Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?

395
69042

For those following the games, rooting for their favourite teams and feverishly discussing their matches between two glasses of ale, football is a mix of entertainment and something to be excited about. These fans are, in turn, a massive customer base for those behind football as a business: their dedication and following is the driving force behind broadcast rights, merchandise, and ticket sales, all of which turn a wonderful sport into a cash cow for those pulling the strings. As long as the game is fair, both in the field and behind the scenes, it’s a win-win for all parties: the players get their salaries, the fans get their quality football, and the business entities behind them, ranging from football betting operators to the teams’ owners, advertisers, sponsors, and such, all get their money. Like in every business, though, there are parties in football that don’t exactly operate according to the rules. Of business, that is.

What many people don’t realize, though, is that football goes beyond being simply a game. As MEP Stelios Kouloglou pointed out in an op-ed published on Euractive this April, football can often flow into different areas like politics and racial bias, pointing out that the emergence of Pelé, one of the best football players ever, was instrumental to significantly reducing racism in Brazil. Yet the democratic nature of football is degraded today thanks to all the money flowing into it. And the best example of this, Kouloglou writes, is the UEFA Champions League.

As he points out, the only clubs that can reach the Champions League semi-finals are from the “big 5” countries – Spain, Italy, France, Germany and Great Britain. And this happens not because there aren’t any talented teams in other countries but because of all the money flowing into the clubs nowadays. After all, not all clubs can afford to pay almost £200 million for a single player, no matter how talented and marketable the player might be. These big clubs with big money behind them syphon all the most talented players from all over the world, offering amazing transfer fees and strengthening their ranks – investing in their future success with the goal of keeping their fans’ attention pointed on them, and making even more money in the process.

And where there’s money, there must be scandals related to money. Corruption and tax avoidance run rampant across football, from the top of organizations like FIFA and UEFA down to local clubs and players, working with financial advisors like Kingsbridge that allegedly help them invest in ways that will grant them tax relief, schemes that “don’t work”, according to HM Revenue and Customs.

A few years ago, an unpopular opinion emerged in the press stating that the influx of big money into football will ruin it forever by attracting the “wrong kind of owners” that see clubs as their “cash cow”, among others. MP Damian Collins went as far as saying that “Running a big football club now is like running a Hollywood studio – it’s a content business. The money goes to the stars”. And this is one of the biggest issues today’s football faces that can ruin it forever.

395 COMMENTS


  1. wottpi 6th March 2019 at 10:31

    Nicely put by the Daily Record .

    But they are understood to have been shocked and angered by the sheer volume of loose change which was hurled into the technical area from tossers in the main stand – placing Caldwell, his back room team and substitutes in harm’s way

    View Comment

  2. "If paying customers at a theatre started breaking the seats and throwing them about would the theatre owner be fined, would they have part of the theatre shut down by the authorities.."

     

    If the same shit happened regularly with the same audience, the same show and the same refusal to do anything about it for fear of losing some customers then absolutely yes, especially if innocent bystanders are impacted.  They would be shut down.  Really pointless analogising this with normal life: that's the problem, we have generated a sideshow to fitba that appears to enable a few neds to do what they want because it's fitba.  There is a huge kickback from the clubs on this: they should be ashamed of their complicit encouragement of the crap that is going on.  pleading a conspiracy against a big club or the unfairness of it all is also complicit: the fact is that the clubs and the SFA are doing nothing about it and it may be the case that actually taking the blame and getting punished is the only way to get anything done. Or… blame it on someone else as if it's nothing to do with a twisted view of allegiance to the clubs that just happens to generate revenue.

     

    View Comment

  3. ernie 6th March 2019 at 12:39

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

    No they wouldn't, the people doing it would be arrested and charged. They would be tried and punished accordingly.

    They would be banned from the theatre concerned and if it was a chain all of their theatres. 

    Which is exactly what needs done with football. Identify the culprits, punish them under the law and ban them from all football grounds. 

     

    View Comment

  4. Homunculus 6th March 2019 at 12:59

    There are multiple instances of licensed premises, e.g. pubs, losing their licence where there are repeated issues with noise, drunkeness, violence, calls to the police etc.

    I don't see why football grounds should be treated differently.  The clubs and football authorities should be capable of policing the issue themselves e.g. using strict liability sanctions as a tool, or risk the government and local authorities stepping in.  There is clearly a reluctance by the government and local authorities to act for political considerations, but I feel that it is only a matter of time before there is a serious incident that forces their hand.

    If the issues involve away fans, then there should be stepped sanctions leading to a ban on the sale of tickets to those fans. Yes, there will be a loss of green, blue, red or maroon pounds to the home clubs, but I think that the short term pain would be worth the long term gain.

    Where there is the risk of your own club's fans being impacted by the actions of a few then peer pressure will ultimately lead to the instigators being identified or shouted down.

    View Comment

  5. According to today's papers, Charles Green has initiated proceedings against the Police and the Crown Office for wrongful arrest.

    His account of what happened should make for yet more court appearances for JC and I.

    View Comment

  6. paddy malarkey 6th March 2019 at 14:11

     

    Not offended at all.

     

    All you did was support my argument that the minority of fans  at various clubs get away with this nonsense, the majority of fans can only do so much and as such strict liability is the best way forward. 

    broken heart

    View Comment

  7. easyJambo 6th March 2019 at 13:18

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

    It really depends which analogy you want to go with.

    You compare a football stadium to a pub, a premises licenced to sell alcohol, which can be removed if the owner (licencee) fails to run it to a satisfactory standard. That is absolutely correct.

    I compare it to a theatre, a place where people go to watch entertainment. I'm ignoring where they are used for functions obviously as that is not when these incidents take place and the analogy you use for licenced premises is more accurate anyway. 

    We do not sell alcohol at games in Scotland and if anyone turns up drunk they should not be allowed in anyway. So I think your comparison is flawed. However it will probably be the one used by people advocating strict liability. Even if it ends up punishing the tens of thousands of supporters who have done nothing wrong. 

    I believe what we are talking about here are public order issues, laid to the Police to deal with. The fact that they are happening in a football stadium, as opposed to the local supermarket does not change that. 

    View Comment

  8. Homunculus 6th March 2019 at 14:32

     

    Even if it ends up punishing the tens of thousands of supporters who have done nothing wrong. 

    ————————————————————————————————————–

     

    The ears of ten thousands supporters are already punished by the sectarian filth being sung.  The ears of thousands of supporters with no interest in British/Irish History are being punished by those who want to give us a history lesson week in week out.  The pride of tens of thousands of fans are hurt and punished by some of their 'own' who indulge in mindless chants, bottle and coin throwing etc etc.

    I care not a jot for how it is justified or implemented  but doing something that new that can perhaps bring us all into the 21 Century is perhaps worth a wee bit more pain.

