Hibs been invited to talk to SFA

[PHeffernan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It still doesn’t stop us reducing the allocation of the Glasgow club’s that is a choice neither the SFA or the SPFL can do anything about. The rest of the issues will be interesting to see how the governing authorities will react to this

Yes, any Scottish club can indeed decide the number of away supporters they will allow in their stadium for league games.
Allowing very few is a decision best made when you can consistently fill all the seats with your own supporters.
At this time, that is only three clubs in the Scottish top flight.
It saves money on stewarding and especially policing but is a poor financial strategy if there are thousands of empty seats losing the club £30 a pop.

[Hibbyradge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes, any Scottish club can indeed decide the number of away supporters they will allow in their stadium for league games.
Allowing very few is a decision best made when you can consistently fill all the seats with your own supporters.
At this time, that is only three clubs in the Scottish top flight.
It saves money on stewarding and especially policing but is a poor financial strategy if there are thousands of empty seats losing the club £30 a pop.

I used to hold that same view, but now I would rather Hibs lost out financially than allow that evil singing and behaviour to continue.

[LaMotta]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

39 SPFL clubs out of 42 voted against strict liability, including Hibs and it's been a long time since the Scottish Government made any meaningful noises about imposing strict liability on clubs.
Pressure from Hibs supporters finally made the club cave on this and it will be interesting to see what develops out of it. No doubt the SPFL power brokers will be meeting in secret to discuss their response and they will no doubt make behind the scenes attempts to get the genie back in the bottle.
It's all on ice until Hibs start speaking specifics and that is unlikely to be imminent. Looking like the SFA are going to use Hibs to lever strict liability back onto the menu for the reluctant SPFL.
All very interesting.

Agree with much of your post but I'm not sure thats right about 39 clubs voting against strict liability.

There was a BBC poll ran in 2019 which they invited all clubs to respond to. Whilst only 3 clubs voted for SL, 14 voted against and the remainder either provided no comment or simply didnt respond. Hibs provided no comment so they didnt actually reveal their stance on the matter.

Scottish Government last brought up the Strict Liability threat in 2021 so wouldnt say it was that long ago!

All interesting to see where things go as you say.

[JimBHibees]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I used to hold that same view, but now I would rather Hibs lost out financially than allow that evil singing and behaviour to continue.

Totally agree some things are worth much more than money. Hopefully more Hibs fans including families feel more comfortable attending these games.

[Phil MaGlass]

I reckon the hit to Hibs wouldnt end up being that bad, less police costs,which must be pretty high for these games, less stewarding costs,more actual Hibs fans coming to the game, maybe not sell out but folk thinking we will take a hit of 400,000 a year will be way off the mark in my opinion and for every penny lost will still be worth not having these ****my hun *******s at ER.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I reckon the hit to Hibs wouldnt end up being that bad, less police costs,which must be pretty high for these games, less stewarding costs,more actual Hibs fans coming to the game, maybe not sell out but folk thinking we will take a hit of 400,000 a year will be way off the mark in my opinion and for every penny lost will still be worth not having these ****my hun *******s at ER.

There's precedent for this, in the years that Rangers weren't in the top league, and we were.

Remember "Armageddon"?

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There's precedent for this, in the years that Rangers weren't in the top league, and we were.

Remember "Armageddon"?

Like

[snedzuk]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It still doesn’t stop us reducing the allocation of the Glasgow club’s that is a choice neither the SFA or the SPFL can do anything about. The rest of the issues will be interesting to see how the governing authorities will react to this

This. We can do this anyway so why shouldn't we. At the very least there is a case to say 'you give us x% of your ground in away tickets, so we will give you x% of ours'

[one day maybe...]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

For too long we’ve sat back and accepted these vile and offensive chants.
The SFA, media outlets have been complicit in the cover up, refusing to address the issue directly with the offenders and turning down the audio as not to offend viewers. The club statement is spot on, rattling a few cages.
If the situation is ignored, I hope the club follow through on reducing away fans allocations. I’d also like them to ban media outlets who cover up the issues, no reporters and no cameras

