0
    0

    Comment on Does Money Indeed Ruin Football? by ernie.

    I've found two UK teams, West Ham in 1980 and Villa in 1983, under UEFA rules had to play ties behind closed doors due to crowd trouble in previous round.  Of course English teams were banned from Europe altogether for crowd trouble.  Interesting one, apparently in the 2010-11 Heineken Cup Edinburgh vs Castres oft re-scheduled tie was held behind closed doors to protect the crowd in the prevailing weather conditions.  It takes a lot for the authorities to close it down for one game and, thankfully, there is a range of sanctions long before ground closure. Of course the clubs always have the option to actually do something about sectarianism and crowd trouble in the first place.  Abhorrent as this complicit acceptance is I can see why they don't, it's because there are no repercussions for them.  Why are we accepting this?

     

    ernie Also Commented

    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    Strict liability mean the SFA and the clubs can't choose how or if they deal with any sectarian or crowd trouble issues.  At the moment they can, mostly of course they choose to do nothing, why would they?  Occasionally they hand out some token gesture of a punishment and why not?  They choose to have no liability.  I wish I could, imagine the possibilities!

    On the "punishing the innocent" argument I'm sorry but that's disingenuous to say the least.  Firstly, people are diving straight to ground closure when in fact there is a range of sanctions, fines, points deduction etc before a consistent repeat offender gets to ground closure.  The fact is there is no threat of anything at all and that has to stop.  Note also that both UEFA and the EPL (I haven't checked any others) both clearly match the sanctions with the effort made and steps taken by the club in question to deal with the issues.  So a club demonstrably doing their best would not be sanctioned as much as, say, our current lot of shameless hucksters.  That's scary to our clubs, imagine having to demonstrate effort being made.

    Secondly, it's not really punishment is it, except to the club?  Once again we seem to forget that we're talking about a game of fitba here, an entertainment run by some of the participants as a commercial enterprise.  Not getting to go to a game of fitba is not a breach of any human right, being able to stage such an event and charge good money for it is, in fact, a privilege that is being abused.  If there is some resultant hassle re ST holders getting refunds then that's even better, the clubs need to start facing up to their responsibilities and face some consequences otherwise they do nothing.

     


    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    "Therefore the question has to be asked. Who exactly are the like of the Union Bears, the Green Brigade and others appealing to?"

    That's a great question wottpi, to which I think the answer is "other deluded, angry men".  It is possible to  relate this to the rise in populism, fuelled itself by a sense of being abandoned, but it has been going on throughout many cycles of general, public trends.  The problem is that the people who run our clubs and our game have convinced themselves that this is where the money is, or more realistically, to stop this stuff would threaten the income stream.  The immorality of this is bad enough but I happen to believe they are wrong.  It's often paraphrased from WW1 that we are "led by donkeys" but I think "led by dinosaurs" is more apt.  Their time is up though, hence the upsurge, it's a lashing out at the death.

     

     


    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    I'm not a fan of the old "why are you arresting me for speeding when there's real criminals to catch?" argument.  SFM'ers, football authorities and society in general are capable of dealing with the bigger Scottish fitba corruption (for want of a better word) and crowd trouble.  It's not an either or and in fact, as has been suggested by Tri, can be easily linked.  Is it a coincidence that the sectarianism and crowd trouble at the fitba has got worse in the last few years?

     

     


    Recent Comments by ernie

    Accountability via Transparency.
    I'd rather see East Kilbride and Cove Rangers (other teams that have worked their way up the system are available) in the SPFL than some reserve team personally.  At the moment the bigger teams hoover up all the talent anyway, giving them SPFL status for their excess squads is just a way to consolidate no one else getting a look in.

     


    Accountability via Transparency.
    Angus1983 3rd May 2019 at 12:02

    The message the SFA are giving McInnes is basically the same one you're getting on SFM: "Suck it up and haud yer wheest".


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    BP, on board with all of that. The thing about “rangersness” and “celticness” IMO is that it’s used as shorthand for something that has nothing to do with football. The fact that two teams dominate football supporters in Scotland is just a fact and that’s ok with me.  Even their dominance of the media is understandable but let’s not assume we are all on one side of the sectarian divide or the other, most of us (including I suspect most Celtic fans and maybe trfc fans?) couldn’t care less. 

     


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    Reading my last post it looks a bit flippant and I don't mean it that way.  I'm fully aware of the "establishment" predomination of a protestant/masonic nature in Scotland and it's clear that the SFA is one of the last bastions.  However the antidote to a corrupt organisation with outdated sectarian bias is a functioning organisation where absolutely no account of ethnicity, religion, skin colour or political affiliation is taken. Even if you don't share the liberal view on diversity being good for society in general there is the undisputed fact that none of the above has a single thing to do with fitba anyway. Categorising everyone in terms of Rangersness or Celticness is part of the problem and I, for one, don't want any part in it.

     


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    So let me get this right. There are “good Rangers men”, presumably that means Protestant and probably mason and or orange order. Then there are a few “non rangers” and that presumably means merely Protestant. Then there are “Celtic” men, presumably catholic. As you say UTH how bizarre that we are categorising thus in 2019 especially in fitba.  I’m glad I’m an atheist sheepshagger!