A consortium led by David Low has been in talks with Sir Tom Farmer seeking to purchase Hibernian Football Club. The story has been embargoed for a few weeks, but David agreed to speak to TSFM to give us an exclusive interview and provide us with information about his intentions for the Edinburgh club.
Highlights of the interview include the similarities and differences between the Hibs situation and the one he found at Celtic Pak in 1994; how Scottish Football’s “new level playing field” as Low calls it has created an opportunity for a club like Hibs to be the main challenger to Celtic for honours; the contrast of his consortium’s approach to that of the recent debacle at Ibrox; the role of the fans at every level of the club; the future of Allan Stubbs and Leanne Dempster; and the journey back to the Premiership.
Low is frank about his reputation as a well-known Celtic fan, but highlights his Hibbee credentials and his affection for the club, eschewing the “I was always a Hibbee” line taken by so many people seeking to ingratiate themselves with the locals at various clubs.
Certainly, the experience and finance rolling around Low’s consortium is something that any club could do with, but the fans are crucial to their involvement and interest.
He says he won’t go ahead with the purchase unless the fans are behind them.
“Fans have never been so powerful as they are today, especially with the advent of social media like TSFM”
“We have seen in recent years what a body of fans are capable of when they re together”
“We want to have that togetherness at Hibs, because the only way forward is to have trust between the boardroom and the fans, you only have to look at the levels of distrust between board and fans at Rangers to see that it is a recipe for disaster”
cup 2012 says:
August 10, 2014 at 4:34 pm
2
0
i
Rate This
Just to remind myself
Was this blog not started on the understanding that All Rules should be applied without fear or favor?
Not Bent Twisted Ignored OR invented ?
Please correct me if I’m Wrong
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes that was part of the remit but the blog also has a history of debating whether or not the rules are appropriate and are just.
While people agreed the rules in Scotland were applied appropriately IIRC there was also a degree of sympathy for teams like Spartans getting dumped out of the cup for genuine administrative errors and possibly paperwork going missing in the post.
Nobody here has said that rules shouldn’t be applied as intended merely that given the exact circumstances of the substitution it is very harsh for a team that hammered our top team 6-1 on aggregate.
There does seem to be room for varying penalties, however how they would be defined is not without difficulty. Which is probably why the 3-0 awarding of a game across the board has been chosen to keep things simple.
The lesson is ddouble and triple check your paperwork!!
If Legia’s appeal has any remote chance of an appeal success, it opens up the debate that St Pat’s were impacted maybe or would the player in question miss the next 2 games, disadvantaging Celtic to the advantage of whoever Legia would play… I still think that if Celtic found a route to drop out of the competition (and why should they) then Maribor would gain the advantage…
Not seen this mentioned yet, but Armageddon has struck again as St.Johnstone reveal a £250k trading profit.
http://saintinasia.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/st-johnstone-fc-accounts-analysis-2014/
We should remember the St Pats situation here as well.
Was the player who came on against Celtic on the team sheet for St Pats home and away?
It appears he wasn’t which meant that Legia Warsaw had the advantage of being able to pick their players from a full 25 member squad for both games.
So should Legia Warsaw not be apologising to St Pats and before offering a rematch with Celtic actually offer St Pats a rematch?
These are the kind of situations that arise when the rules are not applied as we all know too well in Scotland.
IIRC any doubt over this rule was sorted out some years ago with an English Premier League cup and the 3-0 penalty arrived at. It is the type of situation where sometimes it can be difficult to know whether a genuine mistake has been made or not.
So a fixed punishment saves all the arguments and confusion and appeals. A club signs-up to follow the competition rules and if it doesn’t then it pays the penalty as per rule.
It’s that simple. But if the player wasn’t on the team lists for the St Pats games then I think Legia does protest too much and I have to wonder about their ‘innocence’.
And there is no way that the Celtic Board can ignore its legal financial responsibility to the shareholders by bowing out of the CL. If legia are ‘innocent’ then I feel for them but they knew the rule and something as important as that shouldn’t be down to one person – there has to be checks and safeguards built-in.
So if Legia want to give St Pats another go then I would support that Celtic should play them again if EUFA gave the all-clear. But I truly believe a vote of shareholders would be required to make it a legal club decision.
It really isn’t simply down to sporting integrity IMO.
I understand from some very angry bears (are there any other kind these days?) that some screens together with the wifi are no longer available at Ibrox stadium. So it appears that Mr Nash may be having some small success in implementing austerity measures. I’m curious to know how the team will travel to the game on Friday. Will it be their accustomed five star hotel stopover on Thursday night or a bus from Murray Park on Friday afternoon? If the latter I wonder how the prima donna players will react.
For the avoidance of doubt these items were very well down on the angry bears list of grievances as they seem mostly obsessed with the performance of Mr McCoist.
Typo in last post
I should have typed: ‘ English Premier League club’ and not ‘ English Premier League cup’.
Giovanni says:
August 10, 2014 at 5:31 pm
I understand from some very angry bears (are there any other kind these days?) that some screens together with the wifi are no longer available at Ibrox stadium.
================================
Don’t know about the wifi but I believe the screens were removed for the Commonwealth Games Rugby 7s and they didn’t get them reinstalled for the midweek game. Maybe see on TV tonight whether they are back.
You might have seen from my early post that I thought Celtic should find a UEFA-approved way to withdraw from the CL. It’s becoming clear that there is no way for that to happen especially now that the draw has been made. I am absolutely in agreement that UEFA should apply the rules exactly as they are intended to be applied. Especially on here, we shouldn’t be asking for a governing body to bend their rules out of sympathy for a club. All competitors are aware of the rules when they enter the competition, so it’s up to them to act in accordance with those rules.