Love to see Hibs ban any cameras for OF games, even our own unless it’s on a delayed broadcast so no one can stream the games. This would absolutely ruin their fans weekends. No way to watch the games would hurt even more.. Time for Scottish football to sort out its cancer. If this was any other ism, such as racism, sexism it would be called out. Yet sectarianism seems untouchable

[Jack]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes, any Scottish club can indeed decide the number of away supporters they will allow in their stadium for league games.
Allowing very few is a decision best made when you can consistently fill all the seats with your own supporters.
At this time, that is only three clubs in the Scottish top flight.
It saves money on stewarding and especially policing but is a poor financial strategy if there are thousands of empty seats losing the club £30 a pop.

3,000 in the away end at the weekend, 14,297 total attendance.

11,000 Hibbies where on a regular league game there's probably upwards of 15,000. All Hibs need to do is encourage their regular support to these games and they're in the money.

[Maybe 3,500 in the away end makes the Hibs turnout for a Sevco game even worse!]

Don't sell them any tickets.

[hhibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think this invitation is for a friendly chat, and could be around setting the ball rolling for strict liability.

Scotland is the only country in Europe that does not have some kind of strict liability for supporter behaviour and overall security in football grounds. If it was to eventually come in then following the Fifa sanctions regime, punishment to clubs would work as follows - in order of severity/number of incidents, and decided by a committee:

1) Fines for simple breaches
2) Increased fines for continuation of problems
3) Closing sections of ground where incidents occur
4) Closing stadium for all spectators
5) Dock Points
6) Expulsion from competition

Host clubs are responsible for order and security inside and around the stadium, before during and after matches. They are liable for incidents of any kind unless they can prove that they have not been negligent in any way in organisation of the match.

However all clubs are liable for inappropriate behaviour on the part of their supporters for the following indiscretions:

a) pitch invasions
b) throwing objects
c) lighting fireworks/pyro
d) laser pen use
e) the use of gestures, words, objects or any other means to transmit a provocative message not fit for a sports event - particularly messages of political, ideological, religious or offensive nature
f) acts of damage
g) causing a disturbance during national anthems
h) any other lack of order or discipline observed

It's the only way IMO to seriously reduce poor behaviour from fans.

think you are an optimist,this will be a meeting to tell Hibs,get back in your box,maybe our response with the new ownership profile will not be to just take it............I Hope

[Caversham Green]

It's a bit depressing that the vast majority assume this is an attempt by the SFA to put Hibs in their place. A competent and impartial association would be inviting a discussion on how to progress the entirely valid points made by Hibs but history tells us that the SFA is not that association.

However, call me naive if you must but in this case I think that's what is taking place. There is absolutely no justification for reprimand or punishment on the back of the club's statement - the facts were irrefutable, the club's intentions were made clear and are reasonable, and no club or group were singled out. In any case the SFA don't have the power to deduct points and any other sanctions would be laughed out of any arbitration court.

On the other hand Hibs have coherently argued within the statement that football should be an inclusive spectator sport and the transgressions they cited seriously restrict that ambition. Are the SFA really so foolish that they will nip that in the bud, or are they seeking to bring the Scottish game forward from the 17th century. I suppose time will tell.

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's a bit depressing that the vast majority assume this is an attempt by the SFA to put Hibs in their place. A competent and impartial association would be inviting a discussion on how to progress the entirely valid points made by Hibs but history tells us that the SFA is not that association.

However, call me naive if you must but in this case I think that's what is taking place. There is absolutely no justification for reprimand or punishment on the back of the club's statement - the facts were irrefutable, the club's intentions were made clear and are reasonable, and no club or group were singled out. In any case the SFA don't have the power to deduct points and any other sanctions would be laughed out of any arbitration court.

On the other hand Hibs have coherently argued within the statement that football should be an inclusive spectator sport and the transgressions they cited seriously restrict that ambition. Are the SFA really so foolish that they will nip that in the bud, or are they seeking to bring the Scottish game forward from the 17th century. I suppose time will tell.

