Cup Final Report due today

[The Green Goblin]

I am about to read the report, but, looking at the chapter headings, I wonder why he didn't include the historic pitch invasion by Rangers fans in May 2005 at Easter Road?

[Nakedmanoncrack]

Yep, which (in the case of "Orange" certainly) is sectarian abuse in my book

Not in mine, orange refers to the orange order (a sectarian organisation) it's anti-sectarian if anything.

[CropleyWasGod]

Not in mine, orange refers to the orange order (a sectarian organisation) it's anti-sectarian if anything.

Or a follower of William of Orange, who tried to maintain the Protestant establishment against the evil papish hordes :greengrin

We could be at this for a while. :cb

The point is, the Sheriff decided that some of our brethren engaged in what he defined as sectarian abuse. Whether it was Orange, Hun or something else, we don't actually know, of course. However, given the balance in his report, I'm okay with his conclusion on that particular bit.

[Eyrie]

"Orange" would qualify as sectarian language, but only a Sevco supporter would pretend that "Hun" is anything other than religiously neutral reference.

[Ronniekirk]

Saw on the news tonigt Rangers are demanding a meeting with the SFA and the Author of the Independant Report as there are inaccuracies in it
Do they not understand the meaning of the word Independent
If the S F A cave in to this demand it is pandering to them and no doubt they will use it to try and influence the S FA to come down harder on us as they clearly dont think the Independent Author has
See they are stil wanting to make more out of issue of pitch invasion and its illegal for fans toencroach onto the pitch
They will be raging thier version of events hasnt been totally accepted and the Report made it clear The Rangers fans came on to the pitch for one reason only to fight and cause trouble He saw riight through thier attempt to say thier fans only came on to protect thier players

[The Pointer]

Regan "He said: "We are committed to ensuring that there is no repeat of the scenes that detracted from this showpiece occasion and will give full consideration to the recommendations set out by Sheriff Principal Bowen in respect of the Scottish FA's future planning of major sporting events under our jurisdiction."

Wriggly wiggly bureaucrat speak. The The Rangers new statement has him back on the hook. Hibs should keep schtum, back out and let the sfa and trfc get on with it, they deserve each other.

Those scenes of joy ensured the 'showpiece occasion' was shown around the world - in a good light. I haven't heard/seen any detracting views.

Had Hun won, this would not have been the case therefore a good bit of PR work by our fans.

[Scott Allan Key]

One of the beauties of our cup win is how it has put Hibs on track for great things to come and shedding any baggage while doing so.

The Rangers, on the other hand are becoming trapped in a Moebius strip, where time becomes a loop; so obsessed with a false, mythological and inglorious definition of the past, that they are being cosmically damned to forever live the truth of their lies coming back to haunt them in perpetual defeat.

I'm biased though.

[BSEJVT]

One of the beauties of our cup win is how it has put Hibs on track for great things to come and shedding any baggage while doing so.

The Rangers, on the other hand are becoming trapped in a Moebius strip, where time becomes a loop; so obsessed with a false, mythological and inglorious definition of the past, that they are being cosmically damned to forever live the truth of their lies coming back to haunt them in perpetual defeat.

I'm biased though.

I don't think you are, I think that's a pretty fair summary.

Once the Compliance Officers report is in and done it's time to move on from this pish and glory in our cup win and the continuing seethe from the Huns.

Long may it continue

[s.a.m]

One of the beauties of our cup win is how it has put Hibs on track for great things to come and shedding any baggage while doing so.

The Rangers, on the other hand are becoming trapped in a Moebius strip, where time becomes a loop; so obsessed with a false, mythological and inglorious definition of the past, that they are being cosmically damned to forever live the truth of their lies coming back to haunt them in perpetual defeat.

I'm biased though.


Factual and insightful summary, I thought.:aok:

[ballengeich]

While the report makes it clear that the behaviour of some of our supporters to The Rangers' players was unacceptable, there's no mention of any player being physically injured. I hope that the SFA will take action against the Ibrox club for their statement after the game which alleged that a number of their players were attacked. Can't see it happening though.

[Hibby Kay-Yay]

While the report makes it clear that the behaviour of some of our supporters to The Rangers' players was unacceptable, there's no mention of any player being physically injured. I hope that the SFA will take action against the Ibrox club for their statement after the game which alleged that a number of their players were attacked. Can't see it happening though.

Would be funny if Hibs made a statement about the report, acknowledging the part about no The Rangers players being physically harmed and then finished it off with "we await the no doubt forthcoming apology from The Rangers on their misinformed club statement".

[SouthMoroccoStu]

I hope that the SFA will take action against the Ibrox club for their statement after the game which alleged that a number of their players were attacked. Can't see it happening though.

I'm sure they will

Right after they figure out how to turn water into gold

[Jim44]

While the report makes it clear that the behaviour of some of our supporters to The Rangers' players was unacceptable, there's no mention of any player being physically injured. I hope that the SFA will take action against the Ibrox club for their statement after the game which alleged that a number of their players were attacked. Can't see it happening though.

What happened to the evidence of Gordon Waddell, employee of the DR group, who said he personally witnessed a Hibs supporter giving two Sevco players and a Sevco official a 'severe kicking'. That's likely to cause physical injury in my book, unless, Waddell hadn't been to Specsavers.

[LustForLeith]

What happened to the evidence of Gordon Waddell, employee of the DR group, who said he personally witnessed a Hibs supporter giving two Sevco players and a Sevco official a 'severe kicking'. That's likely to cause physical injury in my book, unless, Waddell hadn't been to Specsavers.

If he said that in print and it didn't happen, isn't it libel? If he said it in conversation isn't it slander? Either way can't he be pulled up for this?

[CropleyWasGod]

If he said that in print and it didn't happen, isn't it libel? If he said it in conversation isn't it slander? Either way can't he be pulled up for this?
In Scotland, it's neither. It's defamation.

It would need someone to make a complaint, though, as defamation is a civil matter.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[greenginger]

... and sectarian abuse from Hibs fans.

“There were incidents involving direct physical confrontation with Rangers players which included obscene language and sectarian abuse. Similar conduct was directed at Rangers officials.”

That's lifted straight from the enquiry report.


Yeah, but did the enquirer lift that information from the Ranger's post match statement.

Not saying it didn't happen but who led that evidence ?

[Sprouleflyer]

What happened to the evidence of Gordon Waddell, employee of the DR group, who said he personally witnessed a Hibs supporter giving two Sevco players and a Sevco official a 'severe kicking'. That's likely to cause physical injury in my book, unless, Waddell hadn't been to Specsavers.

And Chic Young blurting out on the radio that he witnessed a Sevco player being assaulted by a hibs fan with a belt.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yeah, but did the enquirer lift that information from the Ranger's post match statement.

Not saying it didn't happen but who led that evidence ?
Presumably, the Sheriff took evidence from those in proximity. I'm guessing police, stewards, Hibs and Rangers staff.

As a sheriff, I'd expect him to challenge the evidence as well.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[greenginger]

Another part of the report that puzzles me and seems to have confused the Sheriff is 7.2.2.

" Public transport facilities require significant policing at the conclusion of a major football match. For this reason a greater number of officers were deployed externally than were within the ground as the match drew to a conclusion. "

The match was not drawing to a conclusion, it was heading for 30 minutes extra time and maybe penalties.

When were the officers deployed to their post match positions ?

[The Green Goblin]

And Chic Young blurting out on the radio that he witnessed a Sevco player being assaulted by a hibs fan with a belt.

That was an honest mistake. I think he got that mixed up with a fantasy request he made to a lady of the night in Amsterdam's red light district.

[Jim44]

It's incredible that Sevco decided not to use the eye-witness evidence of serious injuries to their players and staff. I wonder if Waddell and Young will now be called by Sevco to re-iterate their 'recollections' in their public dismissal of the findings of the Bowen report. They might even have information from the hospital that the severely injured were taken to.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[banchoryhibs]

Another part of the report that puzzles me and seems to have confused the Sheriff is 7.2.2.

" Public transport facilities require significant policing at the conclusion of a major football match. For this reason a greater number of officers were deployed externally than were within the ground as the match drew to a conclusion. "

The match was not drawing to a conclusion, it was heading for 30 minutes extra time and maybe penalties.

When were the officers deployed to their post match positions ?

They would have been wuthdrawn before the equaliser. Plod obviously of the mind that the game was over at 2-1.
Now I'm smiling again remembering the feeling when Stokes scored his second .......

[greenginger]

They would have been wuthdrawn before the equaliser. Plod obviously of the mind that the game was over at 2-1.
Now I'm smiling again remembering the feeling when Stokes scored his second .......


No doubt that's what happened , but is it not worthy of a mention in his report that the police were redeployed prematurely, and it seems no corrections made for the prospect of extra time.

If fact, extra time and penalties possibilities are not not considered by the report.

[Gordy M]

No doubt that's what happened , but is it not worthy of a mention in his report that the police were redeployed prematurely, and it seems no corrections made for the prospect of extra time.

If fact, extra time and penalties possibilities are not not considered by the report.

There arent a lot of police actually inside a ground these days, have a look next time you are at easter road. They are mainly held in reserve and its the stewards that are inside the ground.

They would be 'withdrawn' from the ground in the event of what actually happened....a late goal meaning fans wouls be leaving the ground. If they wait til the final whistle then its too late?

Did they expect a pitch invasion? I would probably think not....but having spoke to cops...a pitch invasion isnt a huge problem, but then folk start mis behaving and it does become an issue.

[221000]

Been out all day and heading back out so no time to read the thread but if the report is available could someone please post a link???

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/Documents/ScottishCupFinal2016Report/Scottish%20Cup%20Final%202016%20Commission%20of%20 Enquiry%20-%20Report%20of%20SP%20Bowen.pdf

[Aldo]

It doesn't matter and never will matter what is written unless it reads what Newco want it read!

