Simon Jordan refuted Graeme Souness’ claim that major sponsors will be put off associating themselves with Celtic over a section of their support’s anti-monarchy stance and pointed to how Rangers have managed to rebuild their reputation after claiming the Ibrox club’s brand was “as toxic as it could get”.
Former Light Blues boss Souness claimed the actions of some of the fans in unveiling banners, and chanting, against the Queen during a Champions League clash in Poland and against St Mirren on Sunday will have caused commercial damage.
However, fellow talkSPORT pundit and former Crystal Palace owner Jordan hit back at that and believes Rangers are an example of why it won’t cause a lasting impact. Jordan pointed to the financial collapse of the club in 2012 and the controversy over the club’s use of EBTs under former owner David Murray. Rangers used the scheme to give millions of pounds worth of tax-free loans to former club staff, players and coaches – including Souness himself who later said he received it for doing scouting work while out of work.
But Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs argued they were salary payments and subject to tax. The subject came up during the discussion about Celtic and here is the exchange in full between the radio colleagues on host Jim White’s lunchtime show:
SJ: Graeme is probably a little bit idealistic about the idea that they won’t find commercial sponsors in the future because these are moments in time. And while they are unpalatable, and people are allowed dissenting voices and a different opinion, the tragedy is people use freedom of speech as an excuse for being abusive and disrespectful which isn’t the same. Having a freedom of speech doesn’t entitle you to run into a full building shouting ‘fire’ and being abusive about a monarch isn't the same as having freedom of speech. Celtic have missed a trick but do I think in the long term they’ll lose endorsements or brand sponsorships? No, I don’t because like everything in life they’re moments in time.
GS: You’re talking about the biggest brand of all – the Royal Family. And someone has come out and been so openly disrespectful to them at a time when the Queen has died..
SJ: I’m a realist and in the commercial world we live in then it’s dollars for doughnuts. The Rangers brand was as toxic as it could get. Everyone knows they were running EBTs and got themselves bounced out of the league.
GS: You’re moving off what we’re talking about which is far bigger issues.
SJ: We’re talking about toxic brands. If you’re a commercial sponsor and you see yourself aligned to a brand that’s not particularly fulfilling the values of football, and sporting merit and achievement and value and aspiration then you will distance yourself but Rangers have reclaimed their space among the elite and are a club would seek to endorse. And Celtic will go past this. It’s not a view they haven’t held before. It’s a tragedy a minority of their imbecilic fans felt the necessity to be able to do this at this particular time but it’s not a view we haven’t heard before from them. But it’s unfathomable why Celtic and its leadership would not want to say something about the minority of fans that did something that most people would find unacceptable, unnecessary, unpalatable and diminishing of a football club’s profile and reputation. They must have their reasons and I wonder if former chief executives would have operated differently.
GS: Celtic have millions of supporters worldwide. It’s a gigantic football club by anyone’s measure.
READ NEXT