I agree. Was it not the SFA who were prime movers when strict liability was offered a few years ago.

Maybe the Association hopes that Hibs can bring a few more round to voting for it if it ever gets that far.

Does anyone know if it’s a majority vote ?

[Aldo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I agree. Was it not the SFA who were prime movers when strict liability was offered a few years ago.

Maybe the Association hopes that Hibs can bring a few more round to voting for it if it ever gets that far.

Does anyone know if it’s a majority vote ?

I think someone posted it’s 11-1

[HoboHarry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's a bit depressing that the vast majority assume this is an attempt by the SFA to put Hibs in their place. A competent and impartial association would be inviting a discussion on how to progress the entirely valid points made by Hibs but history tells us that the SFA is not that association.

However, call me naive if you must but in this case I think that's what is taking place. There is absolutely no justification for reprimand or punishment on the back of the club's statement - the facts were irrefutable, the club's intentions were made clear and are reasonable, and no club or group were singled out. In any case the SFA don't have the power to deduct points and any other sanctions would be laughed out of any arbitration court.

On the other hand Hibs have coherently argued within the statement that football should be an inclusive spectator sport and the transgressions they cited seriously restrict that ambition. Are the SFA really so foolish that they will nip that in the bud, or are they seeking to bring the Scottish game forward from the 17th century. I suppose time will tell.

I'm not disagreeing with you. There's a part of me hoping that Bill Foley has told the SFA that there is an opportunity to take the game forward financially (not necessarily from him) but that Scottish football needs to clean up its act first before that can happen. If this is pie in the sky then I'm back to wondering why Bill Foley would join a game with a stacked deck, it's not something he has previous form for.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I agree. Was it not the SFA who were prime movers when strict liability was offered a few years ago.

Maybe the Association hopes that Hibs can bring a few more round to voting for it if it ever gets that far.

Does anyone know if it’s a majority vote ?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think someone posted it’s 11-1

Think that's getting the SFA mixed up with the top league, which has an 11-1 requirement for some issues.

Strict liability would be an SFA rule, presumably applied to all SPFL clubs (ie all 42), and maybe all senior clubs .

No idea what the voting weighting would be, or the majority needed.

[Aldo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Think that's getting the SFA mixed up with the top league, which has an 11-1 requirement for some issues.

Strict liability would be an SFA rule, presumably applied to all SPFL clubs (ie all 42), or maybe all senior clubs .

No idea whether all senior clubs would be voting, and what the weight would be, or the majority.

CWG yeah I’m getting mixed up. You are correct. It would be all senior clubs.

[Not In The Know]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Totally agree some things are worth much more than money. Hopefully more Hibs fans including families feel more comfortable attending these games.

I'd make the extra effort to goto games they were getting limited seats.

[Not In The Know]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think someone posted it’s 11-1

Blame Aberdeen for that - muppets!

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Blame Aberdeen for that - muppets!

It's not relevant here, though.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

CWG yeah I’m getting mixed up. You are correct. It would be all senior clubs.

Just had a quick squint at the SFA rules.

They have the usual 50% requirement for rule changing, and 75% for special resolutions.

I suspect that 50% would be enough, but I can't see who gets to vote. My guess is that, if the proposal is (say) strict liability for all SPFL clubs, then only SPFL clubs would be voting; similarly, if it's only for top league clubs, only they vote... and likewise for all senior clubs.

There's 332 pages if you want to have a go.

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/9...23-digital.pdf

[Aldo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just had a quick squint at the SFA rules.

They have the usual 50% requirement for rule changing, and 75% for special resolutions.

I suspect that 50% would be enough, but I can't see who gets to vote.

There's 332 pages if you want to have a go.

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/9...23-digital.pdf

I’ll take your word for it on this occasion

[Viva_Palmeiras]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's not relevant here, though.

I wonder what they traded that for…

[gbhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just had a quick squint at the SFA rules.

They have the usual 50% requirement for rule changing, and 75% for special resolutions.