While I initially felt sorry for Legia (in the same way I felt sorry for Spartans), I find their attempts to pressurise Celtic into making a grand gesture disgusting. The rules are not of Celtic’s making, so to somehow make them responsible for correcting Legia’s error is appalling behaviour in my opinion, especially when it is done in such a smarmy way, praising them for their reputation of honour and honesty, while suggesting that reputation will be tarnished if they don’t do what he wants. Disgusting behaviour.
I still hope Celtic do what another poster suggested (apols, can’t remember) and donate any further CL income earned to charity.
Have I got this right?
RFC broke SFA(and hence UEFA) registration rules for 11 yrs They won umpteen trophies using players who were ineligible for the games they played in.
The penalty for fielding an improperly registered player is forfeiture of the match
After RFC were put into liquidation and the EBT scheme came to light a Committee of Inquiry was set up to examine whether rules had been broken This Committee were given a tightly worded brief that favoured RFC by excluding admissions of guilt in concealing player payments under a previous scheme
In the subsequent hearing (RFC v SFA) an SFA witness Mr Bryson was called to define the rule in question. He invented a new interpretation of the registration rule that went unchallenged by the SFA Lawyer To paraphrase “A registration rule isnt broken until it is discovered to be broken”
This interpretation thus became unchallenged evidence to be followed by the Committee.
The consequence was that RFC did not field improperly registered players since they only became improperly registered 11 yrs later when they were found out
The MSM welcomed this decision as just and fair on a club that had suffered enough from being put into liquidation
Roll the clock on
LW field a player who is serving a suspension
They forfeit the CFC match because UEFA consider the player has been ineligible to play in the 3 matches following his 3 match ban and has not completed the suspension
So
Why arent the MSM clamouring for UEFA to follow the Bryson intepretation in the LW case?
If UEFA had applied the same interpretation then the player would not have been ineligible to play against CFC since the mistake was not discovered until the following day
i.e.
Punishment of LW would not include forfeiting the CFC
nawlite says:
August 10, 2014 at 5:39 pm
I still hope Celtic do what another poster suggested (apols, can’t remember) and donate any further CL income earned to charity.
============================================
Celtic do plenty for charity and will continue to do so. But that’s only possible if it remains a financially viable football club.
The CL money must be used for the benefit of the club and by doing so the club charities will continue to benefit. Grand Gestures can often turn out to be very expensive and I think we really have to look at this with a little more level-headedness.
As I say I am becoming more and more convinced that Legia Warsaw is not as innocent as at first sight and I wonder what the St Pats supporters have to say about the team sheets for their two games with them?
The rules are quite clear
Field a suspended player, and you forfeit the match by a 3-0 scoreline
There are no degrees to this, as the punishment is the same whether it is 1 minute or 90 minutes
Harsh, perhaps, but that is the rule
Initially I had a degree of sympathy for Legia, but their attempts to subvert UEFA’s rules have emptied my sympathy resevoir
They got it wrong, and they need to face up to the consequences of that mistake
GoosyGoosy says:
August 10, 2014 at 5:53 pm
=====================================
Liked that and had a good laugh 😎
Actually what the UEFA decision displays is just how corrupt the Bryson Definition was and it obviously isn’t acceptable to UEFA.
JimBhoy says:
August 10, 2014 at 4:18 pm
3 0 Rate This
@Danish I fully understand, maybe some good will come of it with a rule change to allow a more fair conclusion…Not holding my breath.
——–
Cheers JimBhoy, a voice of reason among several very discouraging posts.
For the first time the TSFM makes me feel rather embarrassed.
nawlite,
I also found the Legia Letter seriously and unnecessarily offensive and insulting, despite sympathising with their plight. My reaction on receipt of that letter – even if if it had not been an open correspondence masquerading as a rather oafish publicity stunt – would have been to chuck it in the bin and suspend my belief in the sporting correctness of their case.
More than anything else, it has made Celtic’s dilemma a lot less problematic. Given the language of th letter, it will make it much easier for Peter Lawwell & Co to tell them to do one.
ecobhoy
Really? I thought that was exactly what TSFM was about.
I’ll bet there’s a few cut’n’paste jobs going on right now on the Bear Forums with that quote 🙂
If the poles had won 5-1 the first leg and Celts won the second tie 4 nil and the admin error was found what would have happened?
Celtic would have gone through!! 🙄
While I have a huge amount of sympathy for Legia Warsaw I really don’t know what to make of their request today.
UEFA would simply not sanction such a game as it undermines their authority. While the SFA are perfectly happy to be undermined at every drop of the hat, this is a different organisation.
Even if Celtic refuse the overturning of the result and refuse to take part in the next game it does not follow that Legia will be allowed back in. So if Celtic refuse to play UEFA would re-instate Legia. Dream on, it is not going to happen as that would also undermine UEFA.
Many on this site have complained long and hard regarding perceived cheating, on a grand scale, from RFC over a decade. Most of these people agreed that the playing of a player improperly registered or suspended was a three nil loss because that is the rules.
Suddenly now this rule is up for debate.
Why?
And more importantly where does this bending of this rule leave the rule itself?
Teams will simply start playing suspended players and then ask for a replay. The game will degenerate even further down the path of chaos.
Legia are stuffed any way you look at this but that is not Celtic’s doing and while the club itself may lose respect over this decision, it was not something they had, or indeed have, any control over themselves. As far as I know Celtic never complained about the player. In fact I’ve heard it said that the UEFA match delegate recognised the issue before the match even began but it is not in his remit to notify the club. That to me seems strange that a delegate cannot forewarn a club that they may have a problem. It is in UEFA’s interest to avoid issues like this and not allow it to occur in the first instance!
Celtic are a hostage to fortune in this. It just happens to be good fortune for them.
Uefa Competition disciplinary Rules
18.01 In order to be eligible to participate in the UEFA club competitions, players must be registered with UEFA within the requested deadlines to play for a club and fulfil all the conditions set out in the following provisions. Only eligible players can serve pending suspensions.
