JPP: Perverting Justice?

ByAuldheid

JPP: Perverting Justice?

The SFA’s Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal (JPDT) process itself  is now under scrutiny .

Aberdeen FC have asked for change and the Celtic Supporters Association  have written to Ian Maxwell SFA CEO expressing concerns about judgements reached concerning recent on field incidents that appear to herald in A Cloggers Charter.

However the whole Judicial Panel Protocol (JPP) on which the JPDT is based (and which was the brainchild of the discredited former SFA Chief Executive Stewart Regan) has shown itself to be a means of perverting justice rather than providing it since it was introduced amidst a loud fanfare at the SFA AGM in June 2011 (the same one that saw Campbell Ogilvie elected SFA President)

To see how the JPP  has been misused  we need to start with a definition of  judicial which according to Websters dictionary is:

 of or relating to a judgment, the function of judging, the administration of justice

The latest Judicial Panel Protocol can be found on the SFA Web Site  .

One of its Founding Principles is:

2.2 Principle 1 – Economic and expeditious justice. The objective of the Protocol is to secure the Determination of disciplinary proceedings arising in respect of Association Football and that Decisions are made economically and expeditiously in a fair manner. Tribunals appointed from the Judicial Panel may impose reasonable procedural requirements on Parties to ensure that matters are dealt with economically and expeditiously.

The word justice actually appears nine times and injustice three times, so it would appear that whilst economy and speed are the means to the end, that end is justice, but how has that panned out since June 2011?

I am grateful here to Glasnostandtwostrickers  for three enlightening articles in Pie and Bovril in which he reviews the protocol a year later in 2012 with suggestions that with the passage of time have been shown to be prescient when made. They can be read at:

Of particular interest is the important view that the process is not independent of the SFA and the following is an extract from Pie and Bovril 3 covering that aspect which explains how the JPP has been used by the SFA to pervert rather than administer justice.

“So to what extent does the JPP system achieve that independence? We think that it does so to a far greater extent than the old system, but not nearly enough. Ensuring that the Tribunals are chaired by respected members of the legal profession was perhaps the single most important reform to make. But there remains a serious lack of independence in the JPP system. This centres on the roles of the SFA’s Compliance Officer (Vincent Lunny) and the SFA Secretary (Stewart Regan) in the process of bringing a case in front of a Tribunal.

The Compliance Officer’s task is to monitor what goes on in Scottish football, assess whether anyone has broken any rules, and – if so – to initiate the disciplinary process.  What happens if the Compliance Officer reviews a given event and decides that the conduct of the club, player or official in question doesn’t breach any rules? Well, that is the end of the matter. Neither the SFA executive nor the Judicial Panel can do anything about that decision. And, given that some SFA rules are very vague (e.g. ‘bringing the game into disrepute), the Compliance Officer wields a great deal of power. If the system is to be independent of the SFA, it the Compliance Officer must be independent of it. Yet, as things stand today, Vincent Lunny is an employee of the SFA.

The lack of independence associated with the SFA Secretary’s role is even more flagrant. Firstly, he can veto any decision of the Compliance Officer to mount a disciplinary case. Secondly, even if he allows a case to go ahead, he has the power to select (from the 100-strong Judicial Panel) the 3 individuals who will hear the case. The SFA claims that this takes place on a ‘cab rank’ basis (i.e. the Tribunal is formed of next 3 people in line), but no such rule is to be found in the JPP. On the contrary, it states that:

“Tribunals shall be appointed by the Secretary or his nominee from the Judicial Panel…The Secretary or his nominee may take such steps in respect of the appointment of Tribunals as he considers, in his sole discretion, to be appropriate.” (sections 7.2.1-2)

This applies equally to the Appellate Tribunals as it does to the first-instance Disciplinary Tribunals. So, in theory at least, the SFA Secretary gets two bites of the cherry. He may appoint to a Disciplinary Tribunal the individuals who he thinks are most likely to return the result that he desires. If they don’t, and there is an appeal, he also gets to choose the make-up of the Appellate Tribunal that will hear the appeal. And that’s only if he hasn’t blocked the case from happening in the first place. That is not to impugne Stewart Regan himself, but rather a system that allows him (and his successors) such great power.

The reasons why the JPP is structured in the way that it is are unclear. Despite the fact that it represents a great improvement over the system it replaced, more work must be done if we Scottish football is to have a genuinely independent – and therefore credible – system of footballing ‘justice’.


This  article however will let the readers decide if they impugn Stewart Regan and shows how he has used the Judicial Protocol not to deliver justice but to prevent such an outcome,  which might just clarify the reason  why the JPP was structured in the way that it was and why it absolutely must be replaced on the lines of the suggestions in the excellent Pie and Bovril articles.

Perverting the Course of Justice.

The Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal on Craig Whyte – Bringing The Game Into Disrepute.

The First instance can be found in  this E Tim’s article  where Regan and LNS met in February 2012 to set the terms of reference for the Judicial Panel that charged Craig Whyte with bringing the game into disrepute.(  Telegraph Report 21 Feb 2012 )

As the E Tim’s article shows, whilst Whyte was charged with non payment of PAYE and VAT no charges were made with regard to his failure to pay the £2.8m tax liability that CW undertook to pay in his statement to Rangers shareholders of June 2011. This omission prevented scrutiny of what lay behind that liability, what created it and why it was accepted by RFC in March 2011 and  how  the SFA were able to grant RFC a UEFA licence in April 2011.

Whatever information Regan had from his telephone conversation with Andrew Dickson  on 6th December 2011  and subsequent meeting at Hotel Du Vin with Craig Whyte along with Campbell Ogilvie and RFC CEO Ali Russell, appears not to have been passed to Lord Nimmo Smith in February 2012 when Regan and Nimmo Smith were drawing up the JPP Terms of Reference for the Craig Whyte Tribunal.

The Lord Nimmo Smith Commission

The second instance of Regan’s ability to shape outcomes  is in respect of the LNS Commission. Here the SFA stood aside on the grounds they were the Court of Appeal should RFC wish to appeal the eventual LNS Decision and let the then SPL take the running in March 2012. This was a convenient argument given that Regan knew by March 2012 that RFC had a £2.8m tax liability that Sherriff Officers had called to collect that prompted a number of enquiries asking how the SFA were able to grant a UEFA licence in March/April of 2011.

That event caused UEFA and the SFA in September 2011 to discuss the submission RFC made in June 2011 under Article 66 of UEFA FFP that described the status of the liability as postponed and awaiting scheduling of payments but more of this SFA/UEFA discussion later in the context of the current JPDT  charges of non compliance against Rangers FC.

It is inconceivable that by March 2012 when the investigation into ebts and side letters began that this  September 2011 discussion along with his conversations in December 2011 that  Regan was unaware that the tax owed was the result of RFC use of unlawful ebts nor the reasons why RFC had accepted liability for the sum owed arising from their use. However by standing aside there was no specific mention in  the SPL Lawyers letter of 15  March 2012   that began the investigation  of the by then clearly unlawful ebts that caused the £2.8m tax liability, although it did refer to all ebts with side letters from 1998.   All rather convenient for Regan under the powers the Judicial Panel  Protocol gave him.

The impact of this exclusion in skewing the LNS Terms of Reference and so the LNS Decision is now a matter of Social Media record that can be followed from beginning to end  HERE.