I personally believe that they want to 'proof' read it prior to it being published.

They still don't get it and never will.

So the independent report has published one thing it's now up to the CO to do their bit.

This is where it gets interesting and very interesting indeed. I might be wrong but I have a feeling that the CO will have already made up their mind and I really do hope their report is not influenced in any way shape or form by Media or Social media outlets!

[Leithenhibby]

Sad, bitter inadequates.

We spoiled their 'We're back' (to everyone else 'they've arrived') party and they hate us for it.

Love it.

:top marks

GGTTH

[Mikey]

Another part of the report that puzzles me and seems to have confused the Sheriff is 7.2.2.

" Public transport facilities require significant policing at the conclusion of a major football match. For this reason a greater number of officers were deployed externally than were within the ground as the match drew to a conclusion. "

The match was not drawing to a conclusion, it was heading for 30 minutes extra time and maybe penalties.

When were the officers deployed to their post match positions ?

That just doesn't make sense for a cup final. Regardless of which team wins, one set of fans will disperse quickly and the other set will stick around to see the cup being lifted.

[blackpoolhibs]

My thinking now is that the police were actually not that bothered about Hibs fans invading the pitch. They possibly felt it was harmless celebrations by exuberant fans that was warranted and added to the ocassion. What ****ed them up was the idiot Hibs fans who thought they'd sooner start winding up some meaningless Sevco fans... and all that happened after that. Had those idiots not done that, I'm certain the Huns would have moped away from Hampden.

It only took 11 seconds apparently for the first sevco supporter to come on the park, we must have had olympic standard runners on the pitch to have wound them up so quickly.

[dangermouse]

Regarding punishment, the club are likely only to have to pay for repairs to the pitch, goals and pitch side advertising. Any other sanctions would have to be given to The Rangers as well.

[Eyrie]

Regarding punishment, the club are likely only to have to pay for repairs to the pitch, goals and pitch side advertising. Any other sanctions would have to be given to The Rangers as well.

Hibs weren't responsible for the security arrangements that resulted in fans being on the pitch, so do not have any liability for the simple reason that Scottish football does not have strict liability to appease Celtc and Sevco.

[Caversham Green]

I'm wondering what Sevco hope to achieve by meeting with the author of the report. It has already been published and can't be unpublished and it also seems reasonably fair-minded and accurate so their request appears to be borne out of childish spite - which of course is a trademark of their press adviser and chairman.

Whatever the reason, if such a meeting takes place it is essential that Hibs are represented - meeting one party in isolation would destroy any degree of independence.

[Spike Mandela]

I'm wondering what Sevco hope to achieve by meeting with the author of the report. It has already been published and can't be unpublished and it also seems reasonably fair-minded and accurate so their request appears to be borne out of childish spite - which of course is a trademark of their press adviser and chairman.

Whatever the reason, if such a meeting takes place it is essential that Hibs are represented - meeting one party in isolation would destroy any degree of independence.

It's sabre rattling so that they can give the impression to the Govan faithful that the glib and shameless liar and co will act tough on any perceived wronging of their club. Meanwhile in the background he will be doing more damage to thir club than anyone.

[.Sean.]

Hibs should ban the Recird from Easter Road with their ridiculous headline

[BoltonHibee]

Hibs should ban the Recird from Easter Road with their ridiculous headline

I agree 100%, not just for the headline though for all their other crap

[.Sean.]

17280
I agree 100%, not just for the headline though for all their other crap
****ing scandalous

[BoltonHibee]

Yup

[crewetollhibee]

I'm wondering what Sevco hope to achieve by meeting with the author of the report. It has already been published and can't be unpublished and it also seems reasonably fair-minded and accurate so their request appears to be borne out of childish spite - which of course is a trademark of their press adviser and chairman.

Whatever the reason, if such a meeting takes place it is essential that Hibs are represented - meeting one party in isolation would destroy any degree of independence.

There's a horse somewhere who's just about to be decapitated.

[jdships]

Rangers are like the SNP keep complaining and asking for another vote until they get the result they want
Worried how the " top brass" will approach this :confused:
Will they as is predictable appease Ibrox and "punish" Hibs or will they accept the report ?
50/50 would guess !!

[Vini1875]

Of course its sabre rattling for their support, but it is also about any blame for their fans and avoiding any punishment.

Reading any hun forums, you can quickly see they blame Hibs entirely for the "riot". They can easily apportion blame when it suits eg. Manchester was because TV screens failed and a lot of Chelsea fans went mental. Conveinently forgetting that there were loads of arrests at the beam back to ibrox.

The huns, club and fans will push this as far as they can. We, club and fans need to resist any attemps to have Hibs punished for what amounts to handbags. The only thing that we could accept as punishment is some repayment for damage to pitch and goalposts.

[BoltonHibee]

Rangers are like the SNP keep complaining and asking for another vote until they get the result they want
Worried how the " top brass" will approach this :confused:
Will they as is predictable appease Ibrox and "punish" Hibs or will they accept the report ?
50/50 would guess !!

I don't think they can punish Hibs and appease Rangers. It would go against the findings of the report.

Hibs should conduct their own investigation around the " sectarian " abuse that was supposedly directed at rangers players as that one is really out of the blue as far as I know. ( or as far as we can)

Other than that I think the general arrests made by the police will tell their own story

[Malthibby]

Rangers are like the SNP keep complaining and asking for another vote until they get the result they want
Worried how the " top brass" will approach this :confused:
Will they as is predictable appease Ibrox and "punish" Hibs or will they accept the report ?
50/50 would guess !!

Let's keep this to SEVCO, they ain't anything like the SNP. Trying to link them won't assist the consensus of a thread in which we are all pretty much in agreement.
All hail the blessed Nicola (see what I mean?).
GG

[lyonhibs]

No doubt that's what happened , but is it not worthy of a mention in his report that the police were redeployed prematurely, and it seems no corrections made for the prospect of extra time.

If fact, extra time and penalties possibilities are not not considered by the report.

Mercifully they weren't considered possibilities by David Gray, Liam Henderson and Anthony Stokes et al either :greengrin

[Waxy]

15 Hibs fans shamed our game but stealing all that money from the taxman didn't.

[Seveno]

The report seems pretty fair to me but it misses one important point. The Hibs fans on the pitch only started to leave when the Hibs fans in the stands started chanting 'Off, off, off'.

[emerald green]

The FRONT PAGE headline in the Daily Record today is really beyond belief. A joke of a rag.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Rangers are like the SNP keep complaining and asking for another vote until they get the result they want
Worried how the " top brass" will approach this :confused:
Will they as is predictable appease Ibrox and "punish" Hibs or will they accept the report ?
50/50 would guess !!

Lets no eh! ....... If you want to discuss politics do it on the Holy ground.

[Mr White]

Rangers are like the SNP

You meant to type BNP right? :greengrin

[Godsahibby]

Just watched the sky version of the final again. Watch the interview with rod at the end pretty much summarises the whole report 10 mins after the game ends!

[hhibs]

Rangers are like the SNP keep complaining and asking for another vote until they get the result they want
Worried how the " top brass" will approach this :confused:
Will they as is predictable appease Ibrox and "punish" Hibs or will they accept the report ?
50/50 would guess !!

For pity's sake fella take a break.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Regarding punishment, the club are likely only to have to pay for repairs to the pitch, goals and pitch side advertising. Any other sanctions would have to be given to The Rangers as well.

There is no 'strict liability' and on top of that the report pretty well exonerates Hibs from any responsibility for the pitch invasion. The best the SFA could hope for is that Hibs pay for the damage to the goals and pitch as an act of good faith .... If the claims I have heard ( on here nowhere else ) of the damage to the electronic advertising hoarding running to hundreds of thousands Hibs wont even do that, because if the company who own the boards were to take us to court they could point to it as Hibs accepting that they are liable for damage to their stuff too.

In fact given the content of the report, the fact that there is no strict liability and that the SFA were responsible for the game and venue security I cant for the life of me see under what rule the SFA or the compliance officer have any scope to punish Hibs at all :dunno:

[jdships]

For pity's sake fella take a break.

And your point is ?
Or do u agree with the Record/Huns ?

[CropleyWasGod]

And your point is ?
Or do u agree with the Record/Huns ?
It's the comparison with the SNP that's the issue.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

And your point is ?
Or do u agree with the Record/Huns ?

I think his point was, you linking Der Hun to the SNP. As others have said, let's keep that for the Holy Ground, but while I'm on, if they were like the SNP, they would be sweeping all before them, and have kept a tight ship, and paid all their bills.

Back to the report.

Well balanced, and I fail to see what they can hit our club with, especially if we volunteer to pay for the pitch and goals damage.

[jdships]

It's the comparison with the SNP that's the issue.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

So that's an Issue - aye right !
All I was making was a comparison which is seems to be obvious to most of the football people I speak with
Have no political affiliation whatsoever !!
" I vote with my consience ! " just as my old Doctor used to say :wink:

[PatHead]

There arent a lot of police actually inside a ground these days, have a look next time you are at easter road. They are mainly held in reserve and its the stewards that are inside the ground.

They would be 'withdrawn' from the ground in the event of what actually happened....a late goal meaning fans wouls be leaving the ground. If they wait til the final whistle then its too late?

Did they expect a pitch invasion? I would probably think not....but having spoke to cops...a pitch invasion isnt a huge problem, but then folk start mis behaving and it does become an issue.

Just noticed the number of stewards around the pitch at the final compared to the semi when watching the videos again.

Looks more to me a the semi which would not be a category A game?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7JFmQ2ynao

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCaYoq1RECU

To me that means there were not enough stewards at the final.