18.05 The club bears the legal consequences for fielding a player who is not named on list A or B, or who is otherwise not eligible to play.
http://www.tsfm.net/the-way-it-works/comment-page-22/#comments
IN response to statements made by Legia Warsaw today, a spokesperson for Celtic Football Club said:
“We are disappointed by Legia Warsaw’s comments.
This is entirely a matter for UEFA and its processes.
Accordingly, we will reserve further comment for the appropriate time.”
ecobhoy says:
August 10, 2014 at 5:30 pm
These are the kind of situations that arise when the rules are not applied as we all know too well in Scotland
—————————————————————————————————————–
Precisely, and trying to change the situation (however honourable) will only result in an unholy mess, and as the Celtic statement says
“This is entirely a matter for UEFA and its processes.”
Someone at Legia does not “Read the Fantastic Manual” causes a cock up and it is Celtic / (any team you like) who are being blackmailed emotionally!?
Send Berg a copy of the rules marked in large letters PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. In fact send a copy immediately to all participants!
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/u/mccoist-speculation-over-charles-green-return-is-sideshow-we-can-do-without.1407688291
Ally has spoken. “It’s not my fault”
justshatered says:
August 10, 2014 at 6:30 pm
“In fact I’ve heard it said that the UEFA match delegate recognised the issue before the match even began but it is not in his remit to notify the club.”
—————————-
I think you have it right justshatered. These are the competition rules and clubs generally cannot agree their own versions of the since to do so could result in chaos.
On your closing remark, I understood that the UEFA official had noticed that the suspended player had been registered with the squad. This would have been necessary for the suspension to be exhausted. It was only when the player concerned was announced as part of the team or substitutes that concerns would have accentuated. Team details are presented an hour before kick off so there would have been a limited opportunity for a UEFA official to have made representations to Legia Warsaw. Would the team lists even be scrutinised with this in mind since it is quite a fundamental error? A rule book exists to allow participants to self police, otherwise the authorities would become culpable in any infringement they failed to notice at the time (sounds familiar).
This does appear to have been a very unfortunate error on Legia’s behalf. It does seem strange that the player themselves would not have flagged up their ineligibility since they should be most aware of the circumstances. Not having him listed in the squad against St. Patrick’s again seems strange since logically this would have been the best opportunity to exhaust the suspension. I wonder if the error really occurred in the St. Pats game and the culprit didn’t flag it up for fear of retribution?
Sporting integrity, commerce, corruption.
Spartans etc. were dealt with according to the rules.
So have been Legia.
Club secretaries from Edinburgh to Warsaw know the rules.
RFC(IL) were not, because of Bryson’s Law,accepted by, or agreed in advance by, the SFA and the SPL on whose boards sat a representative from CFC.
CFC can now dispel the myth that we were complicit. Make a clear, unequivocal statement explaining the recent historical events in Scotland that make it difficult for us to withdraw gracefully from the CL on grounds of sporting merit, despite having been humped 6 v 1 on aggregate by a team whose one and only illegible player played for the last 4 minutes of the second leg.
Take the opportunity to publicise the Bryson farce across Europe.
The rules say we should be in the next round.
What I saw at Murrayfield the other night suggests otherwise.
Responsibility to shareholders? Possibly correct. I would not know, but the argument feels to me to be an apologist one for the board represented on the SFA and SPL.
It’s time to get off the fence, if we have the will, to sacrifice commercial gain for sporting integrity and to state our position on the corruption in Scottish football as well as to preserve a reputation in the community of European and world football that we have been rightly proud of and respected for through the last 50 years.
Restate the importance of the rules, applied in all cases fairly and without prejudice, however politically powerful the club that has broken them, explain our particular circumstances domestically – and save our fans a rid neck by taking the match in Kazakhstan.
That’s accounted for in the rules, Jimbhoy. If a 3-0 result would result in the non-transgressors losing an otherwise won tie then the original score stands
@Scottc, Big Pink, thanks for the feedback,
I thought I read that Celtic won with the away goal aggregate hence my confusion. So effectively the Poles could have went thru if they put one of the pens away… So for the avoidance of doubt, breaking the rules in one game over a 2 game tie could allow the transgressor to progress..
Any sympathy that I had for Legia evaporated into nothing this afternoon. Their call for ‘sporting integrity’ is nothing short of blackmail and is a poor attempt to cover up their own failings.
Only one team is responsible for the position that Legia finds themselves in and that team is Legia.
Or Ilegia as they will forever be known in my house.
@castofthousands Found the St Pat’s second leg on youtube and Bartosz Bereszynski was definitely not listed for that game, just thought I’d check.
This really wasn’t a one off admin error. I suppose it was 4 admin errors that Legia should have found earlier before it became significant.
For Legia, this is a hugely unfortunate consequence of a completely accidental breach of the rules.
I can understand their pain and, to an extent, their reaction.
I do feel sorry for them even if they are beginning to make themselves look a little foolish.
However, there is one aspect of this affair that I think is crystal clear.
The MSM are not on Celtic’s back about this because they want Celtic to ‘act with honour’.
They are on Celtic’s back because they want them out.
I know it’s not a very scientific poll but a look at my club’s main fan forum shows nearly all comments about Celtic/Legia thing favour Celtic, even comments by posters who normally have a go at Celtic/Rangers. Some sympathy for Legia as you’d expect but coming down firmly on the side of the rules having to be followed. I’d guess it would be about the same on most fans’ forums. (I wonder what we’d read on – non-Legia – forums in Poland??)
I give up on the Legia debate. One day in utopia the Corinthian spirit may return.
Moving on. A fascinating insight into one of the onerous contracts in Phil’s latest.
How did Charles arrange all this? This mind boggles. Really.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/regime-change/#more-4945
Danish Pastry says:
August 10, 2014 at 7:31 pm
0
0
Rate This
I give up on the Legia debate. One day in utopia the Corinthian spirit may return.