The E Tim’s article already mentioned covers how events from February to April 2012  allowed the exclusion from the Craig Whyte JPP and  The Reasons  given by Lord Nimmo Smith in September 2012 appear in a  follow up E Tim’s article   where LNS himself justifies  the exclusion of the £2.8m tax liability caused by RFC’s use of unlawful ebts in from 1999 to 2003 on what are less than convincing grounds unless he was kept in the dark by Regan.

 SFA JPP Charges In Respect of UEFA Licence in 2011

The final instance of the misuse of the JPP begins in September 2017 when after court testimony stating when the £2.8m tax liability was accepted, the SFA, whilst rejecting an investigation into the handling of RFC use of ebts with side letters (and the foregoing on LNS spells out why) Regan accepted that the granting  of the UEFA Licence by the SFA in 2011 should be subject to the Judicial Protocol process.

It took until mid-May 2018  for that process to come up with two charges of non compliance of SFA Articles by RFC that were put to TRFC presumably on the basis that they were responsible for the events in 2011, particularly when at least three current TRFC officials/Directors were in place in 2011, charges which TRFC said they would contest and subsequently in July wanted CAS involvement on grounds that the secret 5 Way Agreement requires it but on scope that that have still to be made known as the parties  negotiate the terms of reference to CAS.

Now seven plus months is a long time to finally arrive at charges that according to a TRFC statement in May 2018 in this BBC report excluded the very period at end of March 2011 stating accusations were groundless, that caused the SFA to invoke the JPP process, but what is interesting about those charges is the absence (and as Regan left in February he might not have had an influence or was his parting shot), of any charges against the SFA itself of aiding RFC noncompliance at end of March  in September 2011. The Compliance Officer himself resigned not long after the charges of non- compliance were made which raises eyebrows higher than Roger Moore level.

Perhaps it was because of possible SFA complicity in September 2011 that the Compliance Officer agreed to exclude this end March period although that exclusion was challenged by Resolution 12 lawyers just before the SFA Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal (JPDT) sat on 25th June. No answers to the evidence backed questions in that letter, copied to Celtic, have so far been provided.

So what are the SFA hiding from or behind the JPP process this time?

Here is a copy of the Good News  e mail of 19th September 2011 between Keith Sharp the UEFA FFP man at the SFA and Ken Olverman the Financial chap at RFC. In it Sharp tells Olverman that UEFA have verbally accepted the RFC submission of June 2011 under Article 66. (This admitted that the 2.8m EBT proposed settlement also required to be disclosed but is shown as a status of postponed (awaiting scheduling of payments)  but that a further declaration will be needed under Article 67. This can be read here but note the Comments were not part of original exchange.

Note the tone of the advice given about the Article 67 submission but the point is, either Sharp of the SFA told UEFA porkies to get the monitoring submission under Article 66, that itself was false at the time it was made, verbally accepted or told UEFA the truth and as RFC were out of Europe there was an agreement to bury it between SFA and UEFA.

That UEFA involvement if the latter instance, would explain Celtic’s reluctance to take Res12 to UEFA in 2013 especially as we don’t know UEFA’s response to Celtic’s earlier  letter  of May 2012 to SFA re ebt investigation copied to Infantino at UEFA.

If the former instance i.e. SFA told UEFA porkies it makes SFA complicit in covering up the non compliance they are charging Rangers with!

I mention this in the context of the SFA Judicial Process being totally  inappropriate in this case and why there should be  a speedy independent investigation because the charges of non-compliance that the JPDT are covering relate to RFC and NOT the SFA which is perhaps why the terms of reference to CAS are taking so long to emerge.

There is clearly a conflict of SFA self interest here.

It would be more than ironic if the organisation bringing charges against Rangers were in fact complicit in the non-compliance by Rangers after it became public HMRC were owed tax in August 2010!

Summary

The point of this long blog is that the Judicial Panel Protocol introduced by Regan in June 2011 with the flaws pointed out a year later in The Pie and Bovril articles has been used by the SFA under Regan not to produce justice but pervert it since 2011.

Only a truly independent investigation will provide the justice that the crimes perpetrated against Scottish Football and its supporters since 2000 by RFC under the dishonest leadership of Sir David Murray requires, an investigation that should recommend changes that make the JPP independent of the SFA..

Justice is there to uphold the rule of law, that applies to football law as much as natural law and without justice there can be no law. That is where Scottish football now exists, in outlaw territory with the bad guys still ruling as they please, not as justice demands.

Until justice is served and seen to be served there is no law in football and no fake Judicial Protocol Panel is ever going to provide it.

 The owners and Directors of all SPFL clubs need to revisit the scene of the crime, the 5 Way Agreement has done its  job, a form of Rangers drawing big crowds will continue to exist, but on it has to be on more honest grounds, where who knows, they might even earn redemption.

About the author

Auldheid author

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

972 Comments so far

scottcPosted on6:30 pm - Oct 3, 2018


naegreetin 3rd October 2018 at 11:38  

By the way , does anyone know where Regan ended up ?

 

He started a consulting company. Not sure exactly what he is consulting on though. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on6:33 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Yes, a very long day in Court!

I have 31 sheets of scrawled notes of the stuff that I could follow, and for long periods my pen was still when I lost the thread of the points being made!

I will by and by type them up for my own  purposes, and maybe post just some extracts that might show  how the hell it took all day to get through stuff, the total content of which eJ masterfully summarised in nine or ten short paragraphs.

( At the very end, when no one could remind Lady Woolffe ,when she asked,on which date  the 'Proof' hearing had been set for, both ej and I felt like shouting out the answer! )

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on6:44 pm - Oct 3, 2018


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45739578

Of course the big question now is who decides how long the grass will be.

View Comment

tearsofjoyPosted on6:49 pm - Oct 3, 2018


With fans of all sides (other than Rangers, as thing stand) currently having strong grounds to complain about where their game is to be played; and for want of the capacity of our governing bodies to have anticipated this shambles, or to be able to come up with a mutually acceptable compromise solution, the only fair option is to ballot in order to determine venues.

***********************************************

Hearts have never complained about playing at Hampden and it did not feature in their "astonishment" at the proposed farce. This was about the timing of the KO – unprecedented in its timing and inconvenience factor. 

I was "astonished" that SPFL/SFA/Hampden thought it more important to hide behind a contractual clause for this ludicrous proposal. The OF clubs didn't question it – why should thy , they are both playing what is effectively a "home" fixture. But to suggest there should be some kind of ballot is effectively saying what we all know : it's all being dictated by and for the OF.  For Celtic to say HMFC somehow has an advantage at Murrayfield is utter nonsense and completely disingenuous. Not only that , if Celtic TRULY believe that to be the case ,then it is abundantly clear that Celtic have enjoyed the very same advantage every time they've played at Hampden. Talk about hypocrisy !

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:51 pm - Oct 3, 2018


easyJambo 3rd October 2018 at 18:30

 

Thanks Easy, I did think that might be the case, though the Scotsman's earlier report (covering Mr Mitchell's speech only) seemed to suggest that King's 'intention', ie was it deliberately contemptuous, was all that mattered at today's hearing. 

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:51 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Allyjambo 3rd October 2018 at 18:11  

===============================

In my view where Celtic have played previously is a separate point to their concerns over this issue. What we have ended up with is:

1. Hearts have had some of their concerns addressed.

2. Aberdeen have had some of their concerns addressed.

3. Rangers have never been inconvenienced at any time.

4. Celtic are the only club who have been left unhappy.

It is no surprise to me that this has happened. I also believe if Hearts were playing Rangers they would be travelling to Hampden whether they liked it or not. 