     

    View Comment

  9. wottpi 6th March 2019 at 14:59

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

    So someone pays say £1200 for him and his son to get season tickets. They go to all of the games, don't indulge in any of these songs or chants, don't throw anything at anyone, just enjoy the game and each others company as a bonding experience, and go home probably talking about the game.

    You think it is acceptable to punish them. Rather than policing things properly and actually punish the people who are doing these things.

    I disagree.

     

    View Comment

  10. Fitba is not a pub, neither is it the theatre.  Even if you go with the analogy then if a theatre run the same show with the same players every week with the same public disturbances it would be shut down, especially if the owner/operators took no responsibility.  There are cases of closed down stadia in European competitions and strict liability is also applied across many of Europe's leagues.  Why are Scottish clubs and the SFA allowed to wash their hands of it?  And as for arresting the culprits because it's nothing to do with the clubs?  Well, that's fine but there have been arrests for missile throwing (and sectarian singing while we're at it) but it has made no difference.  A few neds getting banned doesn't hurt anyone therefore it is of no consequence.

    Fitba is not a pub or a theatre.  It is unlike all other businesses outside professional team sports.  The clubs own or lease/operate the ground, they employ the players, they participate in league and cup competitions in joint association with other clubs nationally and internationally.  There is little, if any at all, walk up business.  It's difficult to get any tickets for TRFC or Celtic home games for example as most of the tickets are with Season Ticket holders.  Even Aberdeen's average 14,000 crowd contains 11,000 ST's.  You can't buy a ticket unless you're registered with your home club.  There is a tight bond between the club and it's customers, that's why we love the game.  It is not a show put on by an impresario selling tickets to make a bob or two.  The customers and the team on the pitch are part of a joint entity.  The same people turn up every week. The clubs are complicit and sectarianism and missile throwing will continue as long as doing nothing is good for the club's finances.

    If you want a difficult scenario for strict liability here is one.  It's the SC final in May 2019 and a few Dons fans start singing anti semitic songs based on a flawed view of irrelevant history.  The temperature rises when a Caley Thistle corner floats in and is scudded into the Dons net.  Bottles and coins are thrown at the scorer. (it was never a corner by the way). Who is liable?  The SFA have to take it on the chin.  They put the event on.  If they in turn believe it was the Dons what did it then they could, and should, in turn punish AFC.  Banned from next year's cup maybe?  That might make the clubs and the SFA do something about all this crap which is getting worse IMO.

    At the end of the day any disagreement we may have on this is academic because society in general, taxpayers prominent, must eventually ask why we are putting so much resources and effort into dealing with a fitba specific problem that the clubs and the SFA are washing their hands of. 

       

    View Comment

  11. Cast your minds back to the events of 21.05.16 at Hampden Park.

     

    The event was the final of the Scottish Football Association Cup (sponsored by William Hill, lest we forget!).

     

    It was an SFA event, for an SFA trophy, featuring teams that were members of the SFA. The venue & event (including stewarding & security) was managed by an SFA subsidiary company. There was major disorder at the final whistle.

    Both clubs were issued with Notices of Complaint by the SFA. The SFA didn't issue a Notice of Complaint to itself, despite its subsidiary company Hampden Park Ltd., managing the matchday.

     

    Both clubs' cases were dismissed by the Judicial Panel. (Actually, Hibs case was dismissed & TRFC case was dropped due to the Hibs outcome.)

     

    The SFA then (correctly) passed claims for damages from pitchside media companies etc. onto Glasgow City Council, who were the licensors of Hampden Park & who were legally responsible (under a law over a century old, I think!). The good council-taxpayers of Glasgow paid for the post-match riot & damage! 

     

    Since then, Hampden has had its licence renewed annually, apparently with no concerns from GCC or Police Scotland. 

     

    It's a well-used meme that 'the clubs don't want Strict Liability'. I doubt if the SFA (or the SPFL) would want it either.

    View Comment

  12. ernie 6th March 2019 at 15:24

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

    Sectarianism, racism, violence etc are not a "fitba specific problem".

    The type of person who indulges in that sort of behaviour may enjoy meeting up with fellow morons at football matches, however are you seriously suggesting that away from the football they hold entirely different and civilised beliefs.

    Football grounds and tribalism may focus the issue into a two hour time period within a small geographical area, however these are societal issues. The "90 minute bigot" is a nonsense, they may only express those views during that period but they hold them at other times. 

    It is for society to sort this out, and the way to do it is for the Police to deal with the criminals and for the clubs to ban them. 

    View Comment

  13. Apologies for being like a broken record, but…

     

    As we all saw in 2012, the only scenario where  the SFA will be creative, forceful and strict… is when there is a perceived threat to its income.

     

    IMO, the only viable 'Big Stick' with which to beat the blazered buffoons into action, [metaphorically speaking], is to freeze all public monies to the SFA.

     

    Like now.  Immediately.

     

    'Somehow' workable solutions will then be developed and implemented – in rather prompt fashion – by the SFA and its member clubs.

     

    IMO.

    View Comment

  14. wottpi 6th March 2019 at 14:26

    Eh , naw . If you read the article , it mentions cascades of objects hitting the dugout and technical area , which to me would suggest more than a small minority were involved . My post was to draw attention to the word "tossers"and its use in the article . 

    View Comment

  15. Homunculus 6th March 2019 at 15:53

    Sectarianism, racism, violence etc are not a "fitba specific problem".

    The type of person who indulges in that sort of behaviour may enjoy meeting up with fellow morons at football matches, however are you seriously suggesting that away from the football they hold entirely different and civilised beliefs.

    Football grounds and tribalism may focus the issue into a two hour time period within a small geographical area, however these are societal issues. The "90 minute bigot" is a nonsense, they may only express those views during that period but they hold them at other times. 

    It is for society to sort this out, and the way to do it is for the Police to deal with the criminals and for the clubs to ban them. 

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

    I agree with most of what you say. However, where my view probably diverts from your's is that society has already deemed such conduct unacceptable.

    While there are racists and bigots throughout society, football remains the only mass participation event in which such conduct it is tolerated. It is the clubs who are licensed to put on these events that are attended by the public. If they can't stop unlawful behaviour occurring on their premises, either by their own ticket holders, or opposition teams supporters sold tickets via the visiting club, then they deserve that their licence be restricted, for public order reasons if nothing else.

    No doubt clubs would claim that they already do everything in their power to stop it, by PA announcements, programme notes and warning notices, but the all evidence is that those actions are inadequate.

    I don't want to go back to the days of mass policing, corralling of fans, or fences/netting put up to protect players from missiles, but that is the way we are headed if nothing is done.

    You suggest that police just do their job and arrest those responsible. If only it was as simple as that. Police already think it is too risky to go into a crowd to remove individuals, clubs want minimum policing because of costs, stewards should not be placed in danger by confrontation with uncooperative fans. 

    I would love to see a purge by police at all Premiership grounds over a couple of weekends, even if it was heavy handed. If they perhaps remove a couple of hundred fans and subject them to the courts and banning orders, then it could make a difference, but it just looks as if the clubs and the government authorities just want each other to act, so that they can claim that they aren't responsible, should there be any fallout.

    The one thing that we can be assured of is that the problem won't go away if nothing changes. That is a sad reflection on the approach of the fans and the clubs more than anyone else.

    View Comment

  16. The reports of Brendan Rodgers wife and child having to hide in their own home while their house was burgled are appalling.

    No doubt some opportunist burglar thought that the house had possibly been vacated following Rodgers move down south.

    View Comment

  17. Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47468115

    Aston Villa have reported pre-tax losses of £36.1m for the 2017-18 season and admitted that complying with spending rules "will continue to provide a significant challenge" for the Championship club.

    Losses were up more than £21.5m on the previous season.

    However, it is still significantly less than the £80.7m loss Villa made when relegated from the Premier League in 2015-16.

    Villa are 11th in the second tier.

    Financial accounts of the Recon Group, the club's parent company, filed at Companies House show Villa made losses of more than £1m a week before player sales were taken into account.

    Figures also show that billionaire businessmen Wes Edens and Nassef Sawiris have put £68m into the club since taking control of the then-financially stricken club in July 2018.

    Villa – who made a loss of £14.5m in 2016-17 – narrowly missed out on promotion to the Premier League last season, losing the Championship play-off final to Fulham.

    The financial problems faced by the club soon emerged after their failure to secure a top-flight return, which would have ensured an estimated windfall of £160m.

    Villa missed a £4m tax payment and reached a payment agreement with HM Revenue and Customs, before Egyptian Sawiris and American financier Edens – co-owner of the Milwaukee Bucks NBA franchise – took a controlling interest in the Midlands side.

    Following the change in ownership, "a detailed review" of the club's operations, assets and "projected financial performance" was conducted, according to the publicly available accounts.

    The report said the "directors believe" Villa will meet spending rules again this season.

    "A number of measures have been identified to ensure financial fair play compliance can be maintained," it read.

    Under the EFL's profitability and sustainability rules, Aston Villa are allowed to post losses of up to £61m over the three-year period which takes in their final season in the Premier League.

    However, there are a number of dispensations regarding outgoings, including the running of academies.

    If they fail to be promoted at the end of this season, their allowable losses are reduced to £39m covering their first three years in the Championship.

    Villa's turnover last season was also down from £73.8m to £68.6m, which is attributable to the reduction in parachute payments as broadcast revenue was almost £8m down to £40.3m.

    Gate receipts were up more than £1m to £11.8m as the club finished fourth in the table. Sponsorship was also up more than £2m.

    Wages at Villa Park, in a season that they had former England captain John Terry on their playing staff, were also up more than £11.6m to £73.1m despite the club reducing its total number of full-time and part-time employees by 274 to 790.

    View Comment

  18. Another problem that has arisen is the establishment of fans' fundraisers to pay the fines of their fellows who are unlucky enough to have been caught and prosecuted . Some of the donors don't even attend games . The small minority is increasing all the time . 

    View Comment

  19. It's not the crimes that are fitba specific, it's the committing of the crimes and those doing it actually being at the fitba that is fitba specific. UEFA and most of the major football associations take liability, a no-brainer because it's their responsibility, why exactly are we a special case?  As I've said, I don't expect that the rest of society will accept the status quo much longer anyway.

    I didn't come round to supporting strict liability because of missile throwing, it was more a case of frustration that no-one takes on the sectarian shit poured out under the guise of:well, take your pick from the following.

    Can't arrest 50,000.

    What if the opposition plant wrongdoers in our support?

    It's banter/tradition/history/culture.

    Whatabout.. (insert someone else's problem in here)

    It's a conspiracy.  (Two choices available.)

     

     

     

     

     

     

    View Comment

  20. ernie 6th March 2019 at 15:24

    Here's another scenario

    Hibs win the cup final 3-2, fans invade the pitch.

    SFA says its not on, even it it was 114 years we not awarding you the cup. Records will simply have a big * next to that year. Oh and PS you and T'Rangers, whose fans also had an inability to just stay seated, are banned from the competition next year. Enjoy your summer!!

    How many pitch invasions would you expect to see after that?

    How many fans would be dragging back idiots in their own fan base (or indeed Chelsea fans in disguise) who were trying to enter the field of play in future matches?

    A bit of pain for a lot of gain in my book. broken heart

     

    View Comment

  21. ernie 6th March 2019 at 17:18

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

    And I don't think punishing the innocent is the way to solve a problem.

     

    View Comment

  22. The Deloitte Football Money League is a ranking of football clubs by revenue generated from football operations. It is produced annually by the accountancy firm Deloitte and released in early February of each year, describing the season most recently finished

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_Football_Money_League#2019

    The last time that a Scottish club appeared in the top 20 was in 2008 when Celtic FC were ranked 17th with total income of Euro 111.8M .

    In the same period only 6 EPL clubs Manchester United (2nd), Chelsea (4th) , Arsenal (5th), Liverpool (8th), Tottenham (11th), and Newcastle United (14th) finished higher.

     

    View Comment

  23. Homunculus 6th March 2019 at 17:56

    And I don't think punishing the innocent is the way to solve a problem.

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

    I agree totally. but the media and Government seem hell bent on doing just that. I've made my views clear already in that Scotland as a nation is not capable of implementing it fairly anyway. Nothing else in Scottish football is implemented fairly so why would this be different? Spare me the present day hand wringing journalists and politicians who were previously absolutely fine with Rangers stealing tens of millions from the public purse, but who now insist thousands of innocent people should be punished because of the actions of a few. They couldn't even spell fairness.  

    View Comment

  24. Homunculus 6th March 2019 at 17:56

    And I don't think punishing the innocent is the way to solve a problem.

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

    It's not really a punishment to be unable to attend a particular game, should part of a ground be closed because of previous trouble. I see it more as an inconvenience you would hope to avoid, rather than a punishment. 

    If a game is rescheduled because of TV and you can't attend at the new time or date, is that a punishment?

    If it was a single game closure as part of a series of progressive sanctions that failed to resolve the issue, then I don't think it would be unreasonable.

    Therein lies part of the solution if you felt strongly enough and there was a threat to part of a ground being closed to you. Would you be minded to shout down a racist or a bigot, or identify someone you saw throwing a missile or a smoke bomb, to avoid such a consequence?

    I think that it is highly unlikely that the first, second or even third sanction under Strict Liability would be closure. Too many opponents of Strict Liability have leapt on the most serious sanctions as being the norm, rather than a worst case scenario. I'd hope that even the most moronic fans would get the message before it came to closure of any part of a ground. 