_____
Undskyld mig ?
Why?
Your point was…?
Be clear.
To finally pull the shutters down on the Legia discourse, Uefa’s rule book say’s that if the awarding of a 3-0 win is insufficient to overturn the scoreline, then the rule transgressor forfeits the tie. So no matter how you cook it, that’s what occurred.
StevieBC says:
August 10, 2014 at 4:48 pm
8 1 Rate This
[And – money aside – not sure if it’s great for Celtic either as the Europa league group stage might have been a more suitable target for this season.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It still might!
By the by. I may be guilty of a number of things but, for the avoidance of doubt, this LW is not to blame for Legia Warsaw’s woes!
To finally pull the shutters down on the Legia discourse, Uefa’s rule book say’s that if the awarding of a 3-0 win is insufficient to overturn the scoreline, then the rule transgressor forfeits the tie.
————-
Yup, but you are choosing to miss the point.
Declamation is personal and your shutters will not stay down, will they?
We got humped. We can take the short term cash and the long term opprobrium, or we can take the short term cash loss and the long term prosperity from the same support that has cherished our history this far.
RFC(IL) fans have behaved like small, spoilt, aggressive children throughout their introduction to the real world and the removal of their perceived “right”.
We’re not like that, are we?
Danish Pastry says:
August 10, 2014 at 7:31 pm
============================
I wonder if these contracts kick in if the SMSM reports a plus-40K crowd or whether it’s based on the actual folk who turn up according to Ibrox records? After all weren’t folk saying last season they were adding season ticket holders whether or not they turned up at the game?
Danish Pastry says:
August 10, 2014 at 4:01 pm
‘..Did their letter make no impression on you John?..’
——-
DP, I am myself not terribly competitive by nature.
If my opponent in chess, for example, touches a piece without saying ‘j’adoube’ and then says ‘oh, I didn’t mean that!’, I will not insist that he play the piece. My basic instinct is to take his word for it, even if I think he might have seen too late that he would be playing himself into trouble and wants to change his mind.
But, of course, in the wider context, the game, all games, are meaningful only because of the rules that the participants have agree to abide by. And the rules have to be applied.
I have a natural sympathy for any sportsman/woman who gets ‘beaten’ by bureaucracy rather than by the skill of their competitors. The trouble is, as experience across the field of sport shows all too clearly, there are competitors who will evade the rules, chance their arm, plead clerical error, paperwork foul-up, when in fact it may have been a calculated gamble to try to gain advantage. ( I laugh when I remember the 15-year-old ‘under twelves’ of my primary school days, and the ( what were they, 30 years old? Iraquis , in the international youth tournament some years ago)
The paper work is important. That it be checked is important. That there are errors that COULD, even if in fact in a particular case they do not, give rise to an unfair advantage has GOT to be jumped on , or the Rules would cease to mean anything.
And if there is no built-in discretionary power to listen to pleas in mitigation, that is presumably because the legislators decided not to allow for such.
While you and I , if we were playing heidies, with jackets as the goal posts, might be ready to allow each other the occasional appeal that ‘it was o’er the bar’ or ‘roon the post’,I’m afraid such grand and noble gestures, quixotic and refreshing though they might be, are really not called for as a substitute for care and professionalism in the administration of a professional team’s affairs.
Sadly, perhaps. But that’s the world we live in. 😐
Danish, you are being just a little romantic on the Legia issue. I am not at all comfortable with Celtic progressing after a spanking but your alternative is just not acceptable as that would encourage breaking rules.
Even if Celtic said they would play the game once more, UEFA would not allow it. Even if Celtic refused to play in The Champions League, they would be kicked out of European competition for at least this year. Should Celtic forfeit all European football because of another team’s mistake?
As I said, I don’t believe Celtic deserve a 2nd chance after such a poor display but they have done nothing wrong, the other team did and they should do the time.
What Legia, Celtic and the other Clubs should do is question if the current rules are correct. What they should not do is bend or break the rules.
The problem is if you change the rules, some clubs will take advantage, loose rules encourage some to stretch them as much as they can without being detected. I think that is the real reason they have such a tough penalty.
Macfurgly at 8.24pm No, I don’t think I miss any point. Yes we may have got humped as you say, but choosing the moral high ground in a football sense will get you nothing but derision from your opponents whatever their hue. Celtic did not break any rules and that is good enough for me.
If for talking’s sake, Celtic were to write to UEFA to tell them that the punishment for Legia’s administration error was too harsh and that the tie should be awarded to them, thus promoting sporting integrity, I’d expect UEFA to respond that Liega’s punishment was none of Celtic’s business. Sporting integrity or not, UEFA’s rules and their enforcement of them are very clear and are not open to any individual club’s interpretation of them, including Celtic. I know that Legia simply made a mistake and no sporting advantage was sought. However in reality, this view is based simply on the fact that the substitution was made very late in the game. I doubt I or anyone else would have the same opinion had the substitution been made much earlier, say at half-time. So what this furore comes down to is a matter of timing. UEFA cannot be seen to punish a club for introducing an ineligible player at half time, thus gaining a sporting advantage but not applying the same rule for the substitution being made later in the match. What is the cut-off point between illegal substitution and an honest mistake?
John Clark at 8.36pm. Well said, I second everything in your post. I only wish I could put down on paper my thoughts on a par with you. After I post I always think I could have said that better. I have no wish to get into a slanging match with any poster whom I disagree with. But that’s just me.
Boniek added: “I learned of the case on Thursday, about 16 hours since then I’ve been in constant contact with Mr. Leśnodorskim, I talked to Mr. Wandzlem of Ekstraklasa SA. and from that moment on until 1am all the most important people in UEFA. Everyone thoroughly looked into this matter, but Michel Platini and Giorgio Marchetti said one thing – ‘Zibi, there is no backdoor. Nothing. Regulations do not provide for any other penalty. We are very sorry’.”
