Lennon ban reduced

[Golden Bear]

Seems as though the smelly ones have succeeded in their quest to have Lennon's ban reduced from 8 games to 4 games.

Regardless of what you think of Lennon, this is just another chapter that proves what a bunch of amateurs the SFA really are.

[LamontHFC©]

Seems as though the smelly ones have succeeded in their quest to have Lennon's ban reduced from 8 games to 4 games.

Regardless of what you think of Lennon, this is just another chapter that proves what a bunch of amateurs the SFA really are.

Absolute shambles.

Really makes my blood boil.

Listen to this quote from BBC:
And Celtic say they are "pleased that the SFA has recognised that Celtic's position is absolutely correct".

Who do they think they are??? :fuming:

[ancient hibee]

Doesn't matter who they think they are --they're right.

[Pretty Boy]

Doesn't matter who they think they are --they're right.

:agree:

The SFA rules are a shambles and any decent lawyer (and Celtic have a bloody good one) will pick them apart with ease.

[Westie1875]

Unbelievable, who is running the game? The SFA are a joke.

[ballengeich]

:agree:

The SFA rules are a shambles and any decent lawyer (and Celtic have a bloody good one) will pick them apart with ease.

The particular rule which Celtic have picked up on doesn't deal adequately with a recidivist like Lennon. It can be fixed by a fairly straight-forward change to its wording and I don't regard it as particular evidence of a shambles as it's been functioning ok for many years.

What other rules do you think need to change?

[cabbageandribs1875]

i wonder if sellick realise if they appeal again it will be reduced to two games(then one game) :agree:

[Seanair]

The particular rule which Celtic have picked up on doesn't deal adequately with a recidivist like Lennon. It can be fixed by a fairly straight-forward change to its wording and I don't regard it as particular evidence of a shambles as it's been functioning ok for many years.

What other rules do you think need to change?

I agree with what you say. The ambiguity of the Rules was never a problem because if someone got a second ban it was assumed that the punishment would be ADDED to, and no-one would question that this would happen.
Now all this challenging by Celtic and Paul McBride QC (a nasty piece of work) is entirely against the spirit of football regulation. Of course this particular rule will be changed, but it shouldn't have to be---JUST BEHAVE LENNON(and all the smart-a***s at Celtic Park).

[whiskyhibby]

Just a point of clarification the ban has not been reduced its just that both ban periods can run concurrently.....................

Unfortunately :cgwa:cgwa:cgwa

[greenginger]

No need to change anything, when dealing with serial offenders like Lennon don't consider a new offence until the ban he is currently serving is finished.

I also understand the detestable little scrot got sent to the stand during a charity match in Spain. The SFA should ask for a report on the game from the Spanish FA.

[HibbyKeith]

4 Match ban is laughable.

correct me if I'm wrong but Derek Adams had to serve 12 matches. for what exactly? must have been shocking whatever it was if that little scrote Lennon gets a 4 match reduction to his suspension after all the bust-ups he's involved in.

without question the most hated man in Scottish football, he got sent to the stand in a FRIENDLY ffs..

SFA... you couldn't make it up!

[Hibs Class]

:agree:

The SFA rules are a shambles and any decent lawyer (and Celtic have a bloody good one) will pick them apart with ease.

Celtic are legally right on this occasion but they are morally wrong. Which kind of sums up the past 122 years of that bigoted, rotten to the core institution. And their sanctimonious, GIRUY statement today just confirms that class and them will always be strangers.

Personally I couldn't care less when Lennon returns to the dug-out - the way I see it, the sooner he returns the sooner he'll be sent to the stand again and get another ban.

[Alfred E Newman]

The whole episode is a complete farce. This decision more or less means Lennons disgraceful performance at the Old Firm cup tie has gone unpunished.
No wonder Scottish Football is a laughing stock.

[Pretty Boy]

Celtic are legally right on this occasion but they are morally wrong. Which kind of sums up the past 122 years of that bigoted, rotten to the core institution. And their sanctimonious, GIRUY statement today just confirms that class and them will always be strangers.

Personally I couldn't care less when Lennon returns to the dug-out - the way I see it, the sooner he returns the sooner he'll be sent to the stand again and get another ban.

I don't disagree, Celtic are totally in the wrong morally.

The point still stands though that this ruling is shockingly worded and if clubs take adavntage of it then that is the fault of the SFA for allowing it to happen, assumption has no place when it comes to the law. I notice a few posters have tried to defend the SFA regarding this rule but i would say having a rule regarding bans that doesn't adequately state whether bans should be served concurrently or consecutively is a pretty laughable mistake to make given the increased use of legal representation by football clubs, including Hibs, when it comes to challenging disciplinary decisions.

[Bostonhibby]

Nae shock there then, give it a couple of months and there'll be an SFA levy on the rest of us to compensate the unwashed for hurt feelings...........

[ancient hibee]

The whole reason that this has arisen is because the SFA took so long to ban him for the Hearts offence.The way disciplinary cases are dragged out is abysmal.Everything-including appeals should be dealt with before the next game.

[craig1989]

I might be wrong but I'm sure I remember something from Mowbrays time where he got a 6 game ban and Hibs challenged it and it got reduced.

Lennons behaviour has been terrible this year, I think they need to forget a 4 match touchline ban and hand out stadium bans for managers much more of a punishment.

But then I geuss Celtics lawyers would overturn this anyway. What a joke the league is

[snooky]

Just a point of clarification the ban has not been reduced its just that both ban periods can run concurrently.....................

Unfortunately :cgwa:cgwa:cgwa

I think you're right. The legal argument was whether the bans were concurrent or consecutive.
Celtic exercising their right to slither out of a justifiable punishment like a slimey snake instead of taking it like a man.
They really are the lowest of the low, IMO.

[Future17]

SFA - Not fit for purpose. :agree:


The SFA rules are a shambles and any decent lawyer (and Celtic have a bloody good one) will pick them apart with ease.

He may well be a "good" one from Celtc's perspective in this scenario but plenty others would tell you different.