    View Comment

  25.  Scottish clubs can emulate Ajax success (By Kenny Macintyre BBC Scotland)

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47470806

    Former Rangers forward Ronald de Boer is "100% sure" Scottish clubs can replicate the European success of Ajax if they believe in their "philosophy".

    The Dutch side stunned Champions League holders Real Madrid in the last 16 by completing a 5-3 aggregate win with a 4-1 victory at the Bernabeu on Tuesday.

    Former Ajax player De Boer – who spent four years at Ibrox from 2000 – is a youth coach with the Amsterdam club.

    "You have to have an identity with your players," he told BBC Scotland.

    "If you have 11 foreign players, people don't care if the results are there. If you have your homegrown player, people would rather see that than a player who you bought for a lot millions.

    "Your resources are limited but if you focus on the youth from six and seven years old, the whole organisation can be built up. That's what I see in Holland from the amateur teams to the pro teams.

    "You have to have a philosophy of where you want to be in a certain stage. I think that's very important, so if you put a timeframe, I think in 10 years you could have some results."

    Scottish Premiership title holders Celtic failed to reach the Champions League group stages this season, but reached the last 32 of the Europa League while Rangers featured in the group stage of that competition.

    De Boer won the Champions League with Ajax in 1995, beating AC Milan with a team dominated by Dutchmen when the use of foreign players was restricted to three in European competitions.

    The Dutch side then beat Real home and away in the following season's competition, but Ajax's win in Spain this week was even more impressive, according to the former Netherlands forward.

    "Now, if you are a team like Madrid and your right-back doesn't do the job, you buy the best right-back in the world and can fill your team in with 11 foreign players," De Boer said.

    "Ajax can also buy foreign players, but we stick with our philosophy and still managed to beat Real Madrid with so many youth players."

     

    View Comment

  26. easyJambo 6th March 2019 at 18:37

    Homunculus 6th March 2019 at 17:56

    Surely one way would be to ask the innocent if they would be happy accepting the potential punishments of closed stadiums and points lost if it meant they didn't have put up with the garbage we do currently? 

    View Comment

  27. 'Significant' stadium safety risk for fans, says policing review

    By Chris McLaughlin BBC Scotland sports news correspondent

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-47459485

    A report into policing in Scottish football has identified serious concerns around stadium safety which are putting fans at risk.

    Findings included incidents of clubs gaining safety certificates without stadium inspections and selling more tickets than the ground capacity.

    Rangers' away games while in the lower leagues prompted serious concerns.

    Unsafe temporary scaffolding was discovered, with safety certificates altered to increase stadium capacity.

    The report states: "This review highlights a lack of strategic oversight and co-ordination to ensure a corporate approach to safety certification.

    "The review takes the view this gap should be seen as a significant risk to the safety of spectators and be addressed with the utmost priority."

    The report, which was commissioned by Police Scotland following a crush outside Celtic Park last year, also highlighted a need for better stewarding and better engagement with fans.

    However, Deputy Chief Constable Mark Roberts, who was tasked with compiling the report, says overall the current policing of Scottish football is fit for purpose.

    His team looked at operational planning for matches, intelligence gathering and allocation of police resources on match days.

    'Urgent attention'

    Police Scotland announced they had asked Dep Ch Con Mark Roberts to conduct the review one month after a crush at Celtic Park, but insisted the review was not triggered by a particular incident.

    Dep Ch Con Roberts told BBC Scotland news: "Some of the examples that were quoted do give rise for concern and I think it does require a degree of urgent attention.

    "I would like the Scottish government to look at the framework to make sure people are properly discharging their responsibilities."

    He did take some positives from the findings, highlighting individuals from the SPFL and from the SFA "going above and beyond" to identify risks and prevent them by working with police.

    He said: "What you have is lots of professional, competent people, committed to Scottish football, trying to make a system work but they are not being supported by a system."

    The Scottish Police Federation (SPF) vice chairman David Hamilton said he "fully supported" the recommendations made in the review – adding the issues surrounding safety at grounds were "utterly devastating".

    He continued: "Such a review also opens up the potential to extend licensing arrangements to consider the community impact, travel plans and fan behaviour beyond the footprint of the stadia.

    "This would force clubs to take greater responsibility for their fans not just at games but on their way to games too."

    Deputy Chief Constable Will Kerr said he felt "reassured" by the report's findings, but pointed to how the issue of stadium safety has been subject to much public and political commentary recently.

    He said: "We all have a collective responsibility to make sure we address the one thing that I know fans would be concerned about when they read the report – and that is, is it safe to go to grounds?"

    What happened during the crush?

    One person was taken to hospital and four more were injured during the crush at Celtic Park on 2 September last year.

    The incident happened about 20 minutes before the 12:00 kick-off against Rangers, as Celtic supporters tried to make their way into the stadium.

    It came after stadium access points were changed.

    Celtic later apologised to fans and said the match was the first occasion which featured new segregation and access arrangements for the Old Firm fixture.

    Some fans said the new plan resulted in some supporters being forced to climb over a high fence to escape the overcrowding, with one falling from a wall.

    Speculation arose regarding a gate having been closed on Janefield Street and contributing to the congestion.

    Police insisted, according to their understanding, the gate was open at all times but would have the issue included in the review.

    Officers had earlier cordoned off a section of London Road to allow Rangers' 800 fans access, forcing more home supporters than usual to use the Janefield Street entry point.

    Fans told BBC Scotland how an atmosphere of "worry and panic" quickly escalated as hundreds were later caught in a second crush in a corridor under the stadium's North Stand.

    Police Scotland promised to meet supporters to discuss their concerns following criticism of its operation.

    Celtic supporter groups called for a thorough investigation.

    'Rights of supporters'

    Anticipating the review release, Paul Goodwin, of the Scottish Football Supporters' Association said fans should be told how strict safety checks are at individual grounds.

    He told the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme: "We deserve the right, as customers, to know what grounds have got issues.

    "A lot of this comes back to the overall issues within the game, in terms of governance and transparency.

    "Fans don't like to be thought of as customers, but sometimes if you draw it back to that conclusion, we deserve to know what the status of the places were are visiting are."

    The Football Stadium Officers Association (FSOA) said it raised concerns over the "lack of consistency" among local authorities over stadium licensing, specifically how safety certificates have been issued.

    A FSOA spokesperson said: "We have raised these concerns with the Scottish government, Cosla and the relevant football authorities."

    Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (Cosla) president Alison Evison said the body takes the licensing of stadiums "very seriously".

    She continued: "We have a strong record of safety on football events activity. We treat our community safety role with high priority.

    "Going forward if there are improvements identified of course local government and Cosla will work positively with partners to find solutions."

    'Criminalising fans' and 'hooliganism'

    Publication of the report comes as the government and football authorities continue to debate issues such as coin throwing and sectarianism.