[Dashing Bob S]

So that's an Issue - aye right !
All I was making was a comparison which is seems to be obvious to most of the football people I speak with
Have no political affiliation whatsoever !!
" I vote with my consience ! " just as my old Doctor used to say :wink:

Given the vitriol that the SNP and Sturgeon receive from a lot of pro Unionist Huns, it does seem a rather clumsy comparison...

[Malthibby]

So that's an Issue - aye right !
All I was making was a comparison which is seems to be obvious to most of the football people I speak with
Have no political affiliation whatsoever !!
" I vote with my consience ! " just as my old Doctor used to say :wink:

You're old doctor would probably have meant conscience, but linking the SNP & Sevco does your argument no favours.
GG

[Ronniekirk]

A lot of mention now of the Complance Officer and Judicial Review Protocol
Never heard of the latter ,is this something thats always been there ,but never been used ,or is it something new
A lot of West Coast Media reports indicating this should be used to hammer hibs ,and severley punish them ,while The Rangers should be reprimanded
Its clear the SFA wont want to tak the blame and its clear they want to make an example of whoever they deem to be at fault
This Judicial Review Panel cpuld be used in a different way to the Independent Report ?

[CropleyWasGod]

A lot of mention now of the Complance Officer and Judicial Review Protocol
Never heard of the latter ,is this something thats always been there ,but never been used ,or is it something new
A lot of West Coast Media reports indicating this should be used to hammer hibs ,and severley punish them ,while The Rangers should be reprimanded
Its clear the SFA wont want to tak the blame and its clear they want to make an example of whoever they deem to be at fault
This Judicial Review Panel cpuld be used in a different way to the Independent Report ?
This should help.

https://www.unlockthelaw.co.uk/sfa-disciplinary-rules.html

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Cabbage East]

Rangers are like the SNP keep complaining and asking for another vote until they get the result they want
Worried how the " top brass" will approach this :confused:
Will they as is predictable appease Ibrox and "punish" Hibs or will they accept the report ?
50/50 would guess !!

Bizarre post.

[GloryGlory]

It'll probably be 16:55 then the SFA staff will be off for the weekend and avoid any difficult questions. :greengrin

I was nearly right. :wink::greengrin

[hhibs]

So that's an Issue - aye right !
All I was making was a comparison which is seems to be obvious to most of the football people I speak with
Have no political affiliation whatsoever !!
" I vote with my consience ! " just as my old Doctor used to say :wink:

Still stirring I see.

[GloryGlory]

A lot of mention now of the Complance Officer and Judicial Review Protocol
Never heard of the latter ,is this something thats always been there ,but never been used ,or is it something new
A lot of West Coast Media reports indicating this should be used to hammer hibs ,and severley punish them ,while The Rangers should be reprimanded
Its clear the SFA wont want to tak the blame and its clear they want to make an example of whoever they deem to be at fault.

I cannot see how since the report indicates that Hibs did everything they were asked to do by the SFA and complied fully with all the requirements laid down in the regulations.

I can however see the CO taking action against David Gray and other Hibs players who left the field of play after the winning goal, since this was specifically criticized in the report and the report also pointed out that players get briefings about the importance of staying on the pitch. Even though the referee booked DG at the time, and thus that should be an end of it, I can see the players becoming scapegoats to appease the Hun and to be seen to be doing something by the SFA.

BTW, I think the reason the west coast media are screaming for sanctions against Hibs is because:
1) Hibs had the temerity to beat their precious The Rangers, going against the script that was all ordained beforehand, and
2) They want to keep their place at the Hun table when the succulent lamb is being served.

[BSEJVT]

Honest Question

Lets suppose (god forbid) that Rangers had come back to win the cup and their fans invaded the pitch, largely in joyous celebration, some of whom got a bit out of hand and Hibs supporters then went on the pitch to confront them

Does anyone really think any of this nonsense would have been reported, blown up out of all proportion and the subject of blatantly biased and deceitful reporting , reviews and Compliance Officer involvement?

Me neither.

Whatever comes our way we will deal with and we will still have that beautiful cup.

**** them all, I really couldn't give a damn now.

If nothing else the majority of the press's reaction afterwards has fully exposed the myth that they are unbiased, they are never going to give us anything and we should respond appropriately.

Newspapers are almost a total irrelevance now and we should stop pandering to those that hate us.

Digital media gives everyone a chance to view events from their own perspective and most non huns I have spoken to know exactly what went down and why and frankly other than being glad the huns lost don't give a damn about anything else.

We have bigger fish to fry now and should leave the post cup final furore behind us.

[JimBHibees]

Honest Question

Lets suppose (god forbid) that Rangers had come back to win the cup and their fans invaded the pitch, largely in joyous celebration, some of whom got a bit out of hand and Hibs supporters then went on the pitch to confront them

Does anyone really think any of this nonsense would have been reported, blown up out of all proportion and the subject of blatantly biased and deceitful reporting , reviews and Compliance Officer involvement?

Me neither.

Whatever comes our way we will deal with and we will still have that beautiful cup.

**** them all, I really couldn't give a damn now.

If nothing else the majority of the press's reaction afterwards has fully exposed the myth that they are unbiased, they are never going to give us anything and we should respond appropriately.

Newspapers are almost a total irrelevance now and we should stop pandering to those that hate us.

Digital media gives everyone a chance to view events from their own perspective and most non huns I have spoken to know exactly what went down and why and frankly other than being glad the huns lost don't give a damn about anything else.

We have bigger fish to fry now and should leave the post cup final furore behind us.

All we need to do is to compare and contrast the media coverage of the wholesale violence in Manchester at the UEFA final not so long ago to the coverage of the cup final invasion. Night and day and tells you all you need to know.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I cannot see how since the report indicates that Hibs did everything they were asked to do by the SFA and complied fully with all the requirements laid down in the regulations.

I can however see the CO taking action against David Gray and other Hibs players who left the field of play after the winning goal, since this was specifically criticized in the report and the report also pointed out that players get briefings about the importance of staying on the pitch. Even though the referee booked DG at the time, and thus that should be an end of it, I can see the players becoming scapegoats to appease the Hun and to be seen to be doing something by the SFA.

BTW, I think the reason the west coast media are screaming for sanctions against Hibs is because:
1) Hibs had the temerity to beat their precious The Rangers, going against the script that was all ordained beforehand, and
2) They want to keep their place at the Hun table when the succulent lamb is being served.

As you say David Gray was booked on the day ..... he ran to our own fans at an area over 50 metres from the nearest currant bun. Not only that, but in the circumstances of the goal punishing him or any of the other players who left the pitch would be as blatant a disregard for the things that make the game great as I could imagine ..... passion, excitement, joy .... if reacting to these things in the heat of such a moment is to be punished after the event the game truly is doomed.

On that note ..... did anybody else notice that Rotherham's first goal against Wolves on Saturday was almost a carbon copy of Gray's winner:greengrin

[Onion]

Honest Question

Lets suppose (god forbid) that Rangers had come back to win the cup and their fans invaded the pitch, largely in joyous celebration, some of whom got a bit out of hand and Hibs supporters then went on the pitch to confront them

Does anyone really think any of this nonsense would have been reported, blown up out of all proportion and the subject of blatantly biased and deceitful reporting , reviews and Compliance Officer involvement?

Me neither.

Whatever comes our way we will deal with and we will still have that beautiful cup.

**** them all, I really couldn't give a damn now.

If nothing else the majority of the press's reaction afterwards has fully exposed the myth that they are unbiased, they are never going to give us anything and we should respond appropriately.

Newspapers are almost a total irrelevance now and we should stop pandering to those that hate us.

Digital media gives everyone a chance to view events from their own perspective and most non huns I have spoken to know exactly what went down and why and frankly other than being glad the huns lost don't give a damn about anything else.

We have bigger fish to fry now and should leave the post cup final furore behind us.

The difference is Hibs fans would not have gone onto the pitch to confront the Huns, they would have left the ground and left them to enjoy/wallow in it. That's the difference. The Huns are just bitter bigots who hate everything except a good chance to beat a few heads in. If the Huns had stayed in their seats or better still left the stadium as they should have, there would have been few problems.

[GloryGlory]

The difference is Hibs fans would not have gone onto the pitch to confront the Huns, they would have left the ground and left them to enjoy/wallow in it. That's the difference. The Huns are just bitter bigots who hate everything except a good chance to beat a few heads in. If the Huns had stayed in their seats or better still left the stadium as they should have, there would have been few problems.

Agree. The report also pointed out a few Hibs supporters (up to 200) went to taunt The Rangers fans. Well, what about The Rangers fans who were chanting and singing sectarian abuse all afternoon? Although this is acknowledged in the report, it is quickly glossed over. There were thousands involved in that abuse. What has the meeja said about it? Or the SFA? Or Police Scotland?

[cookin_on_gaz]

There is no 'strict liability' and on top of that the report pretty well exonerates Hibs from any responsibility for the pitch invasion.

Are you sure there is no strict liability in place? I am sure I saw another post that said there is strict liability under the rules for the Scottish cup but not for the league.

[jdships]

Still stirring I see.

Not really .
Just expressing my opinion which surely I am entitled todo
Lighten up

[Smartie]

The difference is Hibs fans would not have gone onto the pitch to confront the Huns, they would have left the ground and left them to enjoy/wallow in it. That's the difference. The Huns are just bitter bigots who hate everything except a good chance to beat a few heads in. If the Huns had stayed in their seats or better still left the stadium as they should have, there would have been few problems.

If they'd have stayed in their seats, and then not released the statements they did so soon after the game, they'd have had a moral high ground that none of us could reasonably argue with.

[CropleyWasGod]

Are you sure there is no strict liability in place? I am sure I saw another post that said there is strict liability under the rules for the Scottish cup but not for the league.

