Online row after Celtic chief Peter Lawwell states:...

[ian1964 10,622]

...I do not accept Irish republicanism is anywhere in club's history.

 

SOME Celtic fans took issue with Hoops chief Lawwell's comments today after he responded to a question about fans who fear identifying with Irish republicanism could become a criminal offence.

 

CELTIC chief executive Peter Lawwell moved to distance the club from Irish republicanism today, sparking a huge Twitter debate.

 

During a new kit deal launch, Lawwell was asked by a broadcast journalist about supporters who fear identifying with Irish republicanism could become a criminal offence.

 

He replied: “I do not accept that Irish republicanism is anywhere in Celtic history.

 

“I do not recognise Celtic being associated with sectarianism.

 

“I do not recognise Celtic being associated with Irish republicanism.

 

“This is a club since 1888 has welcomed everyone and has been diverse and open to all.”

 

Songs which glorify the IRA have been largely stamped out in recent years but a minority still sing offensive songs at away matches.

 

Lawwell said: “We have a small minority of people who have chants we’d rather not be here.

 

“But whether they wish to have an Irish republican identity is another matter.

 

“It is a complicated issue.

 

“People who promote prescribed terrorist organisations will not be welcome at Celtic Park.

 

“That has been the case forever and will always be the case.

 

“But you need to put this into a context – this is a very, very small minority.”

 

Lawwell was speaking as the Scottish champions announced a five-year kit deal with sportswear firm New Balance thought to be worth £30million.

 

But some Hoops fans took to Twitter to take issue with his comments.

 

Some pointed out that the first sod of turf at Celtic Park was laid by Michael Davitt, a cerebrated Irish republican, in 1892.

 

@TomSelleckCSC posted: “Peter Lawwell has just airbrushed Celtic’s history.”

 

Patrick_Toner posted: “@Irish republicanism is intertwined with Celtic’s history. No matter how much Peter Lawwell or any other suit tries to deny it, it’s fact.”

 

And @CelticGossip tweeted: “No idea why lawwell came out with such a stupid statement but he obviously does not know the history of Celtics founding fathers.”

 

@celticbhoy32 attempted to defuse the row by tweeting: “I’ve been very critical of Lawwell in the past but people would need to seriously relax over a question, we have a treble to win.”

 

A Celtic spokesman said tonight: “Peter Lawwell is well aware & proud of Celtic’s history and the club’s Irish roots. To clarify any misunderstanding, Peter’s comments related to the longstanding position of the Club.

 

“People who promote proscribed terrorist organisations are not welcome at Celtic.”

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/online-row-after-celtic-chief-5281749

[barca72 440]

Why do I never see a Scottish saltire or a Union Jack at that ground? Does Liewell take us for fools?

[Laudbertz 0]

'Do not recognise' association with sectarianism?

What the hell does that mean, turns a blind eye? Strangly worded.

[Juancornetto 1]

Weasel words when he has a player on the books who's had a long personal association with the IRA and who has attended fundraisers and funerals of terrorists. Does he think we're all stupid?

[der Berliner 3,562]

“I do not accept that Irish republicanism is anywhere in Celtic history.

 

“I do not recognise Celtic being associated with sectarianism.

 

“I do not recognise Celtic being associated with Irish republicanism.

 

“This is a club since 1888 has welcomed everyone and has been diverse and open to all.”

 

Songs which glorify the IRA have been largely stamped out in recent years but a minority still sing offensive songs at away matches.

 

There is reason why people say that those up in Parkhead and Lennoxtown live in their very own universe.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

There is reason why people say that those up in Parkhead and Lennoxtown live in their very own universe.

 

One reason why those of us in Milton of Campsie are fighting to retain the greenbelt beteen us and Lennoxtown

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Who cares what Mr Lawwell thinks about Celtic's history.

 

This is a Rangers Forum; we should be concerned about putting our own house in order and leave Celtic to live in theirs.

[der Berliner 3,562]

Who cares what Mr Lawwell thinks about Celtic's history.

 

This is a Rangers Forum; we should be concerned about putting our own house in order and leave Celtic to live in theirs.

 

While you are right, we have a Rangers board to discuss Rangers and this board to discuss the rest of football. For years we have neglected our communication with the rest of Scotland, media and society alike. The Yahoos did not and we ended up with their definition of what is acceptable and sectarian and bigotted. It has become a one way agenda which you can see nigh every day since roundabout 2007. In exposing them and their constant lies and brainwashing we also make a case for Rangers and how they should be perceived. As long as others tell us what we do and think, people will object and speak up.

Edited March 6, 2015 by der Berliner

[ian1964 10,622]

Who cares what Mr Lawwell thinks about Celtic's history.

 

This is a Rangers Forum; we should be concerned about putting our own house in order and leave Celtic to live in theirs.

 

You obviously care enough to post in a thread about his thoughts!, and this happens to be a general football thread hence why it is not posted in the Rangers chat!,stupid post.

Edited March 6, 2015 by ian1964

[craig 5,199]

30 million for a kit sponsor from New Balance ? My arse. No way are they getting 6 million a year from New Balance. They just think of a number and stick it in an article.

 

What will happen to the Nike swoosh they have on the seats at Parkhead ?

 

If they can get 30 million for a 5 yr kit deal it wont be that long (get rid of the SD shite) before we are signing 50 million kit deals