What more needs to be said.
Boniek went to his old team mate looking for a way round this issue (hardly honourable itself) only to be told there is no backdoor.
“There is no back door” is a curious turn of phrase but encapsulates the nonsense of today nicely.
There is nothing Celtic can do.
There is nothing Legia can do.
There is nothing Legia AND Celtic can do.
There is nothing UEFA can do because “there is no backdoor”.
This is the type of strong leadership we have been crying out for in Scotland for the last three years.
It is my pet hate of the SFA’s/SPFL’s rule book where the rule is stated but any resulting punishment is curiously missing leaving the serious of every rule open to debate and conjecture.
This is before we even get to “the discretion of the board” rules which, in the twenty first century, are an utter embarrassment to any governing body.
coineanachantaighe says:
August 10, 2014 at 8:33 pm
3 1 Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
August 10, 2014 at 7:31 pm
============================
I wonder if these contracts kick in if the SMSM reports a plus-40K crowd or whether it’s based on the actual folk who turn up according to Ibrox records? After all weren’t folk saying last season they were adding season ticket holders whether or not they turned up at the game?
————
It makes me wonder if those free match-day tickets issued during Charles’ reign of generosity were actually rather self-serving. All those 40,000 + crowds he boasted of and encouraged. No idea how that kind of thing is done but seems the ST boycott is not as daft as it looks — unless you buy an ST but stay away. Jings.
PS no more from me on LW, who, incidentally, I’m glad to see has not lost his sense of humour
Danish Pastry says:
August 10, 2014 at 7:31 pm
8 1 Rate This
I give up on the Legia debate. One day in utopia the Corinthian spirit may return.
Moving on. A fascinating insight into one of the onerous contracts in Phil’s latest.
How did Charles arrange all this? This mind boggles. Really.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/regime-change/#more-4945
—————————————————————————-
Charlie was a very busy boy
Robbyp says:
August 10, 2014 at 8:44 pm
.. and maybe they would, but has anyone asked? Celtic could then have made it clear that they did in fact make the suggestion, but were rebuffed.
That is the third reference I’ve seen today on here which disposes of sporting integrity too easily in my opinion. If James Traynor had dismissed the sporting integrity sentiment (as he often has) there would have been an outcry in these pages. The raison d’etre of TSFM (see Home page) is
“TSFM is a not-for-profit online community of people who support all Scottish Football clubs. Its overriding goal is to help restore sporting integrity to paramountcy in Scottish Football.”
I don’t think we can cherry pick, unless European Football isn’t covered in that clause 😀 . We can argue about what constitutes sporting integrity, but I find it impossible to see how this decision passes any kind of SI Sniff Test – although Legia have shot themselves, and their moral case, in the foot with their petulant open letter.
I don’t see it that way at all. They made the error of thinking that the player had served a three match suspension, when he had not. They had deprived themselves of the player’s services for the prescribed three matches, but hadn’t satisfied the bureaucracy. Nothing to do with (at least from my side) timing.
If everything was fair we wouldn’t need three rounds of qualifiers
That’s a very fair assessment BP
… and the Champions League would be for ……. champions.
Robbyp says:
August 10, 2014 at 8:44 pm
———–
Fair point.
Had we been losing 1 v 0 with disputed this and that it would have been a different case, or at least would have felt like one – and as I said above, rules are rules. That’s the point with RFC(IL).
As it is however, to claim, de facto , that we lost or were disadvantaged because of the one player is simply not plausible, and when one finds oneself making an argument that is not plausible then it’s time to review the argument.
I know Legia are in the wrong here. I also know they beat us 6 v 1.
———-
ekt1m says:
August 10, 2014 at 8:43 pm
————-
“but choosing the moral high ground in a football sense will get you nothing but derision from your opponents whatever their hue”
—
I’m not at all sure about that. Does the alternative not lead you to, “Nobody likes us and we don’t care”? I say sporting integrity, you say moral high ground. For me, there are very important values here. You may accuse me of being naïve, or perhaps of overstating the importance of this case, but part of being a CFC supporter for me is a sense of the importance of justice and in this case justice is with Legia in that they beat us 6 v 1.
My point above is to make the most of a bad situation. To make advantage of disadvantage. Expose Bryson and retain dignity.
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
August 10, 2014 at 9:14 pm
Yes Phil he was so busy creating these contracts he forgot about the tie up with the Dallas Cowboys, the nine players on loan from Newcastle, the buying five players from the European Championships, the Adidas shirts.
He also forgot to buy all the shares the fans never purchased from the IPO. But then again he probably didn’t need to considering he may have share options himself particularly if ‘The Rangers’ make the Premiership!!!
and the ( what were they, 30 years old? Iraquis , in the international youth tournament some years ago)
—-
Hi John
they were Saudi’s and all bore symptoms of impending retirement….do you also remember that Portuguese wonder-kid what was his name again? Gil?
he went on to fame and fortune eh? []
Big Pink says:
August 10, 2014 at 9:18 pm
‘…We can argue about what constitutes sporting integrity, but I find it impossible to see how this decision passes any kind of SI Sniff Test’
——
With respect, BP, you seem to be adopting the Billy Dodds argument against the stripping of titles and honours : namely, that the Rangers players who won the trophies and honours won them honourably and sportingly on the field of play, and therefore that there can be no thought of stripping titles and honours from RFC for fielding ineligible players.
Legia Warsawa humped Celtic. Agreed. There was no question of any of their players knowingly being guilty of cheating ( as we suppose was the case also with the RFC players whose full remuneration package was deliberately concealed from our Football Authorities by a deliberate, long-term act of deceit on the part of a benighted knight.Agreed.
