while: I tuned in to Clyde Superscoreboard. Despite knowing Hugh Kevins was on, which usually makes me feel like I’m listening to nails being scraped down a chalkboard, I gave it a go.
I listened to Clyde because I was curious to hear what the pundits had to say about Celtic’s statement that afternoon, followed by Brendan Rodgers’ pre-match press conference. In that press conference, Rodgers tried to set the record straight once and for all on who is responsible for the Celtic-Ibrox ticket standoff.
Amazingly, Kevins backed Rodgers. At first, I was surprised, but thinking about it more, it makes sense. Rodgers secured a total victory yesterday, and by putting it so bluntly, the pundits only had two choices: agree with him or call him a liar. And none of them has the guts to do that, especially when Rodgers is simply telling the truth.
Gordon Duncan, Clyde’s anchor, did everything possible to suggest that there might be another side to this and that perhaps Ibrox fans might want to phone in and present their case.
When asked about Rodgers’ comments that it was the Ibrox club that started this and that Celtic are largely blameless and simply reacting to circumstances we did not create, Duncan dismissed the past as irrelevant, even though it clearly has huge relevance to where we are now.
I thought his performance was deplorable.
But Kevins and Scott Allan, who was bizarrely the other guest, both agreed with the Celtic boss. This makes it clear: the PR war has been well and truly won here. It will be interesting to see what takes other pundits have over the next couple of days—people like Tom English, Keith Jackson, and Gary Keown—in short, the ones who aren’t exactly our friends.
Of course, there are going to be people who will try to put their own spin on this and suggest that maybe Ibrox has a case. Some are already suggesting, as Rodgers pointed out yesterday, that we should ignore their clear violation of the agreement and give them tickets anyway as some kind of bizarre attempt to “claim the moral high ground.”
But we’re in the right already, so why do we need to fight for the moral high ground? We already have it. Or is there some other version of the moral high ground where you can be completely in the wrong and still have people view you in a positive light?
There’s a word for people who put the moral high ground before winning the argument or making the point: mugs. That’s what they are—mugs. That’s what these people want us to be.
Then there are people like Duncan, who will suggest that we should consider there’s another side to this, as if this isn’t a clear-cut case of right versus wrong. But as Brendan made clear yesterday, this is not complicated. It’s very simple. There’s no nuance necessary. They agreed to something, and they didn’t fulfill the agreement. So, what side can they present that changes those basic facts?
Over the next few days, ignore anyone who tries to overcomplicate this or suggest that there are two sides to it, or that Ibrox has some version of events that will change our understanding and suddenly make everything clear.
Celtic have presented the evidence, done the work, and there’s a clear absence of any meaningful counter from the other side. Our club has stated that they can’t even guarantee the game will be played there.
And Brendan Rodgers himself has gone on record, saying they are in clear breach of agreed conditions, conditions that, as this blog has pointed out, involved both sides proceeding with the work at the same time, to be ready for the start of the campaign.
The start of it. Not one side doing it immediately and the other doing it when they please.
Sure, there probably are circumstances where we might have allowed them to do this at their own speed if we trusted anything they said, but that’s not the situation after many, many years of this nonsense. Our patience has long since been exhausted.
So, I found the show interesting, and aside from Duncan completely on Celtic’s side. He tried to mount some kind of rear-guard action on behalf of Ibrox, but even he wouldn’t come right out and say our manager or our club has been misleading anyone here.
And I expect that’s how even the most anti-Celtic hacks will play this. Even those who can’t bring themselves to say we’re right certainly won’t say we’re wrong.
After yesterday’s press conference I have finally forgiven Rodger$ and will henceforth refer to him as St Brendan.
Duncan has to keep his mind open to a counter argument, remember. It’s in the interests of balance, you understand.
Hahahahahaha 🙂
Well he is ‘balanced’ – Is this guy that’s a Motherwell fan ?
I actually think he’s quite good at his job when I listen in when Sevco drop points !
There are actually two sides to the story:
Celtic have done the work as agreed and that’s one side.
The Rangers haven’t and that’s the other side.
As for Duncan saying what has gone on before is irrelevant, we’ll that’s just stupidity talking.
Life is a learning process: if Duncan burnt his hand in a fire on Tuesday, would he put his hand in a fire on Wednesday because what happened before is irrelevant?
The Rangers first and foremost do not even know where the game will be played. They haven’t applied for planning permission to carry out the work at Ibrox and will not pay to have work done at Hampden.
Skint.com started this, Skint.com should be enforced to finish it FIRST.
I am however quite happy to never set foot inside crumblebrox again.
Just for the safety of both sides, these matches should not have any away support, the safety of the individual must come first.
Does anyone know the wherabouts of the safety nets, my Grannies old net curtains have disappeared from the washing line overnight.
Supersevcoboard would rather blame celtic than they cheats at liebrox shower of scumbags especially that wee rat keevins..
Surprised no-one has suggested this would be the ideal time to put the Broomloan safety measures in place at the same time as the Copland renovations.
I’m not sure that Gordon Duncan as the presenter can be expected to take sides, his job is to build up the debate between the callers and the punters, that’s his position commercially with his employer. Keevins and Allan certainly took Celtic’s side 100%.
So going by what Mr Duncan said about what happened earlier is ‘ irrelevant ‘ , his thought process would have him saying that Germany invading Poland had no bearing whatsoever on the beginning of WWII …..he being the typical sub standard quality of scoop thrust upon us in wee Scotland …someone so inept ,he could not hammer a nail into a dumpling !
Celtic have played this magnificently for once…
Finally stood up to The Sevco obfuscation and The Pathological Lies of The Scummy Scottish Football Media and in a very firm yet professional manner without the rabid moon howling lunacy that is eternally associated with Sevco…
It will be interesting to see your reporting of what The Scummy Scottish Football Media are saying about it James…
Because I sure as hell won’t be paying them online or otherwise to see their inevitable anti Celtic twist on things !
It was his delivery that was impressive. No trace of bitterness but I don’t think he should have been the person to do it. Surely a member of the management should be front and centre on this and draw the fire away from a guy who is balls to the wall dealing with football matters.
Anyone who thinks Duncan is in anyway impartial, must be daft or even dafter, he oozes sympathy for Ibrokes at every opportunity.
Another totally independent Scottish broadcasting service presented by an impartial so called Motherwell fan with Boyd like anger when anyone dared criticise the new flavour of the season R2 manager or their exciting new players.
Stopped listening to it some time ago when Wilson and the other Covid damaged presenters sold their souls swapping them for career advancement with anti Celtic nonsense and a love-in with Keevins
That’s how I never listen tae that gutless programme.
Anybody who even tries tae argue this, can be very easily put on their place. Duncan tryin tae play the ‘devil’s advocate’ is just part of the shitbag tactics. Instead of comin right out and sayin exactly who’s in the wrong he’d rather ‘create’ another possibility. Probably thinks it makes the situation more ‘interesting’.