Why Beram Kayal gets my vote for Celtic's player of the year

As we near the business end of the season, inevitably thoughts are drawn to analysing the season as a whole. Of course, nothing is won yet, at the most important thing for Celtic between now and the end of the season is really to win, as many games as possible. It's basically that simple.

One man who will be key for us in the next few weeks, I feel, is Beram Kayal. He is arguably the biggest influence on the team, and I personally would go as far as to say he is irreplaceable. Sure, we have central midfielders, talented ones, in abundance - Brown, Ledley, Ki - however Kayal brings something different to the team. I would never insinuate that our other central midfielders do not possess his drive and will to win - in fact I think Scott Brown in particular would take exception to that, however in Kayal we have a midfielder with endless energy, fight and passion, who not only inspires his teammates in midfield, but all over the pitch.

His performance on Wednesday night against Hibernian in my view was typical of his performances throughout the season. Never shy to throw himself into a challenge, but equally adept at reading the game and cutting out the oppositions attacks before they had even begun. Most of our attacks on Wednesday night came from Kayal winning the ball in the centre of the field and spreading the play. He was, in my view, rightfully given the man of the match award by the match sponsors, despite other players, not least Gary Hooper and Anthony Stokes, staking a decent claim.

In the period of time when Kayal was out injured, we didn't do too badly without him - ignoring the month of December if we can here folks - however, what he's brought to the team since he made his brilliant return to first team action in the New Year's derby has proven why he's so valuable. I like to think of him as a kind of combination between Scott Brown and Ki - the drive, determination and passion of Broony combined with the terrific passing ability of Ki. And make no mistake about it, Kayal is also a very technically gifted player. Anyone who can play a cross field ball onto the chest of a midget like James Forrest, as Kayal did a few times on Wednesday night, clearly has some ability in the passing department.

Now, many would state the case for Emilio Izaguirre for player of the year, and he is another who it is difficult to argue against. Gary Hooper, too - where would we be without his goals? These two would not be easily replaced. However, in Charlie Mulgrew, we would have a ready made replacement for Izaguirre, albeit a less talented one, and we have a few forward thinking players who could chip in with the kind of goals Hooper's absence would require. We would be a poorer team without the pair of them, but we'd cope. However, I really feel that despite our abundance of options in midfield, we don't really have anyone who can influence the game and his teammates as Beram Kayal, and for this reason he would be my player of the season.

Why the German football model is the way forward

Ah, Germany. Land of hot dogs and...well, Germans. I can't really think of much else. How I envy them. "WHY!" I hear you cry. Well, sit back, dear reader, and I shall explain.

With news that Alisher Usmanov, an Uzbek, is attempting to increase his share in Arsenal to rival majority shareholder Stan Kroenke, an American, it's really hit home that no club is free from the grasp of foreign investors. Chelsea, Man City, United, Liverpool and several others have already seen their club bought out by foreign investors, making fans uneasy - see the ongoing Green and Gold protest at United, for example.

So, where does Germany come into play? Well, it's my view that the German model of football club ownership is one that we should all aspire to. The clubs, basically, are not run as businesses as such, but as sporting organisations which the fans are members of. The club members must own at least a 51% stake of the club. This means that no foreign owner can come in and automatically take control of the club, and that the club members generally always have the final say in the direction their club takes on issues. It means investment by those with an interest in the club can still take place, hence certain clubs being able to pay relatively large wages and transfer fees, but they will never be able to compete with the Man Cities and Chelseas of this world.

Club members are therefore understandably seen as vital to the ongoing success of the club and are treated less as customers and more as investors. It also means that revenue the clubs make is automatically put back into the club, and not used to line the pockets of a faceless Arabic millionaire. Clubs can therefore afford to set relatively low prices for match tickets, and add extra incentives. Schalke, for example, offer their fans bus transfers to and from the game included in the price of a match ticket. According to some figures I've pulled from the Bundesliga website, the average ticket price was just under 22 euros, the cheapest average price of all the major European leagues. Meanwhile, the average attendance was 41, 802 fans per game (both of these stats are from the 09-10 season). The average attendance was the highest in Europe, and with the number of people attending games sitting at 17.37 million fans over the course of the season, it doesn't take a genius to surmise that low ticket prices are a strong contributory factor.

Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that we should all follow their example. The fans must clearly have the best interests of the club at heart, if this model is to work. It could be argued that fans will encourage huge spending if it means the club will be successful in the league and in Europe, which could lead to huge future debt (further reading - Borussia Dortmund). Also, the German model is not without it's loopholes - teams like Hoffenheim, funded by a millionaire, Leipzeig, funded by Red Bull and others manage to attract significant investment that leaves other clubs trailing in their wake. It could be argued that this is the German equivalent of the rich Arabs, Indians and Russians ploughing their money into Premiership clubs. That is not to say they do not conform to the 51% club ownership rule - of course they do, or they would not be competing in their respective leagues - but they have managed to attract significant corporate investment which other clubs lack.

However - my final point. Is lacking investment a good thing? Youth development is now a key area in German football's overhaul. We saw from the German squad at the World Cup, stuffed full of young players like Ozil, Khedira, Muller and Boateng, that it is possible to play well with young, relatively untested players. It could be argued that they were perhaps the most skilful, entertaining team in South Africa - a far cry from the gritty, determined German teams of the past. The German FA invests £16.5m per year into youth player development, has created 366 grassroots football training centres nationwide that function using the infrastructure provided by local clubs that provide weekly two hour training sessions to 11-14 year olds delivered by an FA-approved and appointed coach, in addition to their training with their clubs. Leading on from that, there are a further 46 club academies and further education schools that have been designated football schools, which allow youth players to continue their education as they would at a normal school, combined with extra football coaching. This is vitally important, as it means players who may not eventually make it in the game have a sound educational grounding and are ideally placed to move on to University or the jobs market. Finally, national youth football teams have access to the same facilities and staff as the first team, which indoctrinates them into what is required at international level from an early age. Wolfgang Nierschbach, general secretary of the German FA, claims that this set up is to ensure that "no player with good potential shall be allowed to slip through the net."

I will leave you to draw your own conclusions as to whether this model should be replicated elsewhere. But one final thought - In Germany, they have terracing.

My thoughts on Diouf

El-Hadji Diouf. Never before have three words provoked such a gigantic backlash in Scotland. Well, aside from "fucking POLL TAX?!"

Now, I am a Celtic fan, but I am going to try and write as neutrally as possible. So firstly, let me outline Diouf's crime count as quickly as possible:

Motoring offences. Several. Unconfirmed reports that it was he who caused Princess Diana to crash in Paris.
Spitting offences. Many. Coca Cola are thinking of contacting him to use his saliva as their new bottled water following the forced withdrawal of Desani.
Racial abuse. Calling a boy "white." Sources state he was accurate, however ball boy takes offence.
Abusing cripples and encouraging fucking legs. A strange fetish.

Now, if there had just been one or two incidents of note, or it had merely been motoring offences, we could perhaps overlook it. However, Diouf's previous misdemeanors are extensive and troubling. Spitting on an 11 year old fan is particularly reprehensible, and I assume universally condemned by anyone with half a brain. I cannot deny, Celtic have signed players in the past with interesting back stories - Roy Keane being a prime example, however there is something particularly distasteful about Diouf - possibly the fact that his offences are so varied, or simply so numerous, that it seems he simply does not learn his lesson.

His signing represents a huge risk by Rangers. I actually (whisper it) have a lot of time for Walter Smith, despite his walking out on Scotland - were I Scotland manager and Celtic had come in for me, I would have acted in exactly the same way. Smith is a shrewd manager, he has managed troubled, yet talented players in the past, and obviously thinks he can encourage Diouf to keep his head down and showcase his undoubted talent. However, the question I ask is this - is Scottish football not in a poor enough state as it is, without allowing players such as this into our clubs? With supporters already under intense scrutiny, Old Firm games being a cauldron of hatred already, there is surely a higher than average chance that Diouf could respond in ways he has shown he is capable of in the past, and enrage fans further?

I hope I am wrong, and that he keeps his head down and sticks to the football. But I am of the opinion that a tiger never changes his stripes, and that his signing could be a huge step in the wrong direction for Rangers, the SPL and Scottish football as a whole.

Celtic, the SFA and incompetent officials.

Those of you with no more than a passing interest in the ongoings in Scottish football may not be fully aware of the apparent war being declared on the SFA by Celtic Football Club. This will be an attempt to clear up some issues, and throw in my own tuppenceworth on the current wave of complaints and perceived injustices.