Legia Warsawa deservedly humped Celtic twice, on the playing field. None of the players was consciously guilty of cheating. Agreed.
However, Legia the club were guilty of what is well known and documented as a serious football offence- wrongful listing of players. An inexcusable error for a professional club in a European competition. In their case, the general goodwill in regard to a decent and honourable club is such that the football person -in-the-street is ready to accept that it was a genuine bureaucratic error, with no intent to deceive.
But how easy that is to say! UEFA has had ample experience of clubs pleading special consideration ( which is possibly why there are no built-in exceptions!)in very, very different circumstances.
As a previous poster pointed out, the fact that the substitution did not actually change the course of the game is really neither here nor there. The player was, innocently enough,ineligible. The rules do not allow for the playing of an ineligible player even for the last minute of playing time.
And that is no fault of Celtic. To suggest that somehow ‘sporting integrity ‘ has been breached because the beaten ( and well-beaten team!) have ended up ‘winning’ strictly in accordance with, even if only in accordance with, ALL the rules of the competition is not at all upholding sporting integrity, but actually militating against it.
In my opinion.
IbroxLoyal @IL_Official · 36m
RANGERS Boss Ally McCoist has been summoned to a meeting with the clubs board tonight at Ibrox Stadium.
Is the end nigh for Mr McCoist?
justshatered says:
August 10, 2014 at 9:09 pm
13 0 Rate This
Boniek added: “I learned of the case on Thursday, about 16 hours since then I’ve been in constant contact with Mr. Leśnodorskim, I talked to Mr. Wandzlem of Ekstraklasa SA. and from that moment on until 1am all the most important people in UEFA. Everyone thoroughly looked into this matter, but Michel Platini and Giorgio Marchetti said one thing – ‘Zibi, there is no backdoor. Nothing. Regulations do not provide for any other penalty. We are very sorry’.”
What more needs to be said ?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
How about
“This is not Scotland”
“UEFA are not the SFA”
“My name isnt Ogilvie”
“My Assistant isnt called Bryson”
And even it we were
“LW are not Rangers”
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
August 10, 2014 at 9:14 pm
3 2 Rate This
Charlie was a very busy boy.
——
His eagerness for a cup seemed to irk McCoist; and we heard recently how dispondent he was that the Ramsdens was lost.
Was/is their ‘an onerous’ connected to cup wins?
Could someone clarify, how many games did legia get to have a full roster of players by omitting the banned one… Seems to me that a sporting advantage was gained maybe they thought no one would notice. Sporting integrity my arse
John Clark says:
August 10, 2014 at 10:02 pm
Big Pink says:
August 10, 2014 at 9:18 pm
‘…We can argue about what constitutes sporting integrity, but I find it impossible to see how this decision passes any kind of SI Sniff Test’
——
With respect, BP, you seem to be adopting the Billy Dodds argument against the stripping of titles and honours : namely, that the Rangers players who won the trophies and honours won them honourably and sportingly on the field of play, and therefore that there can be no thought of stripping titles and honours from RFC for fielding ineligible players.
__________________________________________________________
No John, I am doing nothing of the kind. I think you know that too …
first post in a long time
I suppose with the LW debate we have to clearly define what constitutes gaining a sporting advantage. Uefa rules clearly state that any fielding of a suspended player under any circumstances will constitute a sporting advantage.
So one of two advantages were accrued to LW.
1. By not placing the player on the list for the St Pats games they gained an extra player on the roster. This advantage was mitigated by the fact that the players suspension doesn’t tick off. They could have left him off the list for the celtic match and all would have been fine for them. At some point he would actually have to serve his suspension though. I’m unaware of whether they actually rostered another player in that tie in his place.
2. They fielded a suspended player during the tie with celtic. The rules regarding this are clear, as are the proscribed penalty for a breach. Whether they like it or not, bureaucracy aside, they fielded the player. They made the error.
I think that UEFA rules are bang on in this situation. Fielding suspended players no matter what the circumstances should receive the stiffest penalties. As happened here.
I have a bit of a difficulty with the description of the position that Celtic have been put in as being an aspect of the debate on sporting integrity. Celtic did not do anything by which they sought to gain an advantage. To me, that is the be all and end all of that particular discussion. I cannot remember now which team benefitted from the mistake Spartans made but does anyone consider them guilty of lacking sporting integrity?
The punishment looks disproportionate but if LW did it intentionally it is not. If they did it unintentionally then it is (in my opinion). And that is the problem, who in UEFA can tell what LW intended.
I have read all the comments here today and genuinely say I can understand all the different viewpoints BUT we as a collective have sought to ensure that “rules are followed without fear or favour”. Initially I was of the mindset that this was embarrassing for Celtic as they’d played so poorly over the two legs they did not deserve to go forward in the competition. However, the rules dictate that they do, whether through poor administration or as some have suggested deliberate non recording of a player. I was feeling sorry for LW until I heard their owner on Sky News (yes I know), he basically called Celtic out to do the sporting thing, the honourable thing. MrReidy134 (as you know is a Jambo) also felt it was emotional blackmail and that Celtic were being cast as the pantomime baddie. I personally feel that a simple administrative error should not be the decisive factor in deciding a sporting event (another) BUT what is to stop some teams from exploiting any loopholes? A rule is a rule, unjust, unfair but delivered evenly.
On another subject I was subjected to my first viewing of Sevco as they were playing Hearts today. All I can say is I almost had my husband turning it off just to shut me up about all the p**h they were talking even before the game started. Anyhow, happy hubby tonight
The Legia “open letter” invites a reply from CFC.
Take the opportunity to explain, in equally reasonable terms, what the issue is, in Scottish football, with the correct registration of players. Accept, with dignity, that we lost, fair and square on the field of play but because for a period of 3 years at least RFC(IL) fielded an entire squad of ineligible players to our disadvantage and to the disadvantage of other Scottish and European teams and that this ineligibility has been concealed by the testimony of an SFA official…..their history is being preserved… we are particularly sensitive to this and to the strict implementation of the letter of the law on this…..Europe needs to understand our position…
…however we understand that Aktobe is nice at this time of year.
