Nil By Mouth survey on Strict Liability

[26th of foot 5,859]

10 separate incidents leading to sanctions. All handled with a mere slap on the wrist fine while other clubs suffer stand closures and empty stadia! Has any other club had this many convictions for crowd misbehaviour and not had stands or stadium closures?

If not the question remains, who is pulling the string so that shame FC are given unfair preferential treatment??

 

John Delaney?

[craig 5,199]

Strict liability really works, just look at how it's changing the Scum's behaviour.

 

 

 

Look on the bright side.... BH will be right along to remind us how strict liability will be fairly applied and will result in better behavior of fans

[Darthter 542]

Strict liability really works, just look at how it's changing the Scum's behaviour.

 

 

 

These are the result of strict liability....how many sanctions/fines have they received from the SFA/SPFL for similar behaviour???

 

In this case, I don't think it is the implementation of the rule that is the problem....it is the sanctions imposed for breaching the rule. 19k Euro is probably a weeks wage for an average squad player - not exactly gonna financially ruin them.

 

Just heard on the news....They've been hit with ANOTHER fine of £16k for fireworks agains Man City.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

These are the result of strict liability....how many sanctions/fines have they received from the SFA/SPFL for similar behaviour???

 

In this case, I don't think it is the implementation of the rule that is the problem....it is the sanctions imposed for breaching the rule. 19k Euro is probably a weeks wage for an average squad player - not exactly gonna financially ruin them.

 

Just heard on the news....They've been hit with ANOTHER fine of £16k for fireworks agains Man City.

 

Darther is spot on.

 

FS is posing the wrong question and he knows that full well.

 

UEFA have sanctioned Celtic 10 times for the improper conduct of their fans; you can argue all day about the level of fines or whether they should have led to more severe punishments; but the recent fine is the highest imposed on them. I agree the fines should be much higher and I agree that they should be accumulated and/or lead to closure of areas of the ground etc etc but that is a different argument. To be perfectly honest much more serious incidents have occurred in places like Milan and Bratislava leading to closures and perhaps UEFA want to keep a sense of proportion.

 

So this is clear and unequivocal evidence that strict liability does indeed work, inasmuch as Celtic have been punished 10 times for the unacceptable conduct of their fans in European games versus nil under the "reasonably practicable" rule in Scotland.

 

Thank you FS.

 

The prosecution rests.

[craig 5,199]

Darther is spot on.

 

FS is posing the wrong question and he knows that full well.

 

UEFA have sanctioned Celtic 10 times for the improper conduct of their fans; you can argue all day about the level of fines or whether they should have led to more severe punishments; but the recent fine is the highest imposed on them. I agree the fines should be much higher and I agree that they should be accumulated and/or lead to closure of areas of the ground etc etc but that is a different argument. To be perfectly honest much more serious incidents have occurred in places like Milan and Bratislava leading to closures and perhaps UEFA want to keep a sense of proportion.

 

So this is clear and unequivocal evidence that strict liability does indeed work, inasmuch as Celtic have been punished 10 times for the unacceptable conduct of their fans in European games versus nil under the "reasonably practicable" rule in Scotland.

 

Thank you FS.

 

The prosecution rests.

 

Really ? Your "clear and unequivocal" evidence of strict liability "working" is a TENTH fine in five years ? You may suggest that FS is posing the wrong question but I would equally contend that you are producing the wrong answer and analogy.

 

For something like strict liability to actually "work" you need to look behind the fines and actually look at what it is actually trying to achieve. If you believe, which I am sure you don't, that strict liability is solely attempting to charge and fine clubs for the behavior of their fans then your argument works.

 

However....

 

I would argue that the actual intent of strict liability is to have clubs be accountable for the actions of their fans - which ultimately means that the clubs fans will see that their actions are detrimental to the club's well-being. In other words the actual INTENT of strict liability, IMHO, is to act as a deterrent to inappropriate behaviors of clubs fans. The end result for strict liability is not to fine clubs but to act as a deterrent so that clubs and their fans don't act in an inappropriate manner.