 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:52 pm - Oct 3, 2018


It looks like if you are first out the hat(that through history is recognised as the home team). Don't know how it is perceived  if the game is to be played at a neutral venue.

You are drawn out the hat first and are the cup holders.Under SPFL watch pack your bags you are playing away

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:10 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Jean and Jimbo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykHAwUhjjGE

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:27 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Club urged SFA not to help Rangers in 2008, says George Peat. ………….. I wonder if years down the line we may see. "The prominent club asked me not to help celtic and I did not refused," (insert name)told BBC Scotland. You never know in this crazy scottish football world.enlightenedenlightenedenlightenedno

View Comment

BallyargusPosted on7:27 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Allyjambo 3rd October 2018 at 18:11  

Dunderheid 3rd October 2018 at 17:27

Dunderheid, I wasn't referring to your post in particular, or any post, but the general belief amongst Celtic supporters, and apparently the club, that they are being hard done by to be the club that has to change venue (if that is, indeed, the case). The simple fact is that Celtic have enjoyed far more semi-final and final matches at Hampden than any other football club, and it is doubtful they have ever had to leave Glasgow to play such a match in their whole history. For once in some 140 years, they might have to travel outside of their comfort zone, just once, and probably will never have to again. While once, just once, Hearts might play against Celtic in a cup semi at a venue that gives them that small advantage, while their supporters enjoy the match without travel arrangements to worry about.

I don't think that the complaints by Celtic and its supporters are based on the simple fact that they have to travel, as you put it, outside their comfort zone. It has more to do with the secrecy behind the decision. There have been no explanations given why the Celtic v Hearts tie is the one to move from Hampden. If there is a good reason then fair enough, but what is it? Why has no consideration given to moving the other tie? It's all this secrecy surrounding the SFA that gets people's goat and why this blog exists.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:30 pm - Oct 3, 2018


tearsofjoy 3rd October 2018 at 17:08  

SOME Glasgow teams ! We had to play the Ramsden Cup final (quiet at the back !)  in Livingston . On a Sunday . Somebody had rolled up the streets . sad

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:34 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Celtic statement

http://www.celticfc.net/news/15055

FOLLOWING today’s SPFL Board meeting, at which it was decided that Celtic’s Betfred League Cup semi-final against Hearts will now take place at Murrayfield Stadium in Edinburgh on Sunday, October 28, with the other semi-final between Rangers and Aberdeen being held at Hampden later the same day, Celtic Football Club has released the following statement.

The SPFL Board’s decision not to hold a ballot to decide the venues of the forthcoming semi-final matches is both irrational and discriminatory.

Celtic recognised there was a genuinely difficult problem to resolve. All we asked for was equity of treatment – in other words, a simple ballot of which game went to which venue, so that all clubs would have a 50-50 chance of playing at Hampden.

We understand that those bodies consulted, including the police and broadcasters, had no preference whatsoever on which match should take place at each venue and, therefore, there was only one appropriate method of reaching a fair outcome.

The SPFL Board have been unable to produce logic or reason for turning down our modest request. Instead, they have arbitrarily decided that a chosen game should stay at Hampden and the other should go to Murrayfield.

The interests of our club and supporters have been subordinated to a diktat from the SPFL board which is as unfair as it was unnecessary.

Celtic Chief Executive Peter Lawwell was excused from the SPFL board meeting due to the subject under discussion.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:44 pm - Oct 3, 2018


I meant to add that QoS fans had a longer journey , but they won so it doesn't matter .

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:44 pm - Oct 3, 2018


What's the purpose of the CFC statement?

The club is criticising the SPFL.

As we all know, the SPFL – and SFA – in effect ARE the 42 senior clubs themselves.

But Lawwell recused himself from the meeting: big deal.

Reads like a soft statement to appease the fans – and point at the SPFL.

Would rather see some affirmative action being taken: to actually FORCE improvements to the decision making processes at Hampden… in the interest of all Scottish football fans.

This semi fixtures shambles is just the latest in a long, long line of shambles emanating from Hampden

Nobody seems to be learning from their mistakes.

Lawwell could/should be more assertive, IMHO.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on7:56 pm - Oct 3, 2018


All the SPFL has to do is explain why they came to their decision, then no one – fans, PL – can accuse them of 'irrational ' decisions. The fact they haven't suggests either they haven't made a logical decision or they're so used to not communicating that they've just done their usual.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on7:57 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Cluster One 3rd October 2018 at 19:10  

Thanks pallaugh

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:00 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Oops, "affirmative action" should be "disruptive,direct action".

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on8:01 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Re the Celtic statement, I have already provided the likely reason for moving the Celtic/Hearts game to Murrayfield in my post at 10.51 this morning. It might be inconvenient to the majority on here who are spitting the dummy out over a perceived injustice that only they can see.

Presumably based on the fact that if the Hearts/Celtic game was played in Edinburgh, only two sets of fans would have to travel (Aberdeen and Celtic). If instead the Aberdeen/Rangers game was played in Edinburgh, three sets of fans would have to travel (Aberdeen, Rangers and Hearts).

 

While I'm here, can I just point out that Hearts and Aberdeen are already assisting Celtic and Rangers by not insisting on playing the semi-finals, or at least one of them, on Saturday 27th.  Both these 'Glasgow giants' have spent large parts of the past 140 years buying players from clubs like Hearts and Aberdeen then leaving them to rot on the bench purely to weaken the opposition, so it follows that the 'Glasgow giants' should have a sufficiently large and capable squad to take care of clubs who are not accustomed to having everything handed to them on a plate by the football authorities.

Brendan Rodgers is whinging about Murrayfield not being a neutral venue but has stayed remarkably silent on the subject of neutral venues as his team won a succession of trophies at non-neutral Hampden in the past few years. Then he complains that he's never even been to Murrayfield, but has no similar concerns for those Hearts players who have never been to Hampden or Murrayfield.

I fully understand why Celtic and their fans think they're not paranoid enough on other matters, but I'm afraid in this case they're suffering from nothing less than a severe case of the type of entitlement normally associated with the Ibrox club. 

View Comment

naegreetinPosted on8:04 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Re Cup Semi Final Locations

Dundee United in 2014 had to play an FA Cup Semi Final vs Rangers @ Ibrox ! (Parkhead & Hampden were unavailable due to the Commonwealth games) – no alternative venue was offered & United were assured by the SFA that The Rangers hadn't received an advantage playing a "home" match (United only got 15,000 tickets allocated from memory) – that turned out to be true , United won 3-1 but there was very little support from the SFA (the organisers) re the venue location for a major tournament semi-final .

View Comment

erniePosted on8:04 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Upthehoops.  Not wishing to argue but, just to clarify, you need to adjust your four part synopsis. Aberdeen are never satisfied with an arrangement that dictates that when we play TRFC/Celtic in semis or finals we are the away team and they the home.  It's just that that is the way it is and we have to deal with it. We never get a draw to have the chance of staging the game at a "neutral" location either for that matter although I fully support that as a proposal.

 

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:21 pm - Oct 3, 2018


ernie 3rd October 2018 at 20:04  

Upthehoops.  Not wishing to argue but, just to clarify, you need to adjust your four part synopsis. Aberdeen are never satisfied with an arrangement that dictates that when we play TRFC/Celtic in semis or finals we are the away team and they the home.  It's just that that is the way it is and we have to deal with it. We never get a draw to have the chance of staging the game at a "neutral" location either for that matter although I fully support that as a proposal.