Celtic fans have long been known as being paranoid. Whenever a decision goes against them, no matter how minimal, cries of "agenda!" and "bias!" are never far from the ears. Now, I use the word "they" rather than "us" because, as far as I'm aware, I'm one  of the least paranoid Celtic fans to ever walk the earth. I tend to lean towards the idea that officials are merely incompetent, rather than harbouring a more vicious and all-consuming grudge against my club.

To keep things basic, the main two issues Celtic fans bring up in an attempt to prove some sort of institutional bias against our club is firstly, back in the 60's, when the SFA tried to pass a rule against us flying an Irish tricolour at our stadium. This failed, however it was also seen as an attempt to rob Celtic of their heritage and an example of anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiments which were, let's face it, common in Britain at the time. Secondly, in the 90's, there was what will forever be known as the "Jim Farry affair." Farry, then Chief Executive of the SFA, was forced to resign his post after an independent tribunal showed that he deliberately delayed the registration of Celtic's Jorge Cadete, forcing him to miss the semi final of the Scottish Cup against Rangers, which Celtic went on to lose 2-1. Now, in the interests of fairness it must be shown that Farry didn't get on with Fergus McCann, Celtic's chairman at the time, and whilst he did deliberately not register Cadete in time for this game, it could merely have been due to a personal grudge rather than an underlying hatred of the club itself. However, Celtic fans don't see it that way, and have used this as evidence for their case that the paranoia they feel is justified.

Now, we reach the present day - and by that I mean I will be using examples from the last couple of seasons. Last night's inept display by referee Willie Collum is merely the latest in a long line of terrible refereeing displays in games involving Celtic. Collum himself has previous - in the first Old Firm game of this season, he awarded Rangers a penalty as a result of a dive by Kirk Broadfoot (interesting side note - this player was out injured for a spell last season after exploding an egg on his face), despite the fact Collum in fact had his back to the incident and could not possibly have had a clear view. Add this to the contentious decisions from Old Firm games last season - two penalties denied in the first game by Craig Thomson, who later apologised, a disallowed goal by Marc Antoine Fortune in the second game, and Scott Brown sent off for no apparent reason by Dougie McDonald in the third (don't you worry dear reader, we'll get to him later). It was this last decision which finally prompted Celtic Football Club to make a stand, stating that no "fair minded" individual would possibly have given that as a red card. Strong words indeed.

Dougie-gate, the Hugh Dallas affair and the refereeing strike have also occurred this season, merely adding fuel to the fire of the paranoid. Dougie McDonald, albeit eventually, resigned his post after admitting lying to Neil Lennon about an overturned penalty decision - he claimed to have been told by his linesman that the decision was the wrong one, which was later proven to be a lie after said linesman sold his story to a not-very-respected daily newspaper. The decision itself was the correct one, although there was a stonewall penalty directly before the incident which has since been so ignored you'd think it was a relative of Josef Fritzl, however the integrity of the officials was called into question. "My integrity has not been damaged!" claimed oor Doug. "But you lied!" replied everyone else with a better grasp of the English language, and Dougie was gone. The referees then went on strike, claiming they didn't like their integrity being called into question and their decisions being analysed. Clearly a better understanding of the nature of the Scottish game is required by these officials. Finally, what really set the cat amongst the pigeons was the Hugh Dallas affair, so brilliantly broken by the excellent journalist Phil MacGiollaBhain, in which it was discovered that Hugh Dallas, along with others, had been sending anti-Catholic emails around the SFA office. Dallas was promptly removed from his post, prompting scenes of great celebration in Bar 67 doon the Gallowgate.

And now, we have a war of words. Celtic, refusing to accept Neil Lennon's frankly ridiculous 6 match touchline ban, have stated they are involving their lawyers. The statement stopped short of calling the SFA biased, however there was clear intent. The SFA responded in kind, branding Celtic "tiresome." Celtic have since responded again, finding it "curious" that the SFA have chosen to respond in that manner. A war of words indeed.

You may draw your own conclusions, and this actually ended up much longer than it intended to. As one of those rarities, a non-paranoid Celtic fan, even I must admit that I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that Celtic are equally as hard done to as ot