Enough from me.
campsiejoe says:
August 10, 2014 at 6:02 pm
50 2 Rate This
The rules are quite clear
Field a suspended player, and you forfeit the match by a 3-0 scoreline
======================
I am getting mightily hacked off at the notion the above clear cut, beyond any doubt rule should be abandoned in this case. Legia should get the Polish FA to lobby UEFA for change but that’s it. There is no other wiggle room and it’s not Celtic’s fault. It’s getting just a tad outrageous now.
Celtic have been lucky beyond belief here, but have done nothing wrong whatsoever. Can we just get the blog back to what its real intention is.
macfurgly says:
August 10, 2014 at 10:52 pm
Let’s keep it simple here – from Celtic’s point of view, there is no case to answer. Refer to UEFA – end of story.
The LW open letter looks to me to be them pandering to their own constituency. Let them. The best thing Celtic could do is to keep shtum. Sound familiar? I for one would counsel them to do so.
BP – would setting aside the relevant rules on player suspensions on some sort of “special case” basis not undermine the integrity of the competition?
It seems to me that sporting integrity demands that the when rules are found to have been broken, sanctions are applied as they were intended to be.
The argument that LW “deserve” to be in the next round can only be made if we ignore the part of the rule book that says otherwise.
From my perspective, LW scored a bizarre and unexpected own goal that had the ultimate effect of placing Celtic into the next round draw.
Bizarre and unexpected own goals happen all the time in sport. Why would UEFA want to arbitrarily disallow this one?
Campbellsmoney says:
August 10, 2014 at 10:47 pm
I have a bit of a difficulty with the description of the position that Celtic have been put in as being an aspect of the debate on sporting integrity. Celtic did not do anything by which they sought to gain an advantage.
_______________________________________________________________
I’m certainly not suggesting that Celtic did do anything wrong – of course they didn’t. Nobody is even suggesting that Celtic are acting improperly either. However as an embarrassed Celtic fan, my point is two-fold;
1. On the face it and with the information available, it doesn’t appear to me that justice has been done here at all.
2. Celtic had (have) a great opportunity for a PR coup here by offering to swap places with Legia (arguments about seeding in the subsequent draw being of minor import IMO). They get that PR whether or not the situation changes. The key may be that the PR goodwill is not be worth the net £10m cost of dropping out of the CL.
I am also surprised and disappointed that some posters are echoing the Jimmy Traynor “Sporting integrity et j’en passe” attitude in this matter, which appears to me to be the adoption of double standards – and a sign of that same cognitive dissonance that we so often accuse TRFC fans of.
The sporting integrity argument is appropriate to me. Legia won fairly and comprehensively over the two legs.
The 24 v 25 squad thing gave them no tangible advantage.
They still could not use the player for three matches.
Had Legia knowingly failed to register the player for the previous three matches, they would have also have know it would be suicide to bring him on in the last few minutes of a tie that was over. They made a mistake which gave them no sporting advantage whatsoever.
Carfins Finest says:
August 10, 2014 at 10:05 pm
7 2 Rate This
IbroxLoyal @IL_Official · 36m
RANGERS Boss Ally McCoist has been summoned to a meeting with the clubs board tonight at Ibrox Stadium.
Is the end nigh for Mr McCoist?
———
That’ll be for a conference call with Soros. He’ll have Klinsman waiting in the wings.
Not sacked, apparently. Players out? Downsizing?
Big Pink says:
August 10, 2014 at 11:53 pm
1 1 Rate This
2. Celtic had (have) a great opportunity for a PR coup here by offering to swap places with Legia …
——-
Indeed.
Bravo, well said.
Rules are rules. If you are off work and don’t follow your signing on instructions they come after you. Celtic have a chance here to do the idealistic thing and have a rematch or offer to swop CL to Europa League with Legia. What do you think EUFA would do?
I imagine-nay,know, that Celtic would be told to mind their own business, that EUFA make the rules and not Celtic. I can also imagine various Italian, Spanish, and other coaches laughing at the naivety of the notion. Not fair, I know, but change the rule once and you’ll be doomed to keep on changing, because a precedent has been set. Celtic had no say in EUFA’s decision. Why do they need to have a say now?
I’ll give you a quote–“Romantic Ireland’s dead and gone.
It’s with O’Leary in the grave.”
Romance has no part in this decision. It’s just business, and I know it shouldn’t be just that.
Might it be better to talk of “sporting magnanimity” rather than “sporting integrity”? In my opinion, no matter which way Celtic proceed, there is surely no suggestion of them acting without integrity? Just a thought.
HirsutePursuit says:
August 10, 2014 at 11:38 pm
BP – would setting aside the relevant rules on player suspensions on some sort of “special case” basis not undermine the integrity of the competition?
It seems to me that sporting integrity demands that the when rules are found to have been broken, sanctions are applied as they were intended to be.
The argument that LW “deserve” to be in the next round can only be made if we ignore the part of the rule book that says otherwise.
From my perspective, LW scored a bizarre and unexpected own goal that had the ultimate effect of placing Celtic into the next round draw.
Bizarre and unexpected own goals happen all the time in sport. Why would UEFA want to arbitrarily disallow this one?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HP
If the rules are as rigid as some appear to suppose (and it seems that Legia think otherwise) then the rules are in need of amendment, but Celtic could still get the old moral compass out and head off the criticism and scorn they are attracting in the UK media (I discount the Scottish MSM) by offering to swap places with Legia.
Legia did not field the player for three games (as the punishment intended). I think it is unthinkable that they sought to circumvent the punishment (if they did they must be completely mad to bring the guy on with a couple of minutes to go). There is little doubt in my mind that it was error which gave them no sporting advantage whatsoever (no matter what the rules say).
