Club Statement

[JFK-1 1,673]

You all understand that hibz grunts deny there were ANY assaults on ANY Rangers employees?

 

Couple of example comments about frustration that the hibz board wont come out and deny these assaults.

 

It's surely no just me that's sick fed up with the boards continuing silence while Rangers and their bum boy pals in the media, especially those storytellers at Daily Record, continue to drag the clubs name through the muck with absolute lies and accusations that have been proved to be false time and time again?

 

Was probably against this but after seeing the Record repeating the lies about Rangers players being assaulted then agree we should say something.

 

Remarkable. I sometimes wonder if they really do believe that then further wonder what sort of crazy you would have to be to do so given there is actual photographic evidence plastered all over the net.

 

Doesn't seem to sink in if the board do as they want them to then they will also look crazy.

[barca72 440]

If we withdrew from the Scottish cup what punishment would be dealt out by the corrupt cabal?

 

A good statement at this time just to put the message out there that the club totally disagree with it, which is all they can do before looking at it in depth.

 

Withdrawing from the cup would probably give them an opportunity as per what Ian has just said. id imagine we have already entered it as I think all clubs have to do so before the start of the competition so pulling out may have red tape. Its certainly what I would do for starters though sighting concern of safety.

 

Withdrawing from the Scottish Cup plays into their hands imo, better to be in the tent pissing over them, than outside the tent pissing in the wind.

 

It can't be done, Ian, if we do not want to give them the opportunity to levy severe penalties up to and including removal of the club's licence, in my opinion. They have proven before that they would proceed with heavy penalties.

 

33. Participation in a Cup Tie

33.1 Clubs eligible to compete in the Challenge Cup Competition shall be subject to and

shall comply with both these Articles and the Challenge Cup Competition Rules, as

amended from time to time.

33.2 Failure by any member to comply with Article 33.1 shall be deemed to be an

infringement of these Articles.

33.3 All members eligible to compete in the Challenge Cup Competition, shall so compete

in the Challenge Cup Competition.

33.4 Failure by any member to comply with Article 33.3 shall be deemed to be an

infringement of these Articles.

 

35. Club Licensing

35.1 Clubs in full membership or associate membership of the Scottish FA or in membership

of an Affiliated Association or an Affiliated National Association, as the case may be,

shall comply with the requirements of the Club Licensing Procedures.

35.2 It shall be for the Licensing Committee to determine, in the first instance, whether:-

(a) a club has complied with the requirements of the Club Licensing Procedures; and

(b) to grant, suspend, refuse to grant or withdraw a Club Licence (on such terms

and conditions as the Licensing Committee thinks fit) and, if a Club Licence is

granted, which category of Club Licence to grant to the applicant club,

provided that the determination of the Licensing Committee will not be final and

binding, and clubs will have the right to appeal against any determination made by

the Licensing Committee to the Judicial Panel in accordance with the Judicial Panel

Protocol.

35.3 The Judicial Panel will have jurisdiction to deal with any club which fails to comply with

the requirements of the Club Licensing Procedures and/or any terms and conditions

imposed by the Licensing Committee, and to impose such sanctions upon such club for

such failure as are prescribed within the Judicial Panel Protocol.

[Frankie 8,150]

I imagine the club look at fan forums such as this one to judge the feelings of the fans on such issues as the SFA statement. Now i'm not saying anyone should read anything into this but last night a forum user with the name I think it was D KING123 or something like that who apparently has been a member for a few years or so but has never posted was looking at our topic on the SFA statement.

 

Now today we have this.

 

Just a coincidence...

[pete 2,499]

Just a coincidence...

 

I doubt if they would use their own name to log in but I also doubt They would want to get involved and read what people think of them. I think they will get a general consensus of information through PR people who probably do look in on the forums. If I was a player I wouldn't want to read about people calling me a dick for making a mistake. Here it may not too bad but on the bigger sites getting 26 pages of people calling me a dick won't be much fun to read.

[cooponthewing 1,139]

I doubt if they would use their own name to log in but I also doubt They would want to get involved and read what people think of them. I think they will get a general consensus of information through PR people who probably do look in on the forums. If I was a player I wouldn't want to read about people calling me a dick for making a mistake. Here it may not too bad but on the bigger sites getting 26 pages of people calling me a dick won't be much fun to read.

 

I don't know? If it was me curiosity would get the better of me, but 26 pages of being called a dick is a bit much lol. I reckon my missus who passed is still calling me a dick lol! Either that or she said it so much it's in my head 24/7 ha ha!

[Frankie 8,150]

I doubt if they would use their own name to log in but I also doubt They would want to get involved and read what people think of them. I think they will get a general consensus of information through PR people who probably do look in on the forums. If I was a player I wouldn't want to read about people calling me a dick for making a mistake. Here it may not too bad but on the bigger sites getting 26 pages of people calling me a dick won't be much fun to read.

 

Oh there's no doubt the club and others monitor the online community. But DKING123 isn't the chairman making an Imran of it...

[Bluedell 5,329]

So players and staff were assaulted and the SFA are doing NOTHING about it?

 

The implications of that are immense, but primarily shows again that the SFA are not fit for purpose.

[AM89 0]

Good, strong statement from the club.

 

I find it inconceivable to think that the SFA have the power to punish clubs for damaging bloody ad boards but are powerless when it comes to the safety of players who had punches thrown at them. If SFA won't do anything to protect a member club's players, who will?

 

Their inaction is deplorable.