There absolutely is for the SC. Rule 28.

The clubs are responsible for the behaviour of their players, officials, members, supporters
and any person carrying out a function at a match on their behalf.
In the event of damage being sustained to a stadium where a tie in the Competition is
played as a consequence of misbehaviour by a player, official, member, supporters, or any
other person acting on behalf of or associated with a club, then that club shall be
responsible for any costs arising in the reparation of same.

[Jim44]

There is no 'strict liability' and on top of that the report pretty well exonerates Hibs from any responsibility for the pitch invasion. The best the SFA could hope for is that Hibs pay for the damage to the goals and pitch as an act of good faith .... If the claims I have heard ( on here nowhere else ) of the damage to the electronic advertising hoarding running to hundreds of thousands Hibs wont even do that, because if the company who own the boards were to take us to court they could point to it as Hibs accepting that they are liable for damage to their stuff too.

In fact given the content of the report, the fact that there is no strict liability and that the SFA were responsible for the game and venue security I cant for the life of me see under what rule the SFA or the compliance officer have any scope to punish Hibs at all :dunno:

According to Twaddell, 'Strict Liability' does apply in the Scottish Cup competition. - Unlike our other competitions, the Scottish Cup’s Rule 28 on Disorderly Conduct does apply strict liability for the behaviour of their fans to the clubs. And it gives the SFA power to use their Judicial Panel protocols to censure, fine, eject the club from the competition or suspend them if they’re found guilty.


I'm not saying he is correct, just that he has raised the issue in his rant.

[hhibs]

Not really .
Just expressing my opinion which surely I am entitled todo
Lighten up

Ok ,enough ,you really do not seem to get it, this is a Hibs footie forum NOT a political one to vent your twaddle.

[hibs0666]

According to Twaddell, 'Strict Liability' does apply in the Scottish Cup competition. - Unlike our other competitions, the Scottish Cup’s Rule 28 on Disorderly Conduct does apply strict liability for the behaviour of their fans to the clubs. And it gives the SFA power to use their Judicial Panel protocols to censure, fine, eject the club from the competition or suspend them if they’re found guilty.


I'm not saying he is correct, just that he has raised the issue in his rant.

Rule 28 is written in the context of stadium damage, nothing else...

28. Disorderly Conduct

The clubs are responsible for the behaviour of their players, officials, members, supporters and any person carrying out a function at a match on their behalf. In the event of damage being sustained to a stadium where a tie in the Competition is played as a consequence of misbehaviour by a player, official, member, supporters, or any other person acting on behalf of or associated with a club, then that club shall be responsible for any costs arising in the reparation of same.

The Scottish FA shall have the power to request such reports as may be necessary in determining responsibility for restitution and may additionally through the Judicial Panel impose upon any club a censure, fine, ejection from the Competition or suspension if, in the opinion of the Judicial Panel, a stadium is the subject of damage by that club’s representatives or those associated with it (Rule 6 refers).

The provisions of this Rule 28 are without prejudice to the terms of Article 28, which apply to clubs in the context of their participation in the Competition. Any infringement of that Article also can lead to serious sanctions as set out in the Articles of Association and/or the Judicial Panel Protocol including ejection from the Competition.

So we can get nailed for damage to the pitch and goals and (maybe) the electronic signage. Even if 11 huns were put into intensive care, it would not be a breach of this rule.

[CropleyWasGod]

Rule 28 is written in the context of stadium damage, nothing else...

28. Disorderly Conduct

The clubs are responsible for the behaviour of their players, officials, members, supporters and any person carrying out a function at a match on their behalf. In the event of damage being sustained to a stadium where a tie in the Competition is played as a consequence of misbehaviour by a player, official, member, supporters, or any other person acting on behalf of or associated with a club, then that club shall be responsible for any costs arising in the reparation of same.

The Scottish FA shall have the power to request such reports as may be necessary in determining responsibility for restitution and may additionally through the Judicial Panel impose upon any club a censure, fine, ejection from the Competition or suspension if, in the opinion of the Judicial Panel, a stadium is the subject of damage by that club’s representatives or those associated with it (Rule 6 refers).

The provisions of this Rule 28 are without prejudice to the terms of Article 28, which apply to clubs in the context of their participation in the Competition. Any infringement of that Article also can lead to serious sanctions as set out in the Articles of Association and/or the Judicial Panel Protocol including ejection from the Competition.

So we can get nailed for damage to the pitch and goals and (maybe) the electronic signage. Even if 11 huns were put into intensive care, it would not be a breach of this rule.

It still says that clubs are responsible for the behaviour.....etc etc. That part stands on its own, irrespective of what it goes on to say about damage.

Going further, Article 28 of the SFA's own rules:-

28.1 A club shall take all such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure the safety, good
conduct and behaviour of its supporters on any ground. A club playing at its own ground or
allowing its ground to be used for a match in which it is not participating shall also take all
such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure the safety, good conduct and behaviour of
all spectators at that ground.
28.2 A recognised football body which is directly responsible for organising a match under its
jurisdiction shall likewise take all such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure the safety,
good conduct and behaviour of spectators at such match.
28.3 Misbehaviour by spectators before, during or at the close of a match resulting from the failure
of a club or recognised football body to take all reasonably practicable steps as aforesaid shall
render that club or recognised football body liable to a fine or closure of ground or suspension
or all of these penalties.
28.4 In the event of a report being made to the Scottish FA that the misbehaviour of spectators has
had a material effect on the result of a match and such report being upheld, the Judicial Panel
may declare the match and result void and order the match to be replayed on such ground
and on such date and on such conditions as the Judicial Panel shall think proper and/or may
impose such other penalties as the Judicial Panel shall think proper. Any such report shall be
lodged with the Secretary in writing within 6 days of the day of the match and shall only be
considered if made by the referee or a club participating in such match.


28.7 Each club must ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that its players, officials,
supporters and any person exercising a function for or in connection with the club do
not engage in Unacceptable Conduct at any club’s ground on the occasion of a match.
Any failure by a club to discharge a requirement to which it is subject by virtue of Article
28.6 and this Article 28.7 shall constitute a breach of these Articles.

28.8 In any proceedings in terms of these Articles against a club in which it is alleged that
there has been a failure by the club to discharge a requirement to which it is subject
by virtue of Articles 28.6 and 28.7, it shall be for the club concerned to prove that it
was not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done or (as the case may
be) there was no better practicable means than were in fact used to discharge such
requirement.

28.9 Proceedings in terms of these Articles against a club in which it is alleged that there has
been a failure by that club to discharge a requirement to which it is subject by virtue
of Articles 28.6 and 28.7 may only be commenced where the Secretary has received
from (i) the police; (ii) from the relevant match official or other match official; (iii) any
representative of the Scottish FA attending the relevant match on behalf of the Scottish
FA; and/or the other club which took part in the relevant match, a written complaint or
other written communication which, in the opinion of the Scottish FA, provides grounds
to believe that such requirement may not have been discharged. Upon determining that
a breach of or failure to fulfil these Articles has been established, the Judicial Panel may:-
(a) give a warning as to future conduct;
(b) give a reprimand;
(c) impose a fine;
(d) annul the result of a match;
(e) order that the match be replayed;
(f) impose a deduction of points or the ejection of the club from the Challenge
Cup Competition;

[cabbageandribs1875]

Upon determining that
a breach of or failure to fulfil these Articles has been established, the Judicial Panel may:-
(a) give a warning as to future conduct;
(b) give a reprimand;
(c) impose a fine;
(d) annul the result of a match;
(e) order that the match be replayed;
(f) impose a deduction of points or the ejection of the club from the Challenge
Cup Competition;


then they really would see a riot :greengrin

[majorhibs]

It still says that clubs are responsible for the behaviour.....etc etc. That part stands on its own, irrespective of what it goes on to say about damage.

Going further, Article 28 of the SFA's own rules:-

28.1 A club shall take all such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure the safety, good
conduct and behaviour of its supporters on any ground. A club playing at its own ground or
allowing its ground to be used for a match in which it is not participating shall also take all
such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure the safety, good conduct and behaviour of
all spectators at that ground.
28.2 A recognised football body which is directly responsible for organising a match under its
jurisdiction shall likewise take all such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure the safety,
good conduct and behaviour of spectators at such match.
28.3 Misbehaviour by spectators before, during or at the close of a match resulting from the failure
of a club or recognised football body to take all reasonably practicable steps as aforesaid shall
render that club or recognised football body liable to a fine or closure of ground or suspension
or all of these penalties.
28.4 In the event of a report being made to the Scottish FA that the misbehaviour of spectators has
had a material effect on the result of a match and such report being upheld, the Judicial Panel
may declare the match and result void and order the match to be replayed on such ground
and on such date and on such conditions as the Judicial Panel shall think proper and/or may
impose such other penalties as the Judicial Panel shall think proper. Any such report shall be
lodged with the Secretary in writing within 6 days of the day of the match and shall only be
considered if made by the referee or a club participating in such match.


28.7 Each club must ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that its players, officials,
supporters and any person exercising a function for or in connection with the club do
not engage in Unacceptable Conduct at any club’s ground on the occasion of a match.
Any failure by a club to discharge a requirement to which it is subject by virtue of Article
28.6 and this Article 28.7 shall constitute a breach of these Articles.

28.8 In any proceedings in terms of these Articles against a club in which it is alleged that
there has been a failure by the club to discharge a requirement to which it is subject
by virtue of Articles 28.6 and 28.7, it shall be for the club concerned to prove that it
was not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done or (as the case may
be) there was no better practicable means than were in fact used to discharge such
requirement.