I suspect that 50% would be enough, but I can't see who gets to vote. My guess is that, if the proposal is (say) strict liability for all SPFL clubs, then only SPFL clubs would be voting; similarly, if it's only for top league clubs, only they vote... and likewise for all senior clubs.

There's 332 pages if you want to have a go.

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/9...23-digital.pdf

Surprised that there is only 332 pages

[Argylehibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yep. The instruction will be to stop talking about it.

I still find it absolutely incredible that in every game that either of the uglies play here without fail, we get this barrage of bigoted bile and it always goes unchallenged and unreported.

I think the club should raise the point of the differing press treatment of sectarian and racist abuse. If we are successful in getting collaboration of all parties involved with football in this country they need to include the press who abuse their power to influence many aspects of the game up here.

[MKHIBEE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's a bit depressing that the vast majority assume this is an attempt by the SFA to put Hibs in their place. A competent and impartial association would be inviting a discussion on how to progress the entirely valid points made by Hibs but history tells us that the SFA is not that association.

However, call me naive if you must but in this case I think that's what is taking place. There is absolutely no justification for reprimand or punishment on the back of the club's statement - the facts were irrefutable, the club's intentions were made clear and are reasonable, and no club or group were singled out. In any case the SFA don't have the power to deduct points and any other sanctions would be laughed out of any arbitration court.

On the other hand Hibs have coherently argued within the statement that football should be an inclusive spectator sport and the transgressions they cited seriously restrict that ambition. Are the SFA really so foolish that they will nip that in the bud, or are they seeking to bring the Scottish game forward from the 17th century. I suppose time will tell.

And there is the problem

[Dashing Bob S]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's a bit depressing that the vast majority assume this is an attempt by the SFA to put Hibs in their place. A competent and impartial association would be inviting a discussion on how to progress the entirely valid points made by Hibs but history tells us that the SFA is not that association.

However, call me naive if you must but in this case I think that's what is taking place. There is absolutely no justification for reprimand or punishment on the back of the club's statement - the facts were irrefutable, the club's intentions were made clear and are reasonable, and no club or group were singled out. In any case the SFA don't have the power to deduct points and any other sanctions would be laughed out of any arbitration court.

On the other hand Hibs have coherently argued within the statement that football should be an inclusive spectator sport and the transgressions they cited seriously restrict that ambition. Are the SFA really so foolish that they will nip that in the bud, or are they seeking to bring the Scottish game forward from the 17th century. I suppose time will tell.

Agreed. It was a well worded and reasonable statement from Hibs and it forced the football authorities to respond. Whatever they want to do, to come down hard edged and vengeful on Hibs now would not be a good look at all.

[Se7enUp]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes, any Scottish club can indeed decide the number of away supporters they will allow in their stadium for league games.
Allowing very few is a decision best made when you can consistently fill all the seats with your own supporters.
At this time, that is only three clubs in the Scottish top flight.
It saves money on stewarding and especially policing but is a poor financial strategy if there are thousands of empty seats losing the club £30 a pop.

Haven't seen anyone other than the old firm filling their stadium with their own supporters. You must be on a different planet.

[Se7enUp]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

3,000 in the away end at the weekend, 14,297 total attendance.

11,000 Hibbies where on a regular league game there's probably upwards of 15,000. All Hibs need to do is encourage their regular support to these games and they're in the money.

[Maybe 3,500 in the away end makes the Hibs turnout for a Sevco game even worse!]

Don't sell them any tickets.

This

[silverhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm not disagreeing with you. There's a part of me hoping that Bill Foley has told the SFA that there is an opportunity to take the game forward financially (not necessarily from him) but that Scottish football needs to clean up its act first before that can happen. If this is pie in the sky then I'm back to wondering why Bill Foley would join a game with a stacked deck, it's not something he has previous form for.

For starters he will want European football every season, he won’t ever get that with Bournemouth that’s for sure, consolidate top 4 finishes and then push on for hopefully a champions league spot, splitting the old firm dominance has to be his priority, here is hoping anyway.

I’m a dreamer.