[ian1964 10,415]

Shame on the SFA for turning rule book upside down over Scottish Cup Final farce - Gary Ralston

 

07:45, 1 Sep 2016

Updated 07:57, 1 Sep 2016

By Gary Ralston

 

REGAN and the SFA examined the rule book to find out how they could soften the blow to Scottish football following Cup Final chaos.

 

THE lights went out on more than LED advertising boards when the Scottish Cup Final descended into chaos at Hampden.

 

If Rangers really want to play a part in guiding Scottish football out of the darkness, they must start leading the way in the promotion of UEFA-style strict liability laws.

 

It would be a brave and bold move by the Ibrox board, whose anger at attacks on their players by Easter Road fans after May’s end-of-season showpiece remains justifiably raw.

 

The wounds have only been re-opened by the pitiful response of compliance officer Tony McGlennan more than three months after the event.

 

You missed a trick, Hibs fans. Had you worn slippers to the game, your club would be in the dock next month for nothing more than two goalposts and a crossbar.

 

Rangers appear permanently upset these days but their latest statement is borne as much from frustration as fury at the failure of the governing body to protect their employees.

 

McGlennan will claim he was hamstrung by the rulebook but rarely has someone in a position of power in the Scottish game taken so long to come up with so little.

 

Shame on Scottish clubs for giving him such a meagre framework as initial exuberance by Hibs fans gave way to thuggish attacks on professional players in their workplace.

 

Shame also on SFA chief executive Stewart Regan, who has been involved in the biggest deflection seen at Hampden since George McCluskey’s injury-time strike past Peter McCloy preceded another riot at the National Stadium in 1980. Regan oversaw the appointment of a QC, Edward Bowen, who admitted he wasn’t qualified to deal with one of the key aspects of his independent inquiry, the response rates of police to the chaos and disorder that followed Hibs’ 3-2 win.

 

Regan and the SFA – in line with his cohorts at the then SPL – turned the rule book upside down and inside out in a bid to find a way to soften the fall to Scottish football after the financial collapse of Rangers in 2012.

 

This time, the SFA have abdicated their responsibility to football and footballers by their decision to stand back in recent months under the banner of justice being seen to run its course – and it has been a cop out.

 

At the very least, the SFA should have called an emergency meeting in the immediate aftermath of the final to implement proposals aimed at avoiding future attacks on players and hammering clubs whose fans step out of line.

 

The suggestion from Rangers the SFA might even have been “unwilling” to take action they felt would have been appropriate is so serious you can only conclude they are currently examining all options, including legal routes. The irony is at least twice in the last decade the SFA tried and failed to implement a form of strict liability that would have held clubs more accountable for misbehaviour.

 

It was swatted aside when the late David Taylor pushed for its inclusion in the rulebook and in 2013 only five per cent of member clubs voted for its introduction.

 

It’s believed Hibs favoured it – by coincidence, Rod Petrie is also an office bearer at the SFA – but it was only minnow clubs, mostly outside the senior ranks, who were of a mind to give it a go.

 

Once upon a time, when the SFA’s administration had greater control over clubs, punishments for fan attacks on players – sadly, they’re not so uncommon – were expected as a matter of course.

 

Celtic were fined £1000 when one of their fans attacked Gordon Strachan during a game against Aberdeen in November 1980.

 

Rangers player Fernando Ricksen was attacked by a Dons fan in August 2003 while Ibrox keepers Ally Maxwell and Andy Goram were attacked by supporters, at Parkhead and Easter Road, in the early nineties.

 

Celtic manager Neil Lennon was attacked on the touchline at Tynecastle and Derek Riordan was assaulted by a Hearts fan after netting a penalty for Hibs at the Gorgie ground.

 

Three weeks ago, two yobs were jailed for assaulting former Hoops keeper Rab Douglas when he was playing for Forfar against Airdrie, while also spitting sectarian abuse.

 

In recent years, clubs have wriggled off the hook, their pleas of having done all they could to avoid unacceptable behaviour by fans being accepted by the SFA.

 

The push from Hampden for strict liability is a bid to claw back power they lost the minute clubs turned up at disciplinary hearings with QCs to ride a legal coach and horses through their rules.

 

Rangers have talked tough in their latest statement and now they must be advocates of change or be rightly accused of rank hypocrisy. The promotion of strict liability would also force the Ibrox club to confront their own dark issues, almost exclusively a sectarian songbook that continues to drag its reputation down.

 

If they give the authorities power to act then Rangers – and Celtic – have most to lose from the repugnant chanting of fans, which proliferates especially when they’re on the road.

 

Perhaps it would even be an indication from the current Ibrox board, who weren’t in place when strict liability was last discussed at the SFA agm three years ago, they need help to clean up that unsavoury element of their club.

 

In the meantime, let’s remember the damage done to those electronic advertising boards amounted to a figure well in excess of £500,000.

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/shame-sfa-turning-rule-book-8745019

[26th of foot 5,833]

So players and staff were assaulted and the SFA are doing NOTHING about it?

 

The implications of that are immense, but primarily shows again that the SFA are not fit for purpose.

 

The SFA cannot do anything about it, because it did not happen.

 

I believe Police Scotland have arrested 64 folks on the field, none have been charged with assaulting players.

 

A timeline on this topic would be useful.

 

On a related matter, the recent Hearts/Sellik fixture at Tynecastle fallout continues. Today's Herald is offering the CCTV system at Tynecastle does not record sound, thus complaints of sectarian chanting cannot be progressed. The ten day delay and changes to the SPFL Observer's report are not dealt with; but again, if it did not happen, what can be done? The Emperor's new clothes indeed!