——————————————————-

Ernie, I fully get all the points you and others are making about how historically your teams have always had to travel to Glasgow.  However I think that is separate to what has gone on here.  Celtic's statement tonight only re-affirms my view that Rangers playing at Hampden was sacrosanct and never up for grabs.  All Celtic wanted was a fair way of deciding who played where. If, as they say, neither the Police or BT forced the issue either way, then the SPFL need to properly explain their decision. 

View Comment

shugPosted on8:40 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Surely as Celtic were first out of the hat so to speak that should be the game played at hampdump and Aberdeen v sevco to Murrayfield common sense really.

Belated Birthday wishes to Jimbo.

View Comment

Higgy’s ShoesPosted on8:47 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Re: Rodgers comments about Murrayfield not being a neutral venue because Hearts played there last season.

 

Of the current side I  make it that only John Soutter & Michael Smith have played at Murrayfield.

 

Hardly the home advantage that Rodgers is implying.

HS

View Comment

Higgy’s ShoesPosted on8:56 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Not even sure if Soutter would have played. He may have still been out after his long term injury.

 

So, possibly 1 player

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:58 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Did anyone from Murrayfield have a say in which two teams they would rather play at their stadium?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:05 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Ballyargus 3rd October 2018 at 19:27 Allyjambo 3rd October 2018 at 18:11 Dunderheid 3rd October 2018 at 17:27 Dunderheid, I wasn't referring to your post in particular, or any post, but the general belief amongst Celtic supporters, and apparently the club, that they are being hard done by to be the club that has to change venue (if that is, indeed, the case). The simple fact is that Celtic have enjoyed far more semi-final and final matches at Hampden than any other football club, and it is doubtful they have ever had to leave Glasgow to play such a match in their whole history. For once in some 140 years, they might have to travel outside of their comfort zone, just once, and probably will never have to again. While once, just once, Hearts might play against Celtic in a cup semi at a venue that gives them that small advantage, while their supporters enjoy the match without travel arrangements to worry about. I don't think that the complaints by Celtic and its supporters are based on the simple fact that they have to travel, as you put it, outside their comfort zone. It has more to do with the secrecy behind the decision. There have been no explanations given why the Celtic v Hearts tie is the one to move from Hampden. If there is a good reason then fair enough, but what is it? Why has no consideration given to moving the other tie? It's all this secrecy surrounding the SFA that gets people's goat and why this blog exists.

_______________-

 

And yet the TRFC supporters aren't angry at the secrecy surrounding the decision (that hasn't, as far as I'm aware, been made yet). Of course, they probably would be complaining loud and clear if it was they who were expecting to be travelling along the M8 to watch their semi. But do you think the Celtic supporters would be bothered about the secrecy if their match wasn't the one expected to be changing venue?

 

While I am sure there would have been no complaint if this ludicrous situation hadn't arisen, and Celtic had been drawn to travel to Edinburgh, I suspect the complaints have got more to do with TRFC getting the Hampden match than anything else as another example of favouritism towards Ibrox clubs, but my point isn't about the fairness of this possible decision, but about the inability to, just for once, accept without complaint what it is like, and always has been like, for every other club based outside of Glasgow.

 

By the way, are there any complaints from Aberdeen or their supporters, who would, I am sure, prefer to play at Murrayfield – if for no other reason than it takes TRFC out of their comfort zone? Is the secrecy bothering them?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:19 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Higgy's Shoes 3rd October 2018 at 20:47  

 

 

Re: Rodgers comments about Murrayfield not being a neutral venue because Hearts played there last season.

 

Of the current side I  make it that only John Soutter & Michael Smith have played at Murrayfield.

 

Hardly the home advantage that Rodgers is implying.

______________

 

Rodgers is obviously unaware that Celtic played a whole season at Hampden before winning the Scottish Cup there, and no sign of only being concerned about the 'secrecy' involved in that statement! I don't suppose he's disappointed that his club's supporters won't outnumber the opposition by around two to one as was quite likely with the original venue and kick-off time.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:21 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Interesting to see on Twitter that journalists who have demanded transparency and explanations from the SPFL for days on end are now ridiculing Celtic for demanding the same. That good old Dunkirk spirit that has existed for days as they lined up in sympathy with the good old Jambos and the dandy Dons has predictably disappeared. 

Twas ever thus.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:25 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Cluster One 3rd October 2018 at 20:58 Did anyone from Murrayfield have a say in which two teams they would rather play at their stadium? __________________

 

Good point, and the police might have wanted a say in it too, though if this was, indeed, a consideration, it maybe throws some light on the desire for secrecy over the decision.

View Comment

Kilgore TroutPosted on9:27 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Cluster One @ 20:58

It is my view that you are bang on the money there.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:30 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Allyjambo 3rd October 2018 at 21:05  

=========================

Are you suggesting that possible secrecy which may have favoured Rangers is okay simply because Celtic always previously played these games in Glasgow? It's two separate issues. All of this could have been avoided had a fair ballot been made, but for some secret reason the SPFL don't want to do that. 

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on9:53 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Have to say I’m with Highlander on this one. In a football sense it makes no difference where the match is played. The SPFL may well be playing tinpot dictator here, but is it worth creating a storm about it? Especially in view of Celtic’s indifference to ACTUAL discriminatory matters related to ignoring unregistered player participation & unlawful financial doping, and toward SFA being complicit in dodgy licence applications.
Definitely NOT a hill to die on.

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on10:01 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Never seen up the hoops this raging in the evening angry

 

Personally I wouldve been happier to go to Murrayfield and a 4.30 kick off which will mean drink will be taken us not ideal either. 

At least the Scottish footballing governors have been shown up a bit for the incompetent clowns that they are.

 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:03 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Allyjambo 3rd October 2018 at 21:19  

Gordon, Lustig, Izaguirre, McGregor, Forrest, Bitton and Griffiths all played at Murrayfield in Celtic's Champions League qualifiers in season 2014/15.

SPLstats @SPLstats
Celtic will play a domestic cup semi-final outside of Glasgow for the first time since 1926, when they beat Aberdeen 2-1 at Tynecastle in the Scottish Cup.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on10:04 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Agree BP. We're getting caught up in that when the bigger issue now is that Doncaster has put himself in a vulnerable position by having to backtrack on his intransigent position. How can we go after him?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:06 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Allyjambo 3rd October 2018 at 21:25
2 1 Rate This

Cluster One 3rd October 2018 at 20:58 Did anyone from Murrayfield have a say in which two teams they would rather play at their stadium? __________________

Good point, and the police might have wanted a say in it too, though if this was, indeed, a consideration, it maybe throws some light on the desire for secrecy over the decision.
…………………………
Given that celtic were drawn out first, current cup holders. will be playing away in europe,and a later kick off time at Hampden would have been helpful.
Was it a we will take celtic v Hearts or nothing and that is why it looks as if the SPFL are not being helpful to celtics cause.ND had no other choice, was it a we will take celtic v hearts or nothing?

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on10:22 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Most of us on here can remember the days when semi finals were played at Tynecastle, Dens, etc, and the other played at Hampden.

There were justifiable complaints that the victorious team at Hampden had an unfair advantage going into the final.

This resulted in a decision to have both finals played there. Fair enough so far?

So, what happened now is that the SPFLpainted themselves into a corner, by not anticipating the Europa factor, thereby negating the Saturday option.

In an attempt to square the circle they produced their two games at Hampden in one day fudge.

If you accept the principle of four teams having the advantage of playing at Hampden and accepting that it is not feasible to so do, then you have to accept that a ballot to decide is the fairest way to decide. Yes?

