Statement From SFA Regan

[ian1964 10,831]

The Scottish FA is shocked and angry at coverage in today�s newspapers following an interview given by Paul McBride QC to BBC Scotland.

 

Scottish FA chief executive Stewart Regan would like to make the following points:

 

1. We note that Paul McBride does not act on behalf of or as a spokesman for Celtic FC, its manager, or anyone associated with the club.

 

2. In making his unjustified and inflammatory remarks, Paul McBride appears to be acting as a self-publicist and not as a QC.

 

3. Paul McBride�s wild and inaccurate statements are defamatory and appear to be malicious.

 

4. The Scottish FA is now considering, with the benefit of legal advice, whether to sue just Paul McBride for damages or whether to also sