craig 5,199 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 The wording more than likely was that the ban starts two weeks after the incident (or such like). Given the length of time his original appeal took meant that he was still in the dug-out appealing when he got the 2nd citation. CFC, craftily but within their rights, didnt appeal the 2nd ban and then used he SFA's own rulebook against them. In all honesty I cant blame CFC here - they were smart. The SFA screwed themselves with their own rules. As for Riley's involvement.... it could have worked in favour of any other club other than CFC - it just so happened that CFC reaped the benefit. No conspiracy there. However, he should be reprimanded for allowing those rules to be written in such a way that they could be circumvented. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Aye Craig, but who all knew about that wee loophole in the SFA rules? You'd have to imagine that very few people realised it was even there to be exploited, but you'd also have to say that since Celtic are the first ones to exploit it and Riley was the Chairman of the committee, it does indeed seem a tad fishy. Obviously I might be looking for something where there's nothing to see because it's quite plausible that it was only discovered by McBride feverishly scouring through the rules for something to exploit in Celtic's favour. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Got to say that I still don't know how McBride managed to wangle this for Celtic. There's definitely no loophole in the section of rules that Ian posted on the previous page of this thread, so either it's in a different section of the rules or something strange has happened. It's interesting that the press didn't make more of it and milk it more. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Think I've got it. Looks like they've exploited the fact that it's not actually stated in the rules that overlapping suspensions will run consecutively. The SFA have always applied the rules in a way that suspensions run consecutively, but McBride has basically just pointed out that the SFA's interpretation of the rules are 'legally unenforceable'. In other words he's sent them a lawyer's letter threatening court action if Lennon was forced to take the full 8 match ban on the grounds that the SFA couldn't legally win in a court of law. Or something like that. It's lower than low. Seriously dirty tactics nowadays. The bastards are literally at war. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 STV article about it - http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/celtic/240716-lennon-will-only-serve-five-match-ban/ If you google 'Lennon will only serve 5 match ban' or similar you'll get more info... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 (edited) Craig is spot on. The second ban had to start 14 days after the judgement and Lennon was still serving the first ban at that time, thus he only served 5 matches in total. It is not that there is a rule that says bans must be served concurrently or consecutively it is just that the effect of the rule is that with the timing being as described it worked out that most of the second ban was concurrent with the first. You really can't argue with McBride or Celtic on that one , he did his job, and we would have done the same. Clearly it was never envisaged (why one might ask) that this situation would occur but it arises from the long drawn out appeals process. It is easily remedied by inserting something like "unless the person concerned is already serving another supsension, in which case the second suspension will begin at the end of the first". Edited April 13, 2011 by BrahimHemdani typo 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 No worries either way chaps, it is merely a matter of time before the Lurgan bigot re-offends. As sure as night follows day this wee reprobate will re-offend. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 No worries either way chaps, it is merely a matter of time before the Lurgan bigot re-offends. As sure as night follows day this wee reprobate will re-offend. No doubt about that, only question is when. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 The bit that is forgotten is that the reason they could be served concurrently at all is that the appeal was put back twice due to McBride not being able to make the dates they gave. It sounds like he seen the loop-hole in advance and contrived a set of circumstances to be able to use it by delaying things till they coincided. They are stooping lower and lower and becoming the Axis of Evil. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 PS Maybe that's what we should call them now, the Axis of Evil, it seems to fit nicely. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.