 

And if you agree with the latter then there can be absolutely NO conclusion other than strict liability does NOT work - when a club gets fined for a TENTH time in 5 years it is abundantly clear that strict liability rules are not working.

 

So... I would argue that you are being very disingenuous in your arguing in the defense of strict liability - indeed, one may even say that you have an agenda which is pro-strict liability. Are you a politician BH ?

 

The prosecution needs to find a better argument.

Edited February 24, 2017 by craig

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Really ? Your "clear and unequivocal" evidence of strict liability "working" is a TENTH fine in five years ? You may suggest that FS is posing the wrong question but I would equally contend that you are producing the wrong answer and analogy.

 

For something like strict liability to actually "work" you need to look behind the fines and actually look at what it is actually trying to achieve. If you believe, which I am sure you don't, that strict liability is solely attempting to charge and fine clubs for the behavior of their fans then your argument works.

 

However....

 

I would argue that the actual intent of strict liability is to have clubs be accountable for the actions of their fans - which ultimately means that the clubs fans will see that their actions are detrimental to the club's well-being. In other words the actual INTENT of strict liability, IMHO, is to act as a deterrent to inappropriate behaviors of clubs fans. The end result for strict liability is not to fine clubs but to act as a deterrent so that clubs and their fans don't act in an inappropriate manner.

 

And if you agree with the latter then there can be absolutely NO conclusion other than strict liability does NOT work - when a club gets fined for a TENTH time in 5 years it is abundantly clear that strict liability rules are not working.

 

So... I would argue that you are being very disingenuous in your arguing in the defense of strict liability - indeed, one may even say that you have an agenda which is pro-strict liability. Are you a politician BH ?

 

The prosecution needs to find a better argument.

 

I disagree, 10 fines in 5 years, is clear proof that strict liability works as a system for dealing with the unacceptable conduct of fans. How well it works is another argument.

 

I have made it clear to anyone who would listen that I have been in favour of strict liability for at least the past 6 years.

 

Celtic have indeed been held accountable, we agree that the bill has not been high enough.

 

I would agree that the current level of fines does not act as a deterrent but at some point UEFA are going to say, enough is enough, next strike and your stand etc is closed; and then Celtic or whoever will have no defense because of their long record. Remember that there are two levels of appeal.

 

If you do not agree with strict liability becoming the rule in Scotland, how would you ensure that clubs are held accountable for the misconduct of their fans?

 

Please give a practical answer, not one that begins - well it won't happen so long is Lawwell is running the show; because that's exactly the point, we need an answer that deals with the present situation despite Lawwell running the show.

Edited February 24, 2017 by BrahimHemdani

[boabie 230]

What UEFA and sellik get up to has nothing to do with Rangers and proves nothing when it comes to strict liability in Scotland.

I'll repeat, if it's introduced here there is one club which, not only will receive severe punishment, but will receive ANY punishment.

And it's not sellik.

[craig 5,199]

I disagree, 10 fines in 5 years, is clear proof that strict liability works as a system for dealing with the unacceptable conduct of fans. How well it works is another argument.

 

If your idea of a system "working" is that a repeat offender gets nothing more than a slap on the wrists each time they offend then we should probably just agree to disagree. There is no "how well it is working" - it either works or it doesn't. Strict liability is something that is aimed at preventing inappropriate behavior by way of having a club accountable for the actions of everyone connected to said club - the strict liability is used to ensure that someone is responsible for the club's actions (or their fans). A 10th fine in 5 yrs does NOT suggest it is working as intended.

 

You may argue that because they have been fined 10 times in 5 years it is working - but I would look at an extreme example of someone getting community service for murder and argue that when they then murder a subsequent 4 times it suggests that your strict liability isn't working. The whole premise of it is to act as a deterrent - the simple fact that a Club have been fined 10 times in 5 years quite simply proves that it is no deterrent. Ergo, it isn't working. No matter what way you try to dress it up.

