There's no point in saying that Celtic have already been cleared over Juninho's EBT; the answer to that is that Rangers have also already been dealt with. For once, they're right; we can't have it both ways. Their argument is that Celtic did not declare to the SFA that part of Juninho's pay was going to be in the form of an EBT. It doesn't matter when Celtic handed over the cash; the Huns are correct in saying that the SFA had no idea that Juninho was getting an EBT. The thing is, though, that the SFA couldn't care less whether Juninho was being paid via an EBT, in ginger bottles or in fag coupons. Celtic declared exactly how much the player was getting, so the authorities were perfectly satisfied.
That's what the Huns don't get; the EBTs themselves are totally irrelevant. What constitutes cheating is that Rangers signed all those players using hidden contracts, which weren't declared to the SFA when registering the players. All that were declared were the main contracts, setting out the salaries, or, rather, part of the salaries, that the players were getting; the side contracts, hidden from the eyes of the authorities, showed the secret part of the salaries the SFA knew nothing about. Again, whether those secret parts of the salaries were paid via EBTs or any other method, is beside the point. It's the fact that these payments were concealed from the SFA and the SPL that raises questions about the proper registration of the players. Nimmo-Smith said as much himself and handed out a fine.
As far as we know, Juninho had only one contract. If it were to transpire, if you'll forgive me for speaking hypothetically, that there was a side contract, then I, for one, would be perfectly happy for every game Juninho was involved in to be adjusted to a 3-0 defeat for Celtic. To be honest, I wish it would turn out that this was the case so we can hear all the Huns sticking up for Celtic and demanding that their results are left alone!
I remember Sooperally saying in 2012 that he was 'perplexed' about the decision that Celtic had no case to answer. Well, let's call his, and the rest of the Huns' bluff, and agree that Juninho's EBT should be looked into along with all those used by Rangers. We can also look into the little matter of 'sporting advantage' and forget all that shite about titles being 'won on the pitch'.
It's quite sickening to read ex-players and managers accuse us all of being wrong-headed in the pursuit of justice; from Derek Johnstone's jibes about crawling out from under rocks to Craig Burley calling us 'utter cretins'. According to all these media commentators, we're nothing but insane obsessives. Isn't it funny how not one of them ever have anything to say about Gregory Campbell's continuing campaign against Celtic. He, and his sad chum, PZJ, are still looking into their imagined 'State Aid' to Celtic FC from Glasgow City Council and others. All this will, yet again, be brought before the European Commission. To what end? Surely they don't want the stripping of titles that were 'won on the pitch'?
Another flawed argument still doing the rounds is the old one about the Kellys et al downplaying the crowds at Celtic Park in order to skim off the top of the gate money. Whether this really went on or not we don't know, but if it did, it was hardly to the benefit of Celtic, was it? If true, then the old owners of Celtic were actually swindling the club, as well as the taxman; something The Peeppul now accuse Craig Whyte and Charles Green of doing. What they seem to forget, of course, is that Sevco has nothing to do with it; as they are fond of saying, it's all about Rangers! David Murray wasn't swindling the club; if anything, he was swindling everybody else in order to help his pet project. That's what The Peeppul don't seem to get. It's got bugger all to do with swindling money from the taxman or anybody else; it's what that money was used for. In Rangers' case it was used to give them a sporting advantage that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford.
I must admit that the events of the last few days have left me rather confused and conflicted. Terrorism comes in all shapes and sizes and can be carried out by nations as well as organisations and individuals. The carpet-bombing of Dresden during the war was to frighten the German people into being against the war, while thousands of civilians were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to terrify the Japanese into surrendering. The rights and wrongs of these events can be debated endlessly, as can the lives that were purportedly saved by shortening the war. One thing is not up for debate, however; these were acts of terrorism by definition. It seems, though, that these were okay, as they were carried out by the 'good guys'.
In the 1960s and 1970s terrorism had a new face; in fact, many new faces. The Baader-Meinhoff Gang, or the Red Army Faction as it became, shot people, blew up buildings and hijacked aircraft and never seemed to be out of the news. At the time nobody bothered to question why they were doing what they were doing; they were just a bunch of Communist crackpots and criminals. It was only later that we learned what had inspired them. They were part of a generation that had grown up in West Germany, believing that Nazism was a thing of the past. Discovering that their own parents and most people in authority had been part of Nazi Germany left many young Germans confused and angry. It seemed they were living a lie and that the Fascists were still in power. Considering their beliefs, can they be considered 'good guys' as well?
There were three other organisations that came to the fore during this period: the PLO, ANC and the IRA. All three were fighting for equal rights in their own lands and felt that all other avenues had been exhausted. So: terrorists or freedom fighters? It all seems to depend. The world partied when Nelson Mandela was released, even though he was what would be termed a terrorist. To many in the western world, the PLO and the IRA are symptoms of oppression and terrorism carried out by states. This is not just a left-wing/right-wing divide. Many right-wingers in the USA supported the IRA all through the Troubles and conservatives throughout the world are becoming embarrassed at the actions of the Israelis. Again, though, it's all about who you consider to be the 'good guys'.
And now we have a new strain of terrorism and everybody's lining up to condemn it. Yes, innocent people have died, but the same can be said about the activities of the PLO, the ANC and the IRA, as well as the British in Dresden and the Americans in Japan. Like before, though, it all depends on who you see as the 'good guys', which nobody views the Islamic State as being. Now I'm not condoning what ISIS did in Paris and I'm certainly no advocate of Islamic fundamentalism, or any other kind of fundamentalism either, but look at how France has reacted to what happened. Contrary to what most folk seem to believe, the ISIS lot aren't wandering about the desert on camels, brandishing scimitars. They'll have radar and satellite systems that gave them ample warning about the French air strikes and the ISIS leaders would have had plenty of time to get well out of the way or into secure shelters. The ordinary Syrians will not have been so lucky. So what was the point of the air strikes? I don't really know. What I do know, however, is that it's another act of terrorism. Remind me again; who are the 'good guys'?
Available in paperback and Kindle at Amazon.