28.9 Proceedings in terms of these Articles against a club in which it is alleged that there has
been a failure by that club to discharge a requirement to which it is subject by virtue
of Articles 28.6 and 28.7 may only be commenced where the Secretary has received
from (i) the police; (ii) from the relevant match official or other match official; (iii) any
representative of the Scottish FA attending the relevant match on behalf of the Scottish
FA; and/or the other club which took part in the relevant match, a written complaint or
other written communication which, in the opinion of the Scottish FA, provides grounds
to believe that such requirement may not have been discharged. Upon determining that
a breach of or failure to fulfil these Articles has been established, the Judicial Panel may:-
(a) give a warning as to future conduct;
(b) give a reprimand;
(c) impose a fine;
(d) annul the result of a match;
(e) order that the match be replayed;
(f) impose a deduction of points or the ejection of the club from the Challenge
Cup Competition;

During the hertz fiasco, your financial nous along wi 1 other was really appreciated, but during ensuing fiascos involving the huns, it appears imo that you seem to have a 50/50 leaning which always seems to go towards the huns. I personally cannot imagine 1 thing associated wi the huns, past deid entity & present lying king run entity, where I would give them ANY time, credit, or importantly, benefit of the doubt. I personally think, that things would be better, if ANYONE who had to make a decision regarding benefit of doubt when thinking about huns v Hibs, would take into regard how both organisations have behaved during my lifetime in regards to fairness, granted I only have experience mid 70s onwards, but even though sevco are about 4 their antics & behaviour parallel what their previous incarnation was in being self centred bullies willing to do anything to elevate & give their old club or now new club the advantage or opportunity that is not there when 2 teams meet on level playing fields. huns, hun supporters, & anyone sticking up for what the likes of lying king are about? Stop it please. Mair honesty to be found amongst the bankers etc who raped the world & caused the credit crunch thats never really been recovered from while bankers earn ever larger bonuses & the rest of the world earns about less than in 2007. Crime doesnae pay for those caught but lying kings & bankers etc ken how to make it look not like a crime, eh?

[Onion]

As you say David Gray was booked on the day ..... he ran to our own fans at an area over 50 metres from the nearest currant bun. Not only that, but in the circumstances of the goal punishing him or any of the other players who left the pitch would be as blatant a disregard for the things that make the game great as I could imagine ..... passion, excitement, joy .... if reacting to these things in the heat of such a moment is to be punished after the event the game truly is doomed.

On that note ..... did anybody else notice that Rotherham's first goal against Wolves on Saturday was almost a carbon copy of Gray's winner:greengrin

Really not sure why the IC report made so much of Sir David's celebration. It had nothing to do with the post-match issues and was dealt with on the day according to the rules. Also, Celtic's new boy Sinclair (and a pile of Celtic players) did the exact same thing at Tynecastle yesterday. So what is their point ?

[s.a.m]

During the hertz fiasco, your financial nous along wi 1 other was really appreciated, but during ensuing fiascos involving the huns, it appears imo that you seem to have a 50/50 leaning which always seems to go towards the huns. I personally cannot imagine 1 thing associated wi the huns, past deid entity & present lying king run entity, where I would give them ANY time, credit, or importantly, benefit of the doubt. I personally think, that things would be better, if ANYONE who had to make a decision regarding benefit of doubt when thinking about huns v Hibs, would take into regard how both organisations have behaved during my lifetime in regards to fairness, granted I only have experience mid 70s onwards, but even though sevco are about 4 their antics & behaviour parallel what their previous incarnation was in being self centred bullies willing to do anything to elevate & give their old club or now new club the advantage or opportunity that is not there when 2 teams meet on level playing fields. huns, hun supporters, & anyone sticking up for what the likes of lying king are about? Stop it please. Mair honesty to be found amongst the bankers etc who raped the world & caused the credit crunch thats never really been recovered from while bankers earn ever larger bonuses & the rest of the world earns about less than in 2007. Crime doesnae pay for those caught but lying kings & bankers etc ken how to make it look not like a crime, eh?

I'm not seeing how you get sticking up for the Huns from that. He, and others, are discussing the wording of the SFA regulations, because it's those against which we will be judged. As it happens, I posted the same rule in the days after the final, not because I have any sympathy or liking for The Rangers, but because it looked to me like that's the catch-all clause that means the SFA could indeed punish the Club, whereas there are others who believe that because it wasn't our stadium or event, they can't. Whichever interpretation is correct is a matter of law, wherever your sympathies lie.

[NAE NOOKIE]

According to Twaddell, 'Strict Liability' does apply in the Scottish Cup competition. - Unlike our other competitions, the Scottish Cup’s Rule 28 on Disorderly Conduct does apply strict liability for the behaviour of their fans to the clubs. And it gives the SFA power to use their Judicial Panel protocols to censure, fine, eject the club from the competition or suspend them if they’re found guilty.


I'm not saying he is correct, just that he has raised the issue in his rant.

Looks like he is right, so I stand corrected.

Bad news for us .... the damage to the pitch & goals probably doesn't run to more than a couple of thousand quid. The advertising boards are a whole different matter and in this context I would imagine will be included as 'part of the stadium' .... as I said before I haven't seen any estimate of the cost of damage to them apart from a few posts on here, some of which were talking hundreds of thousands. If that's the case ( which I doubt personally ) then we have a problem.

As for having the result of the game declared void ... absolutely no chance, the result of the match wasn't affected by events after the final whistle.

[ancient hibee]

During the hertz fiasco, your financial nous along wi 1 other was really appreciated, but during ensuing fiascos involving the huns, it appears imo that you seem to have a 50/50 leaning which always seems to go towards the huns. I personally cannot imagine 1 thing associated wi the huns, past deid entity & present lying king run entity, where I would give them ANY time, credit, or importantly, benefit of the doubt. I personally think, that things would be better, if ANYONE who had to make a decision regarding benefit of doubt when thinking about huns v Hibs, would take into regard how both organisations have behaved during my lifetime in regards to fairness, granted I only have experience mid 70s onwards, but even though sevco are about 4 their antics & behaviour parallel what their previous incarnation was in being self centred bullies willing to do anything to elevate & give their old club or now new club the advantage or opportunity that is not there when 2 teams meet on level playing fields. huns, hun supporters, & anyone sticking up for what the likes of lying king are about? Stop it please. Mair honesty to be found amongst the bankers etc who raped the world & caused the credit crunch thats never really been recovered from while bankers earn ever larger bonuses & the rest of the world earns about less than in 2007. Crime doesnae pay for those caught but lying kings & bankers etc ken how to make it look not like a crime, eh?


What part of someone posting a set of rules do you not understand? Accusing someone of a bias toward Rangers for doing that is out of order.Incoherent rubbish.

[Kavinho]

During the hertz fiasco, your financial nous along wi 1 other was really appreciated, but during ensuing fiascos involving the huns, it appears imo that you seem to have a 50/50 leaning which always seems to go towards the huns. I personally cannot imagine 1 thing associated wi the huns, past deid entity & present lying king run entity, where I would give them ANY time, credit, or importantly, benefit of the doubt. I personally think, that things would be better, if ANYONE who had to make a decision regarding benefit of doubt when thinking about huns v Hibs, would take into regard how both organisations have behaved during my lifetime in regards to fairness, granted I only have experience mid 70s onwards, but even though sevco are about 4 their antics & behaviour parallel what their previous incarnation was in being self centred bullies willing to do anything to elevate & give their old club or now new club the advantage or opportunity that is not there when 2 teams meet on level playing fields. huns, hun supporters, & anyone sticking up for what the likes of lying king are about? Stop it please. Mair honesty to be found amongst the bankers etc who raped the world & caused the credit crunch thats never really been recovered from while bankers earn ever larger bonuses & the rest of the world earns about less than in 2007. Crime doesnae pay for those caught but lying kings & bankers etc ken how to make it look not like a crime, eh?


Nothing wrong with a fair and impartial view Major, and a focus on what the rules say..
We wouldn't all want to be up in front of a kangaroo court

[hibs0666]

It still says that clubs are responsible for the behaviour.....etc etc. That part stands on its own, irrespective of what it goes on to say about damage.

Going further, Article 28 of the SFA's own rules:-

28.1 A club shall take all such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure the safety, good
conduct and behaviour of its supporters on any ground. A club playing at its own ground or
allowing its ground to be used for a match in which it is not participating shall also take all
such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure the safety, good conduct and behaviour of
all spectators at that ground.
28.2 A recognised football body which is directly responsible for organising a match under its
jurisdiction shall likewise take all such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure the safety,
good conduct and behaviour of spectators at such match.
28.3 Misbehaviour by spectators before, during or at the close of a match resulting from the failure
of a club or recognised football body to take all reasonably practicable steps as aforesaid shall
render that club or recognised football body liable to a fine or closure of ground or suspension
or all of these penalties.
28.4 In the event of a report being made to the Scottish FA that the misbehaviour of spectators has
had a material effect on the result of a match and such report being upheld, the Judicial Panel
may declare the match and result void and order the match to be replayed on such ground
and on such date and on such conditions as the Judicial Panel shall think proper and/or may
impose such other penalties as the Judicial Panel shall think proper. Any such report shall be
lodged with the Secretary in writing within 6 days of the day of the match and shall only be
considered if made by the referee or a club participating in such match.


28.7 Each club must ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that its players, officials,
supporters and any person exercising a function for or in connection with the club do
not engage in Unacceptable Conduct at any club’s ground on the occasion of a match.
Any failure by a club to discharge a requirement to which it is subject by virtue of Article
28.6 and this Article 28.7 shall constitute a breach of these Articles.

28.8 In any proceedings in terms of these Articles against a club in which it is alleged that
there has been a failure by the club to discharge a requirement to which it is subject
by virtue of Articles 28.6 and 28.7, it shall be for the club concerned to prove that it
was not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done or (as the case may
be) there was no better practicable means than were in fact used to discharge such
requirement.