View Comment

Crichton_BluePosted on10:42 pm - Oct 3, 2018


“A fair ballot”

I’m of the view that a fair ballot has already taken place. It was called the League Cup semi final draw. The first game drawn was scheduled for Saturday and the second game drawn scheduled for Sunday. If none of the semi finalists were involved in Europa cup then this is what would have happened. Since TRFC and CFC are involved it is reasonable that they should not have to play on the Saturday. Celtic have been drawn to play on the Saturday and it is this game that is being rescheduled to Sunday at a suitable neutral stadium.

View Comment

erniePosted on10:51 pm - Oct 3, 2018


Seed TRFC and Celtic in the cups.  They enter the competition and meet in one semi at Hampden on a predetermined Sunday at 3pm.  Absolute sellout and tv gold.  Other semi between whoever makes the grade can be anywhere, final at Hampden.  Diddy team guaranteed to be in final, everyone's happy, job done.

 

 

View Comment

BallyargusPosted on11:18 pm - Oct 3, 2018


It is ever so in football matters that when push comes to shove supporters back whatever suits their club. All Celtic asked was for an open and clear reason for who goes to Hampden and who to Murrayfield.

Allyjambo 3rd October 2018 at 21:05  While I am sure there would have been no complaint if this ludicrous situation hadn't arisen, and Celtic had been drawn to travel to Edinburgh, I suspect the complaints have got more to do with TRFC getting the Hampden match than anything else as another example of favouritism towards Ibrox clubs, but my point isn't about the fairness of this possible decision, but about the inability to, just for once, accept without complaint what it is like, and always has been like, for every other club based outside of Glasgow.

Why should Celtic accept an unfair decision without complaint? When an unfair decision is made it should be challenged.
Clubs outside Glasgow play Finals & semi-Finals in Glasgow because that's where the National Stadium is. There is nothing contentious about that. 

View Comment

BallyargusPosted on11:33 pm - Oct 3, 2018


The bottom line in this from Celtic supporters point of view is that had the venues been chosen (with the same result) by lots then there would have been no complaints. It's the unseen hand of secrecy that is the cause for concern.

View Comment

PLGlenPosted on11:48 pm - Oct 3, 2018


With Celtic being the club in Scotland with the most season ticket holders, I would have thought they would welcome the chance to bring a significant amount of those same supporters to a cup semi final, despite the considerable inconvenience of a 50 minute train journey.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:09 am - Oct 4, 2018


upthehoops 3rd October 2018 at 20:21  

'…If, as they say, neither the Police or BT forced the issue either way, then the SPFL need to properly explain their decision. '

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

'Dysfunctional' must be the word written in the stick of rock that is the SPFL board, just as 'Blackpool' runs 'through Blackpool 'rock', (Geez, that takes me back, and some!)

When the 'saga' has alerted us all to the jiggery-pokery that in effect dismissed the most horrendous football cheating of SDM's ‘Rangers’ as something we should all 'move on' from, they must be right feckin stupid sods or maliciously minded sods, to think that they can get away with arbitrary, unexplained decisions .

I think that for a Sports body they seem not to understand the concept of 'fairness'. The toss of a coin to choose ends, the (unwarmed balls ) draws in cup competitions…How can they not apply that principle to venue allocation? 

It is blindingly obvious. 

I am astounded that a draw for venue was not immediately uppermost when it was agreed that two venues were available.

Unless, of course, Murrayfield insisted that they did not want to host TRFC Ltd, at any price. What with assistant referees getting assaulted by object throwing wee ‘spectators’ an’all.

 

 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:42 am - Oct 4, 2018


jean7brodie 3rd October 2018 at 10:08  

'..It was my 65th yesterday!!!!'
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

For the purposes of this blog, jean7brodie, and as far as I am concerned, you are Miss Brodie of the 'Prime of…'. – 

Free spirit, seeker of Truth, woman of principle..

Feliz cumpleanos! ad multos annos vivas!  plurimosque annos vivas!

 

 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:10 am - Oct 4, 2018


Well, here are the first 9 pages of my court notes, for what they are worth. (And for anyone who may be interested)

Court of Session

Wednesday 3rd October 2018 10.00 a.m.Before Lady Woolffe (E Hunter, Clerk)

P341/17: the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers for orders under Section 955

 

Mr Mitchell QC for Respondent                Mr Johnstone QC for Pursuer

 

10,07 a.m.

Mr Mitchell: M'Lady, there were some additional authorities submitted …..

Lady W: Yes, shall we start with numbering the additional authorities received this morning-number McKay as 18A, McLaren as 19A, Maxwell 21, and those of last night 22, 23, 24?

Mr M: I apologise for the late submissions, m'Lady. I got a request to mark up the faxes..

Lady W: OK.

Mr M: Some of these Authorities are illustrative rather than providing any particular passages.

We don't need to look at earlier parts of the process except the Minute itself.-the only significant document. Everything else is beside the point.

Lady W: Any questions, Mr Johnstone?

Mr J: Nothing occurs, m'Lady.

Mr M: I won't do old-fashioned recitation. There are three underlying assumptions:

  1. the characteristics of the Minute before the Court….

Lady W: What I have is the Minute [ searching]….Yes.

Mr M: The Minute to the Court in April. Earlier stuff can go on one side. I f m'lady has any editions of the Minute..?

Lady W: What I have may not be the adjusted version.

Mr M: I have a service copy Minute…

Lady W: Was there an adjustment?

Mr M: I have 19th July version and August adjustment. I'm happy to hand up a fully adjusted copy.

Lady W: Yes.[copy handed up]

Mr M: It begins “ … in the petition of..”……it has “ ..he has failed to obey the interlocutor”… then “… to impose penalties by fine or prison or otherwise”

It is seeking penalties.

The 'statement of fact' is not particularly significant: Para 11 has “ ..he was required not later than 26 April 2018” Para 12 has “ that date has now passed. The Respondent has not published the offer…” Para 15 has “ contempt of Court with supporting averments” 16 has “…failed to comply, Court is invited to punish…”,17 has “ .. to ordain the Respondent to appear”'

The plea-in-law is “ the respondent should be punished …”

It I clear that it is penal in character, the respondent liable to punishment.

Now, the Petitioner has the right at any time to abandon the Petition, and that would be that [ ie. the Court would have no further interest. (Ed) ] But if he seeks sentencing, that is a matter for the Court.

There is a number of general principles in relation to [raising proceedings for]contempt of Court..

Can it be done by Minute,, Petition or Complaint?

The wrong done is not to the Petitioner but to the administration of Justice. It's contempt matter which the Petitioner has no interest in: they put it to the Court, and that's the end of..There must be proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Contempt must be proved. In that proof, the Respondent is not a compellable witness [ ed: my note here in brackets has (' even in ..* word illegible* proof, respondent was cited from South Africa)]

Ultimately, what must be shown is not a mere breach but wilful defiance of the Court. The gravamen of the offence….It is not sufficient for the petitioner to say “ here is an order and it hasn't been complied with”. In a sense mens rea( ed.Latin for 'guilty mind' : knowing damned fine what you're doing and doing it anyway]must be shown on the part of the Respondent

 

As to the Authorities, the first case in the bundle: a train crash of proceedings coming out of the Sheriff Court!– the case of a mother failing to comply with a court order. The pleadings and proof incapable of (ed…?) Lord B(?)'s opinion.Para 8 notes the interlocutors that were not complied with, other aspects of procedures noted, lengthy description of how things went in the Sheriff Court. The matter comes in to the Inner House after she had been found guilty, element of compellable witness, observations on similarities with criminalproceedings. 'Contempt' is an offence 'sui generis', still an offence ,quasi-criminal, proof beyond reasonable doubt, procedures must be appropriate. And then a discussion of compellability, and at para 57, 'defective representation' cases ( That's C.M)Wilful defiancenot shown by act of defiance.

And the case of the social workers- Lord Carloway's opinion that there may be circumstances where social workers may breach an order [to save a child]

{ ed: my notes then read :

[The case of HM Advocate v Airs Some contempts are criminal, some not. Contempt outside the Court, procedure would be by petition, in the Court of Session. Contempt in Court can be dealt with summarily, if the guidance in the 'Naked Rambler' case is followed, then the Sheriff is entitled …

But if not there has to be notice of contempt…

 

Lord Malcolm's decision in (?)Johen v Douglas, failure to appear in Court: failure is not automatically contempt-there must be a deliberate act of defiance.

 

Now, the case of the 'Naked Rambler' -”Contempt is wilful defiance , disrespect whether in civil or criminal cases”

Para 31:Contempt is not a crime per se: it is 'sui generis' [ed: ie it's a genus of its own, kind of like a crime but not fully a crime!] and someone jailed for contempt ' is in effect 'on remand' [conditions?]

Lady W: [ asked a question about whether a conviction for contempt was a crime that one had to disclose under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.]

Mr M: I have no knowledge of that [ ed: or words to that effect],but it should be treated as a crime for the purposes of Article 6 of the Human Rights and freedom of expression.

The Alltel [?]case has 'wilful defiance is seen repeated incidents' [ that seems to be a USA case]

 

Other English case, similar to the case of CM- faintly Dickensian, “tipstaff orders “,'collection' orders ,Mr Rodden[ ed:I think I was losing it here, with these references to cases. But I have looked up 'Rodden contempt' and that's about a Nor'n Ireland polis who tried to arrest a judge in his own Court! Surely it can't be that!]

(Mr M continued) Precision in the court order . If principal order is vague and ambiguous…..must be precision' Mr king is said to be in breach of order by not making an offer. Things have moved on. There has been a further share issue. The number of shares not already in the concert party is 81,478,201 deduct the concert party , then the offer to be made was in respect of 53 million as at 01/03/18, at 20p ( £10, 745.00)

There is a potential issue as to what the new amount would be (£19M) needed to purchase. But would be more if entire lot.And does he have to come up with cash in Britain to people who have just accepted at 20p?

History of how such order came to be sought?

At present Rules of Court, chapter 14,Petitions in general, in the Outer House,

14.2.(d)- breach , dealt with by Minute.

( to be continued, maybe)broken heart

View Comment

realshocksPosted on1:24 am - Oct 4, 2018


For me this Murrayfield decision isn't a big deal. There are far more blatant and serious issues of SFA bias towards Rangers* than this. 

Coin and objects being thrown, along with the return of the bigoted chants, players being allowed to kick opponents, a manager allowed to make scathing comments about officials – Rangers* are just bad for Scottish football, and it is the SFA which makes it thus by treating them with obvious partiality. 

We just have to hope that the rest of our clubs can overcome this corruption and somehow let the game thrive in spite of a governance that is determinedly incompetent and biased.

Congratulations to Hearts on a magnificent start to their campaign. What odds the jambos can exorcise some historical last game Celtic demons by being the team to stop the ten? 

View Comment

MordecaiPosted on6:25 am - Oct 4, 2018


A big thank you to Easy Jambo and John for covering these court cases for us. Especially from those of us for whom geography precludes an attendance at court in person.  It's a big commitment by you both but very much appreciated.  Personally, I find your reporting of these cases refreshing particularly when juxtaposed with the reporting by the SMSM.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:13 am - Oct 4, 2018


Mordecai 4th October 2018 at 06:25 2 0 Rate This A big thank you to Easy Jambo and John for covering these court cases for us…………….I will second thatlaugh

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:15 am - Oct 4, 2018


Bill1903 3rd October 2018 at 22:01  

Never seen up the hoops this raging in the evening angry

======================

Hardly raging Bill, but glad I gave you a laugh!

I am however disappointed at people suggesting the SPFL acting less than fairly is okay as long as Celtic have always played at Hampden before! Where does such a justification end and what else could it be applied to?

Another thing I believe will have played a part is the fact Rangers cast doubt on the impartiality of the SPFL and its Chairman earlier this season. Celtic say neither the Police or broadcasters tried to influence the situation, so I imagine the SPFL probably wanted to avoid a statement from Ibrox saying "we told you so". Add to the fact that while the media will ridicule Celtic, as we can already see, they are more supportive of such stuff from Ibrox, as we have seen on many an occasion. 

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on8:10 am - Oct 4, 2018


Hopefully the Murrayfield semi is a 50:50 split and a full house.

I can't see us taking more than 15k to a semi against The Rangers . Some are boycotting but plenty won't go due to fear of trouble.

View Comment

tayredPosted on8:52 am - Oct 4, 2018


Bill1903, I think the ball is burst – folk are finally drifting away thanks to the sheer bloody incompetence of the SPFL/SFA and the club boards. 

Now we have yet another anonymous disciplinary panel handing out, sorry "offering", a 2 match ban for a clumsy tackle by a young player. The same panel that has told us its perfectly fine for senior players to aim a kick at players off the ball, to stamp on players lying on the ground etc., but how very dare you make an attempt to play the ball young man!

Reading through club forums I am reading time after time "ach I just canna be arsed with this anymore". There is no discussion of a fight to save the game now,  just resignation that the sport we all love so much has been destroyed by a group of complete muppets. Once folk find other ways to spend their dwindling supplies of spare cash you won't get them back again, not a chance.

View Comment

erniePosted on9:18 am - Oct 4, 2018


Spot on Tayred.   I also joined the 65 club last week and that makes this my 60th season as a paying Dons supporter.  I've always been able to join in on the various moans over the years: the refs an Arab, offside (on conceding any goal), Lennox dived, nae Hampden again, we're getting nothing here (on conceding a throw in), never a pen (whilst listening on the radio) etc etc.  In short, your bog standard fitba fan, mostly greetin' tongue in cheek and more than able to admit slight bias when challenged.  The atmosphere has changed over the last decade, it's a fix.  To be precise, the game is set up for the big two and the continuation of TRFC is paramount.  I packed up the tartan army a few years ago: it may sound trivial but the boy Black being capped before the likes of Considine or even a traffic cone did it for me. I renewed season tickets again this year for my grandson and I, it's time for me to move on as they have been asking me to do.

 

View Comment

DunderheidPosted on9:36 am - Oct 4, 2018


Ernie

On reading your post of 09:18, I must say my feelings lie somewhere between baffled and dispirited: that's because, after all that has been shared on this site since its inception (and previously on the RTC blog), we still appear to have articulate and seemingly well-informed supporters implicitly arguing that 'the game is set up for the big two.'

sad

View Comment

NickPosted on9:49 am - Oct 4, 2018


While there may be a valid point nestled somewhere amongst the ludicrous language used I have to confess I wondered if Celtic had signed a certain James Traynor when I read their "irrational and discriminatory" statement.

 

For those of us who enjoy following the annual sport of preposterously worded SPFL statements @lewiscumming updates a regular league table on twitter.  Surprisingly Hearts won the title last year.