    Prior to the policing review's completion, Jeanette Findlay, chairwoman of the Celtic Trust, said there was a culture inside the police service in Scotland to treat the fans as though they are "potential criminals".

    She told the BBC: "The culture is thinking about and planning for games in that way. It's not about thinking, here are a group of citizens who are in a crowd situation and we need to keep them safe."

    However earlier this week, Scotland's Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf said serious measures were required to tackle unacceptable conduct at football matches.

    His remarks followed a series of incidents, including a glass bottle being thrown at Celtic's Scott Sinclair. at a Scottish Cup match against Hibernian and an object almost hitting Hearts goalkeeper Zdenek Zlamal during a clash with Celtic.

    Last month Kilmarnock striker Kris Boyd criticised Celtic fans after being hit by a coin and subjected to sectarian abuse while warming up as a substitute during the sides' meeting at Rugby Park.

    Following the review's publication, SPF vice chairman David Hamilton stressed that he agreed Scottish football has a "hooliganism problem as well as a sectarian problem".

    He said: "They are both manifestations of the same peculiarity – that some supporter groups believe that criminal behaviour is acceptable at football matches.

    "'Fans Against Criminalisation''s refusal to even engage with the review has shown themselves to simply be apologists for this criminality.

    "They have refused the opportunity to engage with the review, maintain their entrenched opinions and clearly have no interest in acknowledging yet alone fixing the problems of the Scottish game."

    He added: "This is an important point in Scottish Footballs history and if the review is implemented, should lead to a safer, fairer, more secure and pleasant environment for fans and those responsible for looking after them."

    View Comment

  28. Gerry Britton on  strict liability and the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act
    (By Scott Mullen BBC Sport Scotland on 3 March 201)

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47436351

    There are few better placed to talk about Scottish football and the law than Gerry Britton. A former player and manager, he gave up the game after 23 years to focus on a career as a criminal defence lawyer back in 2010.

    'We need to self-police'

    The phrase strict liability is one that is quickly becoming embedded in the lexicon of the Scottish football fan.

    As off-the-field incidents continue to mar what has been a thrilling campaign across the league in Scottish football, pressure is mounting for something to be done to stamp out anti-social behaviour, sectarianism and violence across the game.

    As a man who has stood in court defending those snared by the much-criticised Offensive Behaviour at Football act – which was repealed a year ago – the answer is simple.

    "I saw first-hand how some supporters end up in the dock," he said.

    "Was the legislation doing what it was meant to do? I don't think it was. Taking one supporter out and putting them through a court, does it set an example? Yes, but does it make an impact?

    "We have to get to the stage where we say to clubs 'Look, you have to run your ship in the right way and if you don't you're going to be held accountable for it'.

    "I think initially fans should self-police. The Tartan Army are an example of that, it then passes to the clubs then ultimately it has to be the strict liability option."

    View Comment

  29. easyJambo 6th March 2019 at 18:37
    Therein lies part of the solution if you felt strongly enough and there was a threat to part of a ground being closed to you. Would you be minded to shout down a racist or a bigot, or identify someone you saw throwing a missile or a smoke bomb, to avoid such a consequence?
    ………………….
    That may work if you are a big club and the ground is near full every other week. But what if your club does not get those kind of fan numbers, closing part of a ground would only make the handful of fans relocate to another part of the ground.

    View Comment

  30. Cluster One 6th March 2019 at 19:25

    That may work if you are a big club and the ground is near full every other week. But what if your club does not get those kind of fan numbers, closing part of a ground would only make the handful of fans relocate to another part of the ground.

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

    If you are talking about a handful of home fans, then partial closure might not be appropriate, but you should be able to to identify the individuals and act accordingly, either reporting them to police or banning them from your own ground. e.g. with a hi-res camera, that needn't cost the earth.

    If it's a small number of away fans, then again individual identification may be possible, with a threat of the next sanction being a ban on the sale of tickets to that club's fans.  

    I know that Hearts have a troublesome group of young fans that appear intent on emulating the worst elements of other "loyalist" fans. They are pretty well controlled at Tynecastle through peer pressure from other fans and individual bans imposed by Hearts, but they still seem to think they have free reign to spout their bile at some of the smaller away grounds like Fir Park or Firhill, as well as on public transport to and from games.

    I wouldn't have a problem if there was a threat that all Hearts fans would barred from their next visit to those grounds. I'd hope that would be enough for the rest of the Hearts away fans to put a stop to it, should anyone overstep the mark. 

    View Comment

  31. Ex Ludo 6th March 2019 at 13:55
    6 0 Rate This

    https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1103284822049476608?s=21

    Stand by your beds.
    ………………………
    If you read further in it states.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1103385134840143872?p=v
    ………
    June 14 2012.
    Rangers go into liquidation and Greens consortium buy the Business in £5.5 mill deal.
    July 13, 2012.
    Rangers dumped in the Third division.
    …………. Now we know that if Green had have bought the business as a going concern and after a CVA approval it would have cost him £8.5 mill.
    And we know that rangers were not dumped in to the third division. TRFC applied for entry.
    ………….
    And if you look to the left page.
    The scottish sun aims to have the highest standards and we abide by the rules in the Editors code of practice.
    The scottish sun is a member of the independent press standards organisation.
    To make a complaint to us go to
    http://www.thesun.co.uk/ipso, email editorialcomplaints@thesun.co.uk, or write to Editorial Complaints, The sun 1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF.
    ……………..
    Now someone with a better writing skill than me, and has a few minutes of time on their hands could write to the sun and lodge a complaint.

    View Comment

  32. The DR is latterly picking up on social media chatter on Collum not refereeing TRFC games.

     

    At first glance it looks a bit like journalism.

    But no questions / opinions, and absolutely no follow up questioning of the SFA today.

    [The piece does quote the SFA CEO – from back in December!]

     

    And as per, nobody at the DR wants to take 'credit' for this puff piece;

    "By Record Sports Online"

    View Comment

  33. I would be in favour of strict liability, however it would be that those clubs who offer a cash gate for games against Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen(?) would have to cease this with the financial hit it would entail. As it stands any heider banned from the home turf can fetch up.

     

    View Comment

  34. My comment with the emails taken out Ex Ludo 6th March 2019 at 13:55
    6 0 Rate This
    If you read further in it states.
    June 14 2012.
    Rangers go into liquidation and Greens consortium buy the Business in £5.5 mill deal.
    July 13, 2012.
    Rangers dumped in the Third division.
    …………. Now we know that if Green had have bought the business as a going concern and after a CVA approval it would have cost him £8.5 mill.
    And we know that rangers were not dumped in to the third division. TRFC applied for entry.
    ………….
    And if you look to the left page.
    The scottish sun aims to have the highest standards and we abide by the rules in the Editors code of practice.
    The scottish sun is a member of the independent press standards organisation.
    To make a complaint to us go to
    or write to Editorial Complaints, The sun 1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF.
    ……………..
    Now someone with a better writing skill than me, and has a few minutes of time on their hands could write to the sun and lodge a complaint.