28.9 Proceedings in terms of these Articles against a club in which it is alleged that there has
been a failure by that club to discharge a requirement to which it is subject by virtue
of Articles 28.6 and 28.7 may only be commenced where the Secretary has received
from (i) the police; (ii) from the relevant match official or other match official; (iii) any
representative of the Scottish FA attending the relevant match on behalf of the Scottish
FA; and/or the other club which took part in the relevant match, a written complaint or
other written communication which, in the opinion of the Scottish FA, provides grounds
to believe that such requirement may not have been discharged. Upon determining that
a breach of or failure to fulfil these Articles has been established, the Judicial Panel may:-
(a) give a warning as to future conduct;
(b) give a reprimand;
(c) impose a fine;
(d) annul the result of a match;
(e) order that the match be replayed;
(f) impose a deduction of points or the ejection of the club from the Challenge
Cup Competition;

These clauses have no relevance as the club has been found to have taken all reasonable steps.

[Ronniekirk]

It still says that clubs are responsible for the behaviour.....etc etc. That part stands on its own, irrespective of what it goes on to say about damage.

Going further, Article 28 of the SFA's own rules:-

28.1 A club shall take all such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure the safety, good
conduct and behaviour of its supporters on any ground. A club playing at its own ground or
allowing its ground to be used for a match in which it is not participating shall also take all
such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure the safety, good conduct and behaviour of
all spectators at that ground.
28.2 A recognised football body which is directly responsible for organising a match under its
jurisdiction shall likewise take all such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure the safety,
good conduct and behaviour of spectators at such match.
28.3 Misbehaviour by spectators before, during or at the close of a match resulting from the failure
of a club or recognised football body to take all reasonably practicable steps as aforesaid shall
render that club or recognised football body liable to a fine or closure of ground or suspension
or all of these penalties.
28.4 In the event of a report being made to the Scottish FA that the misbehaviour of spectators has
had a material effect on the result of a match and such report being upheld, the Judicial Panel
may declare the match and result void and order the match to be replayed on such ground
and on such date and on such conditions as the Judicial Panel shall think proper and/or may
impose such other penalties as the Judicial Panel shall think proper. Any such report shall be
lodged with the Secretary in writing within 6 days of the day of the match and shall only be
considered if made by the referee or a club participating in such match.


28.7 Each club must ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that its players, officials,
supporters and any person exercising a function for or in connection with the club do
not engage in Unacceptable Conduct at any club’s ground on the occasion of a match.
Any failure by a club to discharge a requirement to which it is subject by virtue of Article
28.6 and this Article 28.7 shall constitute a breach of these Articles.

28.8 In any proceedings in terms of these Articles against a club in which it is alleged that
there has been a failure by the club to discharge a requirement to which it is subject
by virtue of Articles 28.6 and 28.7, it shall be for the club concerned to prove that it
was not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done or (as the case may
be) there was no better practicable means than were in fact used to discharge such
requirement.

28.9 Proceedings in terms of these Articles against a club in which it is alleged that there has
been a failure by that club to discharge a requirement to which it is subject by virtue
of Articles 28.6 and 28.7 may only be commenced where the Secretary has received
from (i) the police; (ii) from the relevant match official or other match official; (iii) any
representative of the Scottish FA attending the relevant match on behalf of the Scottish
FA; and/or the other club which took part in the relevant match, a written complaint or
other written communication which, in the opinion of the Scottish FA, provides grounds
to believe that such requirement may not have been discharged. Upon determining that
a breach of or failure to fulfil these Articles has been established, the Judicial Panel may:-
(a) give a warning as to future conduct;
(b) give a reprimand;
(c) impose a fine;
(d) annul the result of a match;
(e) order that the match be replayed;

(f) impose a deduction of points or the ejection of the club from the Challenge
Cup Competition;

A B C are fine but dont like the look of D or E
Am assuming the latter options open to the Judicial Panel would be if fans had run on to thepitch when thegame wasnt yet finished
Do we get to know who is on this Panel or will that be confidential

[monarch]

A B C are fine but dont like the look of D or E
Am assuming the latter options open to the Judicial Panel would be if fans had run on to thepitch when thegame wasnt yet finished
Do we get to know who is on this Panel or will that be confidential

In the words of Fat Sally "We should demand who these people are/will be"

[majorhibs]

Just for the avoidance ay doubt, my previous post on this thread wasnae exclusively regarding what has been posted on here, why I put in IMO, but getting all I want in one go never seems that easy... much prefer speakin tae typin tae be honest.

[CropleyWasGod]

.

[Ronniekirk]

.

have you drawn a blank ?

[CropleyWasGod]

have you drawn a blank ?
I came to a full stop.

If I was American, I could say something tasteless about a period.

(the boring reality is that I wrote some guff, wanted to delete it, and couldn't work out how to on my phone....[emoji4] )

The end.

Full stop.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[majorhibs]

I came to a full stop.

If I was American, I could say something tasteless about a period.

(the boring reality is that I wrote some guff, wanted to delete it, and couldn't work out how to on my phone....[emoji4] )

The end.

Full stop.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Ach, thats just teasing.

[West lower]

Looks like he is right, so I stand corrected.

Bad news for us .... the damage to the pitch & goals probably doesn't run to more than a couple of thousand quid. The advertising boards are a whole different matter and in this context I would imagine will be included as 'part of the stadium' .... as I said before I haven't seen any estimate of the cost of damage to them apart from a few posts on here, some of which were talking hundreds of thousands. If that's the case ( which I doubt personally ) then we have a problem.

As for having the result of the game declared void ... absolutely no chance, the result of the match wasn't affected by events after the final whistle.

Can you imagine the worldwide publicity if they made it void ? A wee bit devil in me says "aye go on then", coz then even more folk would get to hear about it and celebrate the momentous occasion.

[mjhibby]

Can you imagine the worldwide publicity if they made it void ? A wee bit devil in me says "aye go on then", coz then even more folk would get to hear about it and celebrate the momentous occasion.

Why would the game be voided. As the game was finished and there were absolutely no controversial decisions indeed the ref was the best I can remember for years. The sfa know they are in a tricky situation as should they heavily fine hibs then when inevitably one of the bigot bros causes mayhem after a defeat they will have to hammer them. The precedent was set when nothing was done after the well sevco play off when the violence was ten times worse and nothing was done. Legally they won't hammer anybody as they know a legal challenge would almost certainly follow due to there being nothing done after the well sevco game. Still the more the game is talked about just makes me feel warm inside as it reminds me our beloved team did indeed win the holy grail.

[green day]

Sorry if this has been confirmed previously, but do we know when is the SFA Compliance Officer report is due ?

It was the 23rd May when Stuart Regan, introducing the Independent Enquiry said “In addition, the Scottish FA’s Compliance Officer has also started the process of investigating potential rule breaches from a football regulatory perspective".

Any ideas?

[NAE NOOKIE]

Sorry if this has been confirmed previously, but do we know when is the SFA Compliance Officer report is due ?

It was the 23rd May when Stuart Regan, introducing the Independent Enquiry said “In addition, the Scottish FA’s Compliance Officer has also started the process of investigating potential rule breaches from a football regulatory perspective".

Any ideas?

The fact that Sevco have voiced displeasure at the findings of the independent report on the events of May 21st probably means that any report by the compliance officer will be delayed until the SFA get at least some idea of what The Rangers are bitching about this time. If the compliance officer comes up with something which is at odds with Sevco's argument against the report then this will rumble on and on and on. Something I would imagine the SFA are keen to avoid.

[LustForLeith]

Looks like he is right, so I stand corrected.

Bad news for us .... the damage to the pitch & goals probably doesn't run to more than a couple of thousand quid. The advertising boards are a whole different matter and in this context I would imagine will be included as 'part of the stadium' .... as I said before I haven't seen any estimate of the cost of damage to them apart from a few posts on here, some of which were talking hundreds of thousands. If that's the case ( which I doubt personally ) then we have a problem.

As for having the result of the game declared void ... absolutely no chance, the result of the match wasn't affected by events after the final whistle.

£600,000 was the value of the electronic advertising boards quoted in the press the day after the final

[Ringothedog]

£600,000 was the value of the electronic advertising boards quoted in the press the day after the final

That would be the same media that made out that we were rampaging thugs who killed, maimed and terrified the Rangers players, staff and fans.

[jabis]

£600,000 was the value of the electronic advertising boards quoted in the press the day after the final

I'd be happy if every fan blootered those ads.
You see a wee car going down the touchline,shout"Mark Him"

Only to finally see it's a wee car going down the touchline.

If it wasn't for oor Craig the referee,I'd go to specsavers.

[zitelli62]

Are the advertising boards not insured.

[Kavinho]

Are the advertising boards not insured.

And surely the cost of repair to 100th (say) of them doesn't require a 100% refit..

and.. when has the media not overstated a figure for dramatic effect anyway..?
I can recall at least one other now disproven claim/example from the 21st of May alone..
600k is way way way overstated

[mjhibby]

If hibs were to be fined for any damage caused it would set a precedent that would then have to be followed. Do you think the Gfa would risk that if it meant the bigot bros could be liable for a massive fine then next time they inevitably do some damage. I suspect they are leaving it as long as poss so it fades from memory and both clubs will get suspended fines and warned about future conduct of their fans.

[SunshineOnLeith]

Are the advertising boards not insured.

Hush you with your common sense, it's costing Hibs MILLIONS.

The Daily Record told me.

[CallumLaidlaw]

So........ Who's at it?

RELATIONS between Rangers and the SFA are in disarray over claims Stewart Regan misled the Daily Record about a Scottish Cup meeting.