View Comment

erniePosted on10:02 am - Oct 4, 2018


Dunderheid, a fine example of me, as a bog standard fitba fan, being challenged and conceding a middle ground.  I am well aware that Celtic fans in general, and certainly those on here, are not exactly enthralled with the fix that is in but the stark reality is that the game is set up for the big two just as the European whatever it's called is set up for the mega clubs.  There are obvious financial reasons why this is.  The mega clubs are selling out to 70k crowds and are bathing in money from tv.  In Scotland there are many like me who, I believe, will drift away from the fix but, and it's a very big but, TRFC and Celtic will continue to sellout and take their tv cash albeit chicken sh*t for the mega euro clubs.  That is the fix that is in, add the 5WA and the paramount requirement for TRFC to flourish and you have toxicity on top of economic priority over sport.

Economic drivers are the way of the world and of sport and it would be naive of me to expect otherwise and that has always been the case:  TRFC and Celtic have more clout than the rest and so be it.  After all my own club chairman has made it easy for this to keep happening.  But I'm not AFC chairman, I'm a fan and layering on advantage over advantage is getting beyond a joke.

I hope that the good guys keep digging in and, to be honest, I have a lot of respect for those Celtic fans who challenge the status quo but the status quo is the current fix.

 

 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:04 am - Oct 4, 2018


Ballyargus 3rd October 2018 at 23:18 27

 

It is ever so in football matters that when push comes to shove supporters back whatever suits their club. All Celtic asked was for an open and clear reason for who goes to Hampden and who to Murrayfield.

 

Allyjambo 3rd October 2018 at 21:05 While I am sure there would have been no complaint if this ludicrous situation hadn't arisen, and Celtic had been drawn to travel to Edinburgh, I suspect the complaints have got more to do with TRFC getting the Hampden match than anything else as another example of favouritism towards Ibrox clubs, but my point isn't about the fairness of this possible decision, but about the inability to, just for once, accept without complaint what it is like, and always has been like, for every other club based outside of Glasgow.

 

Why should Celtic accept an unfair decision without complaint? When an unfair decision is made it should be challenged. Clubs outside Glasgow play Finals & semi-Finals in Glasgow because that's where the National Stadium is. There is nothing contentious about that.

_________________________

 

Is that with reference to the vigorous and highly publicised challenge they made to the LNS decision? Or their loud condemnation of TRFC's entry into the SFL ahead of clubs far more deserving who actually qualified under the set criteria?

 

But, again, I am not saying the way the decision was made was not somewhat unfair and secretive, but that Celtic, and it's supporters, are upset because they are losing out on a big match on their doorstep, for the very first time since 1926. Do you think that if the matches, for whatever reason, had been scheduled to be played at Murrayfield, but this same problem came about and it was announced that Celtic v Hearts would be played at Hampden instead, that Celtic would now be calling for a ballot because the decision was secret and unfair? 

 

Celtic are complaining because they view themselves as being disadvantaged, the same disadvantage the rest of us have suffered for a great many decades, and will continue to suffer for many decades to come, and they'd have been as silent as TRFC are now if the secret decision had gone the other way.

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on10:08 am - Oct 4, 2018


B Rodgers: "And if we're talking about a neutral venue then it's certainly not neutral with Hearts having played part of their season there last year."

A true "neutral venue", of course, would have a Celtic End and a Rangers End.

It does seem as if Celtic are taking a leaf out of TRFC's book with the extensive greeting and outrage at their traditional advantage being removed this time round.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on10:10 am - Oct 4, 2018


John Clark 4th October 2018 at 00:42  

 

Muchas Gracias Juanlaugh

Only problem with that was her politicsangel

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:38 am - Oct 4, 2018


Have people forgotten that if Lawwell had maybe backed his manager for a decent crack at the CL none of this semi final nonsense would have occurred blush.

 

Frankly in this case but, while I get the principle behind the idea of a ballot, Celtic protest too much.

They tell us they have the greatest fans in the world but a 50 min trip to Edinburgh is a problem.

They continually moan about not getting enough tickets for big games, well here is a stadium with a further 16k seats to fill.

The club believes it is a world famous  'Champions League' club playing in far flung places all over the continent but has a fear of some kind of disadvantage of playing in a strange stadium that many of their players have experience of.

We are told the club is cash rich so if playing at either venue is going to be a surprise, just pay the cash to the respective owners and I am sure they will let you train on the pitches.

As said above by Crichton_Blue,  a fair ballot occurred via the semi final draw but due to the scheduling incompetence by the SPFL, it is the Hearts  v Celtic tie that causes the problem and it is right that this is the game that needs to  somehow be accommodated. Murrayfield is the most sensible and safest option if we want to have people going to the game.

The vast majority of Hoops fans will have an enjoyable trip to Edinburgh and most likely, while Hearts will have them on the ropes, Griffiths will do his usual and score against us to win the game.

 

Celtic  had the chance to pick a far bigger fight and lead front the front against the footballing authorities 6 years ago but this is the one they jump on the bandwagon with faux indignation.

Nobody in the SPFL scheduling department even gave a thought to the potential for Aberdeen and/or Hibs making the group stages thus adding a further headache to scheduling the league cup semi's directly after a Euro week.

I am afraid it is still all about the Glasgow two and while I accept Hoops fans have a right to feel hard done by,  if you fee like 2nd class for the rest of us having to suck up the dregs.

 

 

View Comment

erniePosted on10:53 am - Oct 4, 2018


Jean, you're right but at least the author held her up for all to see.  I remember a close relative of mine, whilst the rest of us were rolling about laughing at Alf Garnet, saying "I ken, but he's right enough".  What's obvious to me is not necessarily obvious to anyone else.

Love and respect to a regular sane voice on here.

 

 

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on11:39 am - Oct 4, 2018


This is the first season since the ‘seventies that I have not bought a season ticket for my favoured club.

 

First, it was the Scotland games that I gave a bye, then the matches involving some of the several local club sides when my team were playing on a different day.

Now, I drop in to my own side's matches now and again, and don’t really miss being a part of it, for that is to be a part of the ongoing silliness which encapsulates Scottish football.

 

I agree with points made by the likes of Ernie and Tayred above, fans, including me, have become disheartened and are almost totally disenfranchised by the administration of the game in Scotland.

 

The distraction provided by Doncaster’s latest farces masks deeper problems within the game: within a few months the semi controversies will be all but forgotten while the cheating and ‘favouring’ continues.

 

Anyway, here’s a suggestion in the interests of impartiality and candidness in advance of the 2nd December SPFL Cup Final: for clarity, the authorities should announce well in advance that the winners of the first semi final at Murrayfield will have their fans housed in the west end of the National Stadium, while the second semi final winners will see their support in the east end.

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on12:17 pm - Oct 4, 2018


borussiabeefburg 4th October 2018 at 11:39  

 

This is the first season since the ‘seventies that I have not bought a season ticket for my favoured club.

 

First, it was the Scotland games that I gave a bye, then the matches involving some of the several local club sides when my team were playing on a different day.

Now, I drop in to my own side's matches now and again, and don’t really miss being a part of it, for that is to be a part of the ongoing silliness which encapsulates Scottish football.

 

I agree with points made by the likes of Ernie and Tayred above, fans, including me, have become disheartened and are almost totally disenfranchised by the administration of the game in Scotland.

 

The distraction provided by Doncaster’s latest farces masks deeper problems within the game: within a few months the semi controversies will be all but forgotten while the cheating and ‘favouring’ continues.