    View Comment

  35. Just a wee thought on strict liability.

     

    The first thing that has to be decided is: do we genuinely want to stop the vile behaviour we are talking about, and if we do, what's a better solution than strict liability? 

     

    If there is no better solution than that, and there is a genuine desire to wipe out the problem, there doesn't seem much of a choice.

     

    But how about the following?

     

    Announce that the clubs and supporters are on trial during next season and if the behaviour continues then strict liability will be brought in for the following season. If the behaviour then improves it will be removed for the following season, to be repeated if the bad old ways return. That would give everyone a season to get used to the idea – the innocent supporters aren't penalised – and the a'holes are given a chance to discover that football is a great game to watch and their lunatic antics prevent them (as well as everyone else) from enjoying it to the full.

     

    In addition, and assuming the will was genuinely there to put things right, the SFA could ask UEFA to provide a neutral panel to remove fears of 'honest mistakes' when investigating unacceptable behaviour.

     

    I, of course, am probably not best qualified to talk on this kind of thing because I've only ever gone to a football match to watch the game, and that has always been enough for me. The singing of songs about my club, as in songs about the Hearts, are the only ones I enjoy, although humorous ones about what we are watching are good, with my favourite being the period when Celtic supporters would break into 'Always look on the bright side of life' which said as much about the supporters' sense of humour and ability to laugh at themselves as it did about the performance of their team.

     

    In saying this, I am not convinced strict liability would work as the morons are morons and don't really care all that much about their club, though, of course, are always ready to give someone a kicking if they say the wrong thing about the club they 'love'. But if the will to end it all is genuine, then I can't see how, in the absence of an alternative, it can be avoided.

     

    View Comment

  36. Allyjambo 6th March 2019 at 21:04

    Good idea , but why wait until next season ?  What about announcing it prior to the split , and aggressively monitoring the fans' response ?  Then we can implement strict liability from next season ,if necessary . Five games to prove your civility (plus any cup games).

    View Comment

  37. Allyjambo

    I read someone's analogy that rock bands could not be held responsible for the behaviour of the audience at a concert. That is undeniably true. The venue is not owned by them and they have no control over the audience that is allowed in.

    This is not comparable to a football ground where the stadium is owned by the 'club' and the same audience turns up week after week.

    Football has governing bodies which should have the power to censure and punish 'clubs' for unacceptable behaviour by their 'audience'.

    The most powerful punishment, IMHO, would be to ban home fans from a match if behavioural rules have been deemed to be broken.

    Whether this is the singing of offensive songs, or aiming missiles at players (either home or away).  Imagine one supporter throws a flare or smoke bomb or throws a bottle at a player on the pitch and their club is banned from having any home fans attend their next home game.

    Maybe the yellow card red card system could be applied to the 'audience'?

    I'm not even sure I know what strict liability would entail either to clubs or individuals in the wider legal sense. Could Sinclair or Morelos or Lennon etc. sue the club whose ground they were assaulted at?

    It is not the government's job to enforce good behaviour at football matches. It is the SFA and the club's responsibility.

    It is not above the wit of man to digitally record images and sound in a football ground. In fact, it is relatively simple and does not cost a fortune. Hib's excuses for instance, are, I believe disingenuous at best. The bottle thrown at Sinclair was evidence of a crime and should have been handled as such by Scotland's finest.

    I have little hope that the SFA has the appetite to do anything. It is an amateur organisation run by dilettantes with no commercial acumen or experience. Football is big business. The McRaes of this world are woefully inept and do not have the skills to deal with this.

     

    View Comment

  38. Anyone else puzzled to say the least that Police Scotland are now in receipt of a report which the BBC also has sight of which states a club has not had a safety certificate for 19 years and we are not being told who that club is? Why the need for secrecy? If that club is playing at home this weekend then home and away fans will be present, and they are entitled to know why the ground they are in is not considered to be safe, as are all the fans who have been going there for the past 19 years! I think it's an outrage the name of the club involved is not being made public, and what on earth are the relevant licensing body doing by allowing fans to attend games in their ground? This can't be kept quiet. 

    View Comment

  39. UTH
    I would have thought that any club not possessing a safety certificate would have their ground excluded from those permitted to host events. There may be some nuance in terms of parts of a ground? Firhill east terrace for example?

    View Comment

  40. The SL debate is relevant and one that must be had before anything further happens.
    Football has not thus far been able to cut down on sectarianism as effectively as it has on casual violence (since the 1980s).
    The key to a solution might be to find out why that is.

    View Comment

  41. Rock bands and strict liability? It wasn’t yesterday and in another country but it’s an example of an arrest being made on stage and no, I wasn’t there.

    Publicity photo of The Doors

    Publicity photo of The Doors, ca. 1965

    On December 9, 1967, police arrested Doors’ front man Jim Morrison as he performed onstage at the New Haven Arena. An incident that took place between Morrison and a police officer before the show led to Morrison’s public arrest, making him the first rock star ever taken into custody during the middle of a performance. As police dragged Morrison off stage, the crowd rioted. Morrison was quickly charged with obscenity and incitement to riot but was soon released. The band later immortalized the event in the song “Peace Frog,” released in 1970

    View Comment

  42. Tris 7th March 2019 at 07:38

    _____________________

    I imagine given that the unused terrace at Firhill is not accessible to fans it will have no impact on the Safety Certificate.

    Going back to my original point the Police have a huge role to play in Public safety. The media have a huge role to play in highlighting risks to public safety. Yet neither the Police or BBC want to tell us which stadium is not considered safe. Very strange, in fact I think it should be a matter of concern for the Health and Safety Executive.

    View Comment

  43. Trisidium 7th March 2019 at 07:42

    __________________

    The SL debate is entitled to a hearing the same as any other proposal. What it is not entitled to is a railroading in as a definite solution just because some SNP politicians and BBC journalists have decided it's the only answer. 

    View Comment

  44. upthehoops 7th March 2019 at 10:05

    As far as I can see it is the only proposal being spoken about just now.

    The usual statements from King , Lawwell, Budge, Dempster etc etc along with banning a few individuals is all Scottish football has to show by way of addressing the issues.

    The OBFTC Act has been revoked, generally due to pressure from fans and others within football.

    However we still hear the bile from the terraces, the objects and flares are still being thrown, fans enter the field of play etc etc

    Until the authorities, clubs and fans take the matter seriously then its a bit rich getting on a high horse decrying others for trying to seek solutions.

    View Comment

  45. Independent report on policing of football published Published 06 March 2019

    An independent review of the policing of football in Scotland has been published today (Wednesday, 6 March 2019).