 

I have made it clear to anyone who would listen that I have been in favour of strict liability for at least the past 6 years.

 

Yes, we know that. And for 6 years you have been wrong. Advocating for a period of time doesn't make you right. Indeed, I question you wholeheartedly when you try to assert that it will be applied even-handedly in a balanced manner. That simply is NOT how Scottish football operates and, if you believe it is, then you have been living on a different planet for the last 5 years.

 

Celtic have indeed been held accountable, we agree that the bill has not been high enough.

 

Accountable doesn't mean that the system is working though. You seem to be somehow trying to equate accountable with working. The whole premise is to act as a deterrent - 10 fines in 5 years tells you that whilst they may be getting held accountable it still isn't working - because it isn't acting as the deterrent it is intended to be.

 

I would agree that the current level of fines does not act as a deterrent but at some point UEFA are going to say, enough is enough, next strike and your stand etc is closed; and then Celtic or whoever will have no defense because of their long record. Remember that there are two levels of appeal.

 

"At some point" ??? Seriously BH ? You think that 10 fines isn't enough ? Particularly when one of the fines was for a banner which proclaimed "FUCK UEFA" - and you honestly think that UEFA are set to say "enough is enough" ? When ? After the 20th fine ? Because it certainly doesn't look like UEFA are applying creeping materiality to anything Celtic.

 

The levels of appeal are completely irrelevant when you have a club being handed a slap on the wrists. FFS, they made over 30 million from the Champions League and their TENTH fine was 16k. So.... again.... where is the deterrent ?

 

If you do not agree with strict liability becoming the rule in Scotland, how would you ensure that clubs are held accountable for the misconduct of their fans?

 

Continue as is. And you know why I would rather continue as is ? Because RANGERS can say "we did all we could" and the authorities can't fine us, strip titles, withhold prize money etc. If we go the strict liability route I have very little doubt that Rangers would be punished to a far greater extent than ANY other club in the land. And that is why I completely disagree with you on strict liability. Because I believe you are naïve.

 

If the last 5 years has taught us anything it has taught us that a level playing field will never happen when it comes to anything Rangers. Not whilst Lawell and his cronies are running the SFA/SPFL.

 

Please give a practical answer, not one that begins - well it won't happen so long is Lawwell is running the show; because that's exactly the point, we need an answer that deals with the present situation despite Lawwell running the show.

 

I have given a practical answer - I would "better the devil you know as the one you don't" because whether you choose to see it or not the simple reality is that the whole of Scottish football STILL wants to see us dead - they will find ANY reason to hang, draw and quarter us whilst ignoring every offense from every other club.

 

The sad part in all of this is that because you are a proponent of strict liability you are completely blind to the unfair, unjust manner in which Rangers has been treated these past 5 years. It is astounding to me that you actually think that strict liability would be applied evenly across the board. Your naivety is palpable.

[Bluedell 5,356]

If you do not agree with strict liability becoming the rule in Scotland, how would you ensure that clubs are held accountable for the misconduct of their fans?

 

Please give a practical answer, not one that begins - well it won't happen so long is Lawwell is running the show; because that's exactly the point, we need an answer that deals with the present situation despite Lawwell running the show.

I'd fire that question back at you. How do you ensure that clubs are held accountable for their fans? Under a Lawwell controlled SFA/SPFL Rangers will be the prime recipient of punishment for strict liability so another solution is required.

[Bluedell 5,356]

I disagree, 10 fines in 5 years, is clear proof that strict liability works as a system for dealing with the unacceptable conduct of fans. How well it works is another argument.

It can work well. the fact that UEFA have found Celtic guilty 10+ times doesn't mean that the SFA/SPFL will though.

 

Many agree with the principle. It's just how that would be applied in Scotland that would be the issue.