Record Sport can reveal there have been angry exchanges after the SFA chief executive cancelled a get together scheduled for yesterday he tried to deny was even taking place.

The issue strikes at the very heart of the integrity of one of Scottish football’s most influential figures and puts Regan’s reputation - and maybe even his £250,000-a-year job - on the line.

Ibrox managing director Stewart Robertson and Regan last week arranged a meeting for “early next week” to discuss the aftermath of the publication of the Bowen Report into the chaos that followed the cup final in May.


However, Regan subsequently told Record Sport no such meeting had been agreed because the judicial process had to be seen to take its course and he was mindful of the reaction of Hibs, in particular.


Stewart Regan, Chief Executive of the Scottish Football Association
Rangers are furious at Regan’s version of events and the questions it unfairly raises over the trustworthiness of Robertson.

A club spokesman said: “Rangers have written confirmation that such a meeting was to have taken place early this week.”

After verbally agreeing the meeting last week, it was formally put in the diary by the offices of both men on Thursday afternoon, to take place yesterday at 10am.

READ MORE
Joe Garner nears £1.8 million Rangers move but may be forced to risk it all by playing against Derby
READ MORE
What could Rangers transfer target Phillipe Senderos bring to the club?
However, Regan claimed he was unaware that admin task had been completed between personal assistants and scrapped the get together, accusing Rangers of trying to score points.

Rangers had released a statement on Friday August 5 demanding urgent talks with Regan, Bowen and McGlennan because they felt the independent report missed the point in several key areas.

Robertson and Regan held discussions over the phone last week and Rangers were told a meeting with Bowen and McGlennan was out of the question.

However, he agreed to an “informal” get together with Robertson, in the presence of the SFA’s chief operating officer Andrew McKinlay.


Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson
Record Sport, following up on the initial Rangers statement, contacted the SFA last Wednesday to ask if the Ibrox club had requested a meeting, as they promised and, if so, when it would take place.

Regan confirmed to us a meeting with McGlennan and Bowen was impossible, but he would be happy to meet Robertson at an “appropriate” time and ideally when the independent process had been completed.

In a call to us the following day he added: “The fact of the matter is, if that meeting is positioned as a formal meeting then clearly it’s not right to be doing it before the process is played out.

READ MORE
Andy Halliday says Rangers' Ibrox atmosphere makes players feel like gladiators on the pitch
“There was no meeting, there was nothing finalised, nothing arranged. It was literally left that we weren’t going to get involved because of the independent process.”

Rangers maintain they are well within their rights to ask for talks and have no desire to influence the position of compliance officer Tony McGlennan, who has yet to rule what football charges, if any, should be brought against the cup finalists.

The Ibrox club have drawn up a series of recommendations, with the assistance of security boss Robin Howe, they were adamant would safeguard all players and clubs in future, but which were overlooked by Bowen.


Fans fight on the pitch after the Scottish Cup Final
The spokesman added: “Rangers have no wish to become embroiled in a situation not of their making. All Rangers did – and it was a perfectly natural and understandable reaction – was to request a meeting.

“We wished to point out inaccuracies contained within the Sheriff’s report and make suggestions which might help prevent any repeat of the scenes witnessed at the end of the Scottish Cup final when Rangers players and members of staff were attacked.

“It is important to stress we sought nothing more than to discuss safety procedures so that no other club suffers such a terrifying experience. We should all be united in trying to achieve that outcome.”

The SFA last night declined to comment

[Bristolhibby]

I see Der Hun are still peddling the "Rangers Players and members of Staff were attacked".

J

[JimBHibees]

What an utter comic the record is.

[Jim44]

I see Der Hun are still peddling the "Rangers Players and members of Staff were attacked".

J

This whole thing is an utter nonsense. Only one indisputable fact remains. ......... Sevco are irrevocably distraught that Hibernian FC are Scottish Cup Champions, having beaten the The Rangers at Hampden Park in the Scottish Cup in May, with two goals from Anthony Stokes and a very very late winning third by David Gray, in response to two consolation goals from Kenny Miller and Andy Halliday.

[Col2]

The DR is the most comical piece of newspaper trash ever.

So let me get this right. Two PA's set up a meeting and Regan steps in and cancels it as it was a mistake being set up (easily made when two junior pa's presumably make assumptions). And the DR says "The issue strikes at the very heart of the integrity of one of Scottish football’s most influential figures and puts Regan’s reputation - and maybe even his £250,000-a-year job - on the line."

Wow just wow. I am no fan of Regan but this kind of hyperbole crap shows how little responsibility that rag takes.

[Pedantic_Hibee]

Not that any Hibs fan should need a reason to buy the Record, but any Hibs fan who has bought one after the "15 Hibs fans shame our game" headline needs their head read.

I refuse to buy one and have done so since the Brown/Thomson saga.

Keith Jackson, at this present moment, has still refused to answer any of my tweets. Snake.

[Since90+2]

So according to the Record this "puts Regan’s reputation - and maybe even his £250,000-a-year job - on the line".

Why would that be? Because he is not attending a meeting with Rangers? Its actually getting worrying how utterly biased the Record is towards everything Sevco and trying to put pressure on Regan to no doubt punish us as how Rangers would see fit.

They always leaned towards the Glasgow clubs for obvious reasons but its worrying how far they have now taken it. I have no idea how press regulation works but I would hope there is some form of mechanism for them to be looked at.

[Bostonhibby]

In view of the new boys concern over safety in the future you have got to hope that their suggestions include how to stop all of these West of Scotland FC and Scottish Cup FC fans invading pitches, assaulting people with corner flags, grabbing hold of small children and all of the other violent offences that the Police charged this large majority of non Hibs fans with. Its in the interests of public safety.

Meantime the public awaits evidence of the horrific, debilitating attacks on the the rangers players and officials - the real story is the psychology behind the need to claim this occurred - if only a journalist would ask for the evidence, and in the absence of it ask the seethers why they keep referring to it.

The violent assault charges seem to have been investigated by the police and the vast majority charged would seem to be fans of a team that isn't Hibs. WTF were they doing on the pitch?

[TRC]

Thing I don't get about Hibs fans apparently shouting sectarian abuse at The rangers. How could anyone know, apart from if someone has said it happened and then you have to check the integrity of the source. If it's a the ranger player then I think it ridiculous to include it in a report just on hearsay

[greenginger]

So according to the Record this "puts Regan’s reputation - and maybe even his £250,000-a-year job - on the line".

Why would that be? Because he is not attending a meeting with Rangers? Its actually getting worrying how utterly biased the Record is towards everything Sevco and trying to put pressure on Regan to know doubt punish us as how Rangers would see fit.

They always leaned towards the Glasgow clubs for obvious reasons but its worrying how far they have now taken it. I have no idea how press regulation works but I would hope there is some form of mechanism for them to be looked at.

Press regulations only cover newspapers, not comics or fanzines like the Daily Liar.

[al1875]

In view of the new boys concern over safety in the future you have got to hope that their suggestions include how to stop all of these West of Scotland FC and Scottish Cup FC fans invading pitches, assaulting people with corner flags, grabbing hold of small children and all of the other violent offences that the Police charged this large majority of non Hibs fans with. Its in the interests of public safety.

Meantime the public awaits evidence of the horrific, debilitating attacks on the the rangers players and officials -
the real story is the psychology behind the need to claim this occurred - if only a journalist would ask for the evidence, and in the absence of it ask the seethers why they keep referring to it.

The violent assault charges seem to have been investigated by the police and the vast majority charged would seem to be fans of a team that isn't Hibs. WTF were they doing on the pitch?

Your last sentence sums it up in a nutshell for me.

[CropleyWasGod]

Thing I don't get about Hibs fans apparently shouting sectarian abuse at The rangers. How could anyone know, apart from if someone has said it happened and then you have to check the integrity of the source. If it's a the ranger player then I think it ridiculous to include it in a report just on hearsay
It was a sheriff that conducted the enquiry, and he will be well versed in challenging evidence.....whether it came from RFC employees or other sources such as police or stewards.

I've more faith in his evidence-gathering than I have in the media's.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[southern hibby]

Hush you with your common sense, it's costing Hibs MILLIONS.

The Daily Record told me.

Might be insured but that's not to say insurers won't take Hibs to court. Not any legal background knowledge, but if they can use SFA rules to get a court to punish us, it's a win win for them. Don't have to pay out legal costs paid for and free advertising in papers TV etc of court coverage.

GGTTH

[ancient hibee]

This is excellent.The more the Record goes over the top the less chance there is of the SFA wishing to be seen to favour Rangers.

Insurers have no claim against Hibs.As the club has no legal liability for any damage and of course the owners of the advertising boards would have to have cover in the first place against damage caused by fans on the pitch.

[Bostonhibby]

Might be insured but that's not to say insurers won't take Hibs to court. Not any legal background knowledge, but if they can use SFA rules to get a court to punish us, it's a win win for them. Don't have to pay out legal costs paid for and free advertising in papers TV etc of court coverage.

GGTTH

Hibs have no legal liability for damage to the advertising boards, certainly not the ones at the hun end - there was footage of one of the imbeciles posting the invasion from their end and in it you can see "West of Scotland FC / Scottish Cup FC fans, (in the new clubs colours obviously) trampling over boards!

[Bristolhibby]

I'm actually heartened that Regan Didn't have the meeting. As to have it (without Hibs in attendance) would have IMHO put his impartiality into question. Not the fact that he didn't have the meeting!

J

[Radium]

Hibs have no legal liability for damage to the advertising boards, certainly not the ones at the hun end - there was footage of one of the imbeciles posting the invasion from their end and in it you can see "West of Scotland FC / Scottish Cup FC fans, (in the new clubs colours obviously) trampling over boards!