As a Celtic supporter I want my club to be seen to be doing the right thing. I know they have done nothing wrong, but I expect better than “over to you UEFA”
As a football fan, I want justice and sporting integrity to prevail. I don’t think that is the outcome here. And I do genuinely find it desperately difficult to understand any other point of view on this considering the thread running through the TSFM campaign over the last couple of years.
I think some of the Celtic fans on here see my position as an attack on their club. Others consider that the situation is a swings and roundabouts scenario (when reminded of the Rapid fiasco). Perhaps I misjudge people, but I am convinced that had the situation been reversed, there would be a universal protest on these pages.
And had Celtic’s opponents been Real Madrid, do we really think that Celtic would have gone on to the CL draw?
Big Pink says:
August 10, 2014 at 11:53 pm
‘..They made a mistake which gave them no sporting advantage whatsoever.’
—–
As it happened!
But the whole point of the rule is to make damn sure that no club should even begin to think that they might conceivably get away with any sleight of hand in the paperwork
We all of us know, none better, that there are baddies in football, who will exploit every cheating trick in the book to gain a spit-in-the-eye- to-sporting-integrity advantage. Why, we have had experience of such in our own little neck of the woods!
It is not at all a question of whether it is ‘hand to ball’ or ‘ball to accidental hand’. Intent is neither here nor there.
A fundamental, critical rule was objectively broken, de facto. And, de facto and necessarily in the interests of true integrity, that breach of the rules brought with it the inevitable consequence. Just as, for example, being liquidated and going out of business has consequences, not ‘punishments’, for a failed football club.
I think the way the rules are worded is rather deliberate from the standpoint of UEFA. For certain rule breaches a scaling punishment exists. For other breaches a set standard, and maybe overly harsh punishment as it seems to some in this case (but not in my opinion).
I think UEFA are right to take a very firm stance on this issue. No gray area. No wiggle room. And I don’t think that there will be any realistic debate on changing this rule and punishment down the line.
I don’t really think Celtic and Legia being allowed to horse trade in any manner regarding which competition they should be in would set any kind of good example. Down that road darkness and corruption lies. UEFA should have the only say as the arbiters of the competition.
It’s a pity that this has now created a PR nightmare for Celtic through no fault of their own. To sit back and say we’ll be guided by UEFA (which in my opinion is the only rational response) is to appear to be taking advantage. To attempt to trade with Legia would be to condone fudging the rules and opens it’s own can of worms.
Big Pink says:
August 11, 2014 at 12:20 am
‘.And had Celtic’s opponents been Real Madrid, do we really think that Celtic would have gone on to the CL draw?’
—-
What does this say about your understanding of ‘integrity’ in European football?
I am a wee bit puzzled.
Are you saying that UEFA is corruptly accommodating Celtic? or that they would corruptly accommodate Real Madrid?
You’ve lost me there, I’m afraid!
The whole thing seems quite simple: there was a breach of the rules by Legia ( and, incidentally, are there any two of us who pronounce that name correctly?). Unfortunate, accidental, whatever. A breach nonetheless.
What are UEFA to do? Ignore it? Leave it to the ‘innocent’club’s sense of ‘sportsmanship’?
UEFA ruled. As is their duty and prerogative.End of story.And all the carping and criticism in the world cannot change the fact that Legia Warsawa was at fault, and justly have to bear the consequences of their fault.
Perhaps the thinking behind the rule never envisaged that a club would play a suspended player other than to gain sporting advantage?
A suspended player has already broken a football rule and been subject to disciplinary action which causes his club to be denied his services for a number of games. They lose any advantage he brings to his team (in theory)
How those games are counted in order to keep track is in the rules to stop a club thinking of sneaking a player in before his sentence is up because why else (in disciplinary think terms) would a club play a suspended player?
How could you write a rule that said a game will not be forfeit and a club face a penalty without the deterrent value behind the rule being compromised?
Thus the absolute position is regardless of the reason a club forfeits a game if it plays a suspended player because the only reason it would do so is to gain sporting advantage.
In football there is the referees decision is final rule of thought. It is there because without it games would be replayed forever and results overturned when mistakes are made.
When a club gets the advantage of a referee’s incorrect decision when after a game it can be seen that a clear penalty should have been awarded , the team losing out accept it because football becomes unmanageable if they do not.
This seems to be the position Legia have put themselves in.
No question of any advantage or disadvantage just the rule of football producing the equivalent of an honest mistake that either costs or benefits clubs every game.
Or does the amount of money lost or gained make it more than an integrity issue?
BP. Are you seriously suggesting that if Real Madrid had been the team breaching that rule, that Uefa would ignored their rulebook? I find that astonishing. Not that Eufa official’s are whiter than white, but the fallout would be disastrous for their ‘integrity’.
Yet more examples of lazy journalism over the last few days…it wasn’t an ‘expulsion’ of Legia, it was a determination that the forfeited the 2nd leg 3-0. If they had scored either of the missed penalties in the first leg, they would have still progressed
Early post for me sitting down to a coffee contemplating an early start to work having transported the oldest to the airport to meet her 12 pals..
Regards the UEFA ruling on Legia, quite refreshing to see a rule being put in play that does not seem negotiable, it is clear cut and precise, confirmed by Platini, no back door.. Whether conceived for sporting advantage or big Berg just not checking his player paperwork or not knowing the rules (4 admin errors) is totally his fault IMO and his coat was on a shoogly peg to begin with from what I read.
If Celtic reach the CL or not I don’t think we have heard the last from the Legia officials, damned if you do, damned if you don’t..Criticised for benefitting from a team not following competition rules, however officious this rule seems to be under the circumstances. Like I said best a rule to stick by regardless than one that can be bent to suit, we have seen enough of that.