    The review was commissioned by the Chief Constable of Police Scotland and carried out by Deputy Chief Constable Mark Roberts, of South Yorkshire Police and the National Police Chiefs' Council lead for football policing.

    It covered operational planning for matches, intelligence gathering and resource deployment. It also examined how the policing of football felt to those involved, including supporters, clubs and wider stakeholders.

    DCC Roberts, who is the most senior police officer in the UK with responsibility for football, spoke to a range of stakeholders, including supporters’ groups, club safety officers and members of the media.

    He made a number of recommendations for policing, which will now be considered by Police Scotland.

    DCC Roberts said: “The review highlights the excellent capability of Police Scotland in policing football as well as specific areas where the service can develop further good practice and ensure appropriate consistency.

    “The Scottish public should be confident that Police Scotland has a proven track record of effectively delivering all manner of high-profile events, football included, and has the requisite capability to work with relevant stakeholders to discharge its responsibilities in keeping football fans safe.

    “As such, its operational policing model for football is certainly fit for purpose. The policing of football in Scotland compares well to operation across other European countries and has some excellent examples of good practice, which others should seek to learn from.

    “I will be sharing the learning with the rest of UK Policing in order that we can promulgate the good practice from Scotland as many of the recommendations identify issues common to us all.”

    The review has also recommended improvements are made to the consistency in the delivery of football policing across the country and in the role of dedicated officers in local policing divisions who act as a link between Police Scotland and supporters.

    The review also said that the police service would benefit from an integrated engagement plan with supporters at its heart.

    It recommended that Police Scotland should review the function of the Football Coordination Unit for Scotland (FoCUS) to concentrate on strategic delivery, achieving greater consistency and providing expert support while reducing its need to deploy operationally in an evidence-gathering role.

    Although not within the remit of his review, DCC Roberts said he had found inconsistency in the management of safety certificates for football stadiums. He recommended that an urgent multi-agency review should be carried out to establish an appropriate governance, consultation and inspection regime for Scottish venues used for football and other events. A copy of the report has been shared with the Scottish Government and COSLA.

    DCC Will Kerr, of Police Scotland, said: “Police Scotland has an enviable reputation around how it polices large events, including sporting events such as the Ryder Cup and Commonwealth Games, and I’m pleased that this independent review has highlighted this.

    “But it is important for a learning organisation such as Police Scotland to reflect on areas where we may be able to improve our procedures or learn from good practice elsewhere.

    “Therefore, we will consider the recommendations relating to policing and report to the Scottish Police Authority in due course. We have raised other issues outwith the remit of policing with the appropriate and relevant authorities.”

    You can read the (72-Page) report below. 
    https://www.scotland.police.uk/assets/pdf/174967/540054/independent-review-of-football-policing-in-scotland?view=Standard

    View Comment

  46. sannoffymesssoitizz 7th March 2019 at 11:35

    A short quote:

    Following Glasgow Rangers FC entering administration and their subsequent liquidation, the club re-entered Scottish football in the fourth tier (third division) for the 2012/13 season. This served to shine a spotlight on safety practices down the leagues and in different localities. The potential issues this experience highlighted caused concern among a number of Scottish football stakeholders including Police Scotland (from 2013), FSOAS and SPFL who recognised the vast majority of football stadiums Rangers would play at were small and not used to receiving the huge numbers of fans Rangers  invariably attracted.

    The review was alarmed to learn of serious safety issues, which were evident at a number of Rangers matches across the years they spent climbing from the third division back to the top flight. These
    issues included (but are not limited to):

    • Deliberately selling more tickets than their stadium capacity
    • Erecting unsafe scaffolding as terracing for the large numbers of away fans
    • Old safety certificates being altered to increase stadium capacity
    • Safety certificates where approved stand capacities did not add up
    • Tickets sold for areas of a ground that did not exist or were inaccessible

    View Comment

  47. WOTTPI 7th March at 11:28

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

    I have made my feelings clear that S.L is completely unworkable in the divisive and unequal society that Scotland still is. The OBFA was ditched because it was unworkable and heavily criticised by lawyers, sheriffs and judges, while treating a football fan differently from others in society. Let's not forget also that a senior SNP figure of the time said one of its aims was to be able to arrest more Celtic fans as the laws available penalised Rangers fans more. Forgive me for mistrusting a political party with such aims. 

    In a democratic society you can't just force things through without a proper debate. 

    For the record I believe many people who want S.L do so for the very reasons it is supposed to eliminate. Scotland can never implement such contentious rules fairly – the OBFA being a case in point. 

    No need for the high horse comment BTW. We're all better than that on here and I fully respect that your view differs from mine.

     

    View Comment

  48. upthehoops 7th March 2019 at 12:25

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

    My main issue with it is that you don't solve a problem by punishing the innocent, especially not when there are other solutions.

    The biggest problem with OBFA was that it simply wasn't needed, plenty of laws existed  and still do to deal with offenders. Why treat people going to a football match differently to anyone else going to a different type of event. 

    Plenty of laws already exist to deal with illegal songs and chants, assault etc. They just need to be enforced properly. If anything force the clubs to provide more assistance to police investigations and identify who is doing these things. 

    Identify the culprits and deal with them.

    The law doesn't change when people walk into a football stadium and yes, it is the (Scottish) Government and the Police's responsibility to deal with this. It's crimes which are being committed, of course it's the Police who should be dealing with it., using existing legislation.

    View Comment

  49. UTH

    I'm guessing that (in your posting of 12:25) instead of 'In a democratic society you can't just force things through without a proper debate', you may have meant to say: 'It should not be the case that in a democratic society one can just force things through …'

    For – in dear old Scotland – it is manifestly true (especially in matters to do with football) that it IS possible to ‘force things through’ without proper debate.

    View Comment

  50. The stadium without a safety certificate for 19 years is a curious one. The report does not state that a certificate was refused though, just that it wasn't issued. I think there may be a Local Authority in Scotland with only one stadium in their territory which is now aware that they are supposed to issue safety certificates.

    View Comment

  51. easyJambo 7th March 2019 at 11:45

    Following Glasgow Rangers FC entering administration and their subsequent liquidation, the club re-entered Scottish football in the fourth tier (third division) for the 2012/13 season.

    How can you re enter something you've never been in ?

    The review was alarmed to learn of serious safety issues, which were evident at a number of Rangers matches across the years they spent climbing from the third division back to the top flight.

    Again , back to the top flight ? How does that work , I think the confusion is evident here –

    Following Glasgow Rangers FC entering administration and their subsequent liquidation, the club re-entered Scottish football in the fourth tier (third division) for the 2012/13 season.