 

Anyway, here’s a suggestion in the interests of impartiality and candidness in advance of the 2nd December SPFL Cup Final: for clarity, the authorities should announce well in advance that the winners of the first semi final at Murrayfield will have their fans housed in the west end of the National Stadium, while the second semi final winners will see their support in the east end.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I bet its in the "contract" the SPFL has with Hampden who gets what end if the Old Squirm get to the final and if it isn't the Police will decide.

I don't understand why the league games that week can't be postponed and one of the semis can be played mid week but of course this would be inconvenient to the broadcasters so they get to call it.

I'm left wondering who is actually running our game and to whose benefit.

As for Celtic bleating about unfairness and secret decisions its a bit late for that. Youse made your bed 6 years ago – lie in it.

These days I'm a bit like BB. I haven't been to a single game this season and as the farce continues I'm not motivated to change that.

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on12:30 pm - Oct 4, 2018


When Hugh Dallas was scudded with the coin at Celtic Park, Celtic were fined around £50,000.

With inflation I would imagine Sevco’s bill will be rather a lot more for the Livingston issue? No?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:49 pm - Oct 4, 2018


Ignoring the fairness of the venue change, and looking at possible justification for the choice of clubs to play at Murrayfield.

 

It appears that it was police intervention (calling for common sense) that has led to the use of Murrayfield, and, having raised concerns over security and safety, perhaps they (the police) were given a bigger say in who played where than has been publicised. There is also the traffic situation to consider (from a police point of view) as less supporters will be heading along the M8 than would have been the case had TRFC and Aberdeen been playing at Murrayfield. In addition, Edinburgh police have no experience of handling a football match of up to 60,000 supporters, involving two sets of supporters from outside of the city, so Edinburgh police, and possibly local councillors, may very well have objected to the possibility of a TRFC v Aberdeen match at Murrayfield (not to mention the rather extreme rivalry between the two sets of supporters). Also, could you imagine the chaos, carnage even, at Haymarket station before and after the match?

 

So, assuming this is the reason why no 'ballot' to decide the venues took place (or something similar), the question is – why is it being kept under wraps? Simple explanation could be that the SPFL (along with the SFA) don't want to add further humiliation on TRFC by stating that Police Scotland (despite their Ibrox leaning tendencies) view TRFC supporters as a greater threat to public safety than they do Celtic fans.

 

I am sure that if the SPFL were to announce that it was the police who suggested/insisted on the Celtic v Hearts match moving to Murrayfield, then the Celtic support would take solace from the fact that they were being given a backhanded compliment as being more trustworthy than the bears, while the bears would be up in arms again at another slight by 'Rangers haters'.

 

So, it might not be as a result of favouritism, but good crowd management (at the insistence/suggestion of Police Scotland), that has led to the decision, with the traditional kowtowing to Ibrox leading to the secrecy. We will probably never know.

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on12:54 pm - Oct 4, 2018


Bawsman@12.30

I think one of the Jambo posters stated a couple of days ago that the fine from Coingate I was levied in respect of the behaviour of the Celtic players in that game not the coin throwing. No strict liability then or now.

View Comment

DarkbeforedawnPosted on12:57 pm - Oct 4, 2018


When Hugh Dallas was scudded with the coin at Celtic Park, Celtic were fined around £50,000.

With inflation I would imagine Sevco’s bill will be rather a lot more for the Livingston issue? No?

I may be wrong but I believe clubs are only responsible for their own fans in their own stadium. I dont ever recall an instance where a club has been fined for issues in an away ground or at Hampden, so I don't believe there will be a fine. That said I hope both my club and the police find the culprit and bring them to justice.

P.S belated happy birthday Jimbo sad

 

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on1:00 pm - Oct 4, 2018


https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/clubs-not-doncaster-made-murrayfield-decision/

A Celtic view on the Murrayfield debacle. Make of it what you will.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:01 pm - Oct 4, 2018


Bawsman 4th October 2018 at 12:30 

When Hugh Dallas was scudded with the coin at Celtic Park, Celtic were fined around £50,000.

With inflation I would imagine Sevco’s bill will be rather a lot more for the Livingston issue? No?

=============================

As I posted previously on that subject, Celtic was not fined as a result of the coin throwing incident. They were fined £45,000 for the conduct of their players in that match.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/football/scottish_premier/415569.stm

In the absence of "strict liability" clubs (domestically) cannot be held responsible for the conduct of their fans, although the home club can be held responsible for security breaches, e.g. pitch invasions

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on1:13 pm - Oct 4, 2018


https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1047505512445747201?s=21

Big teams and the importance of fans. Have things really changed that much? For you younger folk, listen closely to what Brian Clough has to say. 

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on2:00 pm - Oct 4, 2018


Ex Ludo 4th October 2018 at 13:13  

" For you younger folk, listen closely to what Brian Clough has to say. "

Thanks pal, I enjoyed that!!!!cool

 

View Comment

erniePosted on2:14 pm - Oct 4, 2018


And on it goes. McKenna to get a retrospective two game ban. Forget that it is debatable that it might be a yellow at a pinch, someone tabled it, they reviewed it and deem it a retro red card. Forget the past, just think of the games you have seen this season and the video replays on tv and social media and consider that as a retrospective (I.e. not what the match officials think) red card. That my friends is a joke. It’s all about crowd noise. 

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on2:41 pm - Oct 4, 2018


   I think there are a lot of folk missing the target. 

      Celtic did not ask for any "special" considerations, when asking that a draw be made to decide who plays where…..They asked for fairness. That fairness was denied. 

   If you think selection out of a hat, is anything other than a request for ALL clubs to be treated equally, then you have a problem. The fact that the eventual outcome may now be your preferred outcome, should not be allowed to influence what you consider fair. 

     Where does the two cheeks of the same arse philosophy stand, when one of those cheeks merely asked that EVERY arse, be allotted an equal portion of the couch? 

    Only mental gymnastics can justify any notion, that a draw was not the best way forward, to alleviate what was already a clusterf*ck. 

     Is unfairness justified, so long as the outcome is to your satisfaction?  

      

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:29 pm - Oct 4, 2018


ernie 4th October 2018 at 09:18

…I also joined the 65 club last week and that makes this my 60th season as a paying Dons supporter…
oooooooooooooo

Whilst I myself am a mere – relatively speaking – whippersnapper, I do remember being “lifted over the turnstiles” a few times at Parkhead – shortly before the practice was stopped.
I’ve heard scurrilous rumours in the past that Aberdonians are tight as a badger’s ar… behind, but surely you weren’t charged entry as a 5 year old Don?
I think we should be told. 🙂

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on3:30 pm - Oct 4, 2018


There are many valued subscribers on here, ones who have been at the forefront in the fight for fairness and justice, that recognise what would have been a fair and transparent method of allocating venues.

Yet those same people can park their integrity and offer spurious reasons why Celtic should just accept an unfair and unaccountable action.

Celtic, nor their support have complained about going to Murrayfield.

It was the absence of a transparent ballot that is the problem.

Too many on here have used the issue as a GIUY to the club, due to real or imagine historical grievances .

I posted earlier about the official reason for both games at Hampden. In the interest of fairness, each semi finalist were entitled to experience the venue where the final would be held.

That was fair for clubs, although it often meant anomalies of two teams being dragged across the country to fulfil this ideal.

In this case, due to incompetence, it isn’t possible to grant all four clubs this right, therefore a ballot was the only fair way to decide.

All the rest is that big German word. 

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on3:38 pm - Oct 4, 2018


Jeanbrodie@14.00

Your welcome. The TD was for Brian Clough I presume.

View Comment

Comments are closed.