Given that the primary evacuation route for fans is onto the pitch, my understanding is that the boards are designed to collapse so that people can get over them safely. As such I would have expected them to be reasonably robust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bostonhibby]

Given that the primary evacuation route for fans is onto the pitch, my understanding is that the boards are designed to collapse so that people can get over them safely. As such I would have expected them to be reasonably robust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Makes sense. So all that really remains outstanding is WTF were the the huns on the pitch for?

[greenginger]

https://johnjamessite.com/2016/08/16/a-lambentable-loss-of-face/


JJ has the measure of The Rangers and their attempts to write the story the way they want it read.


Its a pity stuff like this couldn't be brought to a wider audience.

[Killiehibbie]

Given that the primary evacuation route for fans is onto the pitch, my understanding is that the boards are designed to collapse so that people can get over them safely. As such I would have expected them to be reasonably robust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When I heard about them being wrecked I wondered how they stood up to wind, rain and maybe a ball hitting them at great speed.

[brog]

The comical attempts by Sevco to pretend their only interest is future safety are just ridiculous. This was a blatant attemt to hijack & influence a process which has not yet been completed. I hope & assume our club are fully aware of these underhand activities & are suitably prepared for the struggle ahead. We cannot allow the agenda to be determined by a club with no integrity & with a mendacious liar at their helm. ( And that's not even talking about Jackson/Traynor's illiterate & non factual propaganda!! )

[greenginger]

The Record now running with a story of all the blunders the SFA have had with Regan at the helm and calling for his dismissal.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/take-look-five-stewart-regans-8643673

All because he stood Sevco up.

I wish Regan would grow a pair and let Sevco know their proper place in Scottish Football, just one of 42 senior clubs .

[northstandhibby]

The Record now running with a story of all the blunders the SFA have had with Regan at the helm and calling for his dismissal.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/take-look-five-stewart-regans-8643673

All because he stood Sevco up.

I wish Regan would grow a pair and let Sevco know their proper place in Scottish Football, just one of 42 senior clubs .

Haven't read Daily Sevco for many a year now since the Scotty Brown/Kevin Thompson scenario and don't go near the links now either no matter what's being said.

A joke of a rag!


Glory Glory

[oneone73]

The Record now running with a story of all the blunders the SFA have had with Regan at the helm and calling for his dismissal.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/take-look-five-stewart-regans-8643673

All because he stood Sevco up.

I wish Regan would grow a pair and let Sevco know their proper place in Scottish Football, just one of 42 senior clubs .

Not clicking a DR link. Anyone want to copy and paste?

[brog]

https://johnjamessite.com/2016/08/16/a-lambentable-loss-of-face/


JJ has the measure of The Rangers and their attempts to write the story the way they want it read.


Its a pity stuff like this couldn't be brought to a wider audience.

Excellent article & i agree your thoughts re wider audience. My consolation is most neutrals already know the truth & the Rangers ever more desperate propaganda efforts just make them more of a laughing stock.

[JeMeSouviens]

Not clicking a DR link. Anyone want to copy and paste?

I'll click so nobody else has to ...


Take a look at five of Stewart Regan's worst blunders as SFA chief executive

WE'VE dipped into the archives to remind you of some of the bizarre and troubling moments that the Englishman has been involved in.

STEWART REGAN is under fire after details emerged of the SFA chief executive misleading Record Sport over the aftermath of May's Scottish Cup final.

Regan and Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson are said to have arranged a meeting to discuss the report into the ugly scenes that followed Hibs' 3-2 win at Hampden.

But the Englishman then cancelled the get together and tried to deny it had even been agreed.

The issue strikes at the very heart of the integrity of one of Scottish football’s most influential figures and puts Regan’s reputation - and maybe even his £250,000-a-year job - on the line.

But it's not the first time serious questions have been raised about the footballing body's head man.

Ever since his appointment in 2010, Regan's tenure as CEO has been fraught with controversy and high-profile gaffes.

We've dipped into the archives to remind you of some of the bizarre and troubling moments that Regan has been involved in in his spell at the head of the Scottish football table:


Ref strike
In 2010, for the first time ever, referees in Scotland went on strike - on Regan's watch.

The background to the dispute centred on refs' perceptions that the SFA were not doing enough to protect them from undue criticism and questions over their integrity from clubs, leading to fears for their safety as controversial decisions were debated by media and fans.

It was the first sticking point in Regan's tenure as CEO.


"Social unrest"
Speaking after SPL clubs had voted 10-1 in majority of refusing Rangers' application to re-join the league, Regan caused a stir by suggesting there would be "social unrest" if the Gers disappeared from the Scottish leagues.

"Without Rangers there is social unrest – there is a big problem for Scottish society.

“I think if you look at the huge fan base Rangers have in this country, to contemplate a situation where those fans don’t have a team to support, where those fans are effectively left without a game to follow.

"I just think that could lead to all sorts of issues and all sorts of problems for the game."


Title stripping
The infamous five-way agreement between the SFA, SPL, SFL, Oldco Rangers and Newco Rangers included a proposal to place Rangers in the First Division back in the summer of 2012.

Of course, this was also on the back of a commission set up to probe the Ibrox club and potentially strip them of five league titles and various cups won between 2000 and 2011.

Regan was left embarrassed as Lord Nimmo Smith ruled that the Gers would not be stripped of any titles in March 2013.

Our own Keith Jackson called for Regan to lose his job when Nimmo Smith published his findings when he wrote: "Time after time he has been frozen by his own panic.

"Now, in the cold light of day, some of the decisions he made in the heated frenzy of it all appear to be quite shameful. Like when he, as head of the big house, endorsed strong arm tactics in an attempt to force Rangers to accept the stripping of titles as part of a hamfisted five way agreement that would have seen Ally McCoist’s side shoehorned into the First Division.

"Even at the time that reflected terribly on Regan."


Craig Levein
As far as appointments for the national side go, Levein was up there as one of the worst. Failed qualification attempts, not to forget the shambolic 4-6-0 formation deployed in the Czech Republic, tarnished his image as Scotland boss.

Despite this happening early on his spell as head of the national team, Levein lasted three years and the SFA, in particular Regan, were criticised for how long they stuck with the now Hearts Director of Football.


Stop-start youth plan
Regan has overseen a plan to change Scottish football from the bottom up - but it's stop-start nature has hampered any positive consequences that could have arrived.

Mark Wotte arrived as Performance Director in 2011 but left just three years later after deeming that he had implemented most of the recommendations put forward by Henry McLeish.

Brian McClair arrived to replace him but has already left his post - exiting in July this year - prompting former Scotland defender Willie Miller to describe the SFA's development strategy as "in tatters".

[Ozyhibby]

Regan should be sacked but not for refusing to meet Sevco.
This is Sevco laying down a marker. You can absolutely run our game into the ground and fail in every area the SFA operates but don't dare not answer to us.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oneone73]

I'll click so nobody else has to ...

Thanks for that. Stuff like that just makes you shake your head and wonder.

[Hibs Class]

"But the Englishman then cancelled the get together and tried to deny it had even been agreed."

Casual racism?


"....details emerged of the SFA chief executive misleading Record Sport"

:kettle:

[Argylehibby]

Interesting that no mention in the list of Reagans blunders of the one where he was going to allow The Rangers final game of last season to be played after they knew the result of our game against Falkirk. Wonder why that doesn't merit a mention?

[Dashing Bob S]

"But the Englishman then cancelled the get together and tried to deny it had even been agreed."

Casual racism?


"....details emerged of the SFA chief executive misleading Record Sport"

:kettle:

Strange but I've always found Scottish unionists far quicker to play the race card against English people than nationalists, when things don't go their way.

[JeMeSouviens]

Strange but I've always found Scottish unionists far quicker to play the race card against English people than nationalists, when things don't go their way.

Was just about to say the same. I remember having an argument with an older Hun member of my wife's family years ago. He thought Scottish independence was a "load of bloody rubbish" because how would we defend ourselves? I asked him who would want to attack Scotland anyway. The answer shot back without a trace of irony, "the bloody English of course". :rolleyes:

[Captain Trips]

Report: Sone idiots hit other idiots sone idiots got hit back.

Here is the real news

The Rangers 2 v 3 Hibernian.

Get that right up ye.

[CropleyWasGod]

Interesting that no mention in the list of Reagans blunders of the one where he was going to allow The Rangers final game of last season to be played after they knew the result of our game against Falkirk. Wonder why that doesn't merit a mention?

Reagan's the SFA, not the league. That's why :greengrin

[Argylehibby]

Reagan's the SFA, not the league. That's why :greengrin

:doh:

[Jack]

Excuse the use of words but ...

Rangers should be hauled into the offices of the SFA and SPFL and read the Riot Act.

Their statements, including the bizarre cup final statements, have been inflammatory, misleading and bring the game into disrepute.

Their thinly veiled threats through the Daily Record (who it's an open secret is their publicity rag of choice although the Herald is up there too) are a disgrace not just to Scottish Football but to journalism.

[Smartie]

Excuse the use of words but ...

Rangers should be hauled into the offices of the SFA and SPFL and read the Riot Act.

Their statements, including the bizarre cup final statements, have been inflammatory, misleading and bring the game into disrepute.

Their thinly veiled threats through the Daily Record (who it's an open secret is their publicity rag of choice although the Herald is up there too) are a disgrace not just to Scottish Football but to journalism.

:top marks

Couldn't agree more.

If the SPFL had any balls they would.

[Kato]

E
Their thinly veiled threats through the Daily Record (who it's an open secret is their publicity rag of choice although the Herald is up there too) are a disgrace not just to Scottish Football but to journalism.


I disagree. Their statements are entirely in line with what goes on in Scottish football and journalism.