    Missing the word "new" before "club" , perhaps ?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    View Comment

  52. paddy malarkey 7th March 2019 at 13:42   8   0   Rate This easyJambo 7th March 2019 at 11:45 Following Glasgow Rangers FC entering administration and their subsequent liquidation, the club re-entered Scottish football in the fourth tier (third division) for the 2012/13 season. How can you re enter something you've never been in ? The review was alarmed to learn of serious safety issues, which were evident at a number of Rangers matches across the years they spent climbing from the third division back to the top flight. Again , back to the top flight ? How does that work , I think the confusion is evident here – Following Glasgow Rangers FC entering administration and their subsequent liquidation, the club re-entered Scottish football in the fourth tier (third division) for the 2012/13 season. Missing the word "new" before "club" , perhaps ?     

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

    If the cops can't get simple facts like this right it's little wonder the jails are bursting at the seams.

    View Comment

  53. Bogs Dollox 7th March 2019 at 15:15

    '..If the cops can't get simple facts like this right it's little wonder the jails are bursting at the seams.'

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

    Not so much 'can't get simple facts right' , Bogs Dollox, as ready and willing to fall into line with the Big Lie that senior people in Scottish Football governance foisted upon us all., with the very happy agreement of liars in the SMSM.

    There is no appetite among the great and the good of this little polity of ours for challenging  the wickedness of the 5-Way agreement, because that would mean the stripping of titles and honours from the 'establishment' club and accepting that that club died in every bit the same way as Gretna.

    There is such a thing as culpable ignorance: these guys know that they are spinning a lot of flannel, but have not the moral courage to do anything other.

    View Comment

  54. It is perhaps worthy of note that this report loads of people are talking about was an independent review. The review team was made up of the following people.

     

    Deputy Chief Constable Mark Roberts, (South Yorkshire Police)

    Steve Neill (Former Chief Superintendent, Northumbria)

    Adrian Roberts, (Assistant Director UK Football Policing Unit) (Ex Met)

    Kirsty Haken, (South Yorkshire Police)

    Chief Inspector Melita Worswick, (College of Policing, seconded from Greater Manchester Police)

    Philip Birchenall, (College of Policing, public order command trainer, tactical / public order public safety advisor)

    Ken Scott FRICS, (Sports Ground Safety Authority)

     

    View Comment

  55. 'macfurgly 7th March 2019 at 12:54

     

    The stadium without a safety certificate for 19 years is a curious one. The report does not state that a certificate was refused though, just that it wasn't issued. I think there may be a Local Authority in Scotland with only one stadium in their territory which is now aware that they are supposed to issue safety certificates.'

    ###############################################

     

    I find that difficult to accept, as the Local Authority would have safety certificate requirements across other public entertainment (cinemas, theatres, clubs etc.) and sporting (gyms, sports centres, rugby/cricket/hockey clubs etc.) venues.
     

    Incidentally, the refurbishment of Hampden Park was completed in 1999; just over 19 years ago…

    Dumbarton moved to a new stadium in 2000, as did Hamilton in 2001. Any more millennial moves?

     

     

    View Comment

  56. Strict liability is the case in UEFA competitions and in most of the major European leagues including England, Germany France and Holland.  Although I'm impressed that a few SNP politicians managed to get this in place (apparently) I suspect the major difference between these dinosaurs and us liberal Scots is the false premise that the continuing sectarian competition between our two biggest clubs is required to keep the cash flowing in.  It will come, better if the SFA and the clubs actually do something rather than walking away.   I'm ashamed that my club is complicit in this.

     

    View Comment

  57. ernie 7th March 2019 at 16:20

    Strict liability is the case in UEFA competitions and in most of the major European leagues including England, Germany France and Holland.

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

    So no racist or sectarian songs or chants in any of those places, no violence, nothing thrown, no pyrotechnics, nothing like that happening.

    View Comment

  58. Re my post at 1613hrs:

     

    The legislation involved in Safety Certificates for sports grounds is the 'Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975' and the 'Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987'.

    In my local council area, sports ground Safety Certs are the responsibility of Building Standards. They also provide technical advice to the council regarding other entertainment venues.

     

     

    View Comment

  59. So no racist or sectarian songs or chants in any of those places, no violence, nothing thrown, no pyrotechnics, nothing like that happening.

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

    I imagine they have most if not all those problems which is why they brought in strict liability rather than let the clubs walk away from it.  Without the clubs taking responsibility there is no chance of improving the situation.  Of course these countries' law enforcement retain the right to also arrest and charge the wrongdoers: it's not an either or situation so no need to be concerned about not punishing the guilty if they can identify them.

     

    However, the reason that I brought up these other jurisdictions is because I'm being told on here that we CAN'T bing in SL for various reasons, this is evidently not the case.  The fact is we, the SFA and the clubs are choosing to do nothing about it.  We have a problem with sectarianism and crowd trouble in Scotland and the clubs choose to do nothing about it, other than spout platitudes, and won't even accept responsibility as a whole (via the SFA).  It's a disgrace.

     

    View Comment

  60. Homunculus 7th March 2019 at 16:26

    ernie 7th March 2019 at 16:20

    Strict liability is the case in UEFA competitions and in most of the major European leagues including England, Germany France and Holland.

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

    So no racist or sectarian songs or chants in any of those places, no violence, nothing thrown, no pyrotechnics, nothing like that happening.

     

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

    Exactly, but don't let facts get in the way. 

    View Comment

  61. Bogs Dollox 7th March 2019 at 15:15
    7 1 Rate This

    paddy malarkey 7th March 2019 at 13:42 8 0 Rate This easyJambo 7th March 2019 at 11:45 Following Glasgow Rangers FC entering administration and their subsequent liquidation, the club
    ………….
    It’s a wonder the person who is typing Following Glasgow Rangers FC entering administration and their subsequent liquidation,Does not ask himself/herself how can the club be re-enterering Scottish football in the fourth tier if i just typed subsequent liquidation am i not just typing rubbish. How can i even type that and put it out.
    It was the same as yesterday’s sun article about charles Green when they state.
    June 14 2012.
    Rangers go into liquidation and Greens consortium buy the Business in £5.5 mill deal.
    July 13, 2012.
    Rangers dumped in the Third division.
    ….
    Rangers go into liquidation but continue with Rangers dumped in the Third division.
    and they don’t question that they have already stated Rangers go into liquidation then continue with a load of rubbish that after rangers were liquidated they were dumped in the third division.
    Who is the editor and what is he getting paid for and were is his code of practice. with letting this stuff be printed without asking himself how can a club that is liquidated be dumped anywhere.

    View Comment

  62. ernie 7th March 2019 at 17:38

     

    Of course these countries' law enforcement retain the right to also arrest and charge the wrongdoers: it's not an either or situation so no need to be concerned about not punishing the guilty if they can identify them.

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

    I am not concerned about punishing the guilty if they can be identified. I am concerned about punishing the innocent, whether they are identified or not.

    You are advocating bringing in a system that would do just that, and which it would appear doesn't actually work anyway. 

    View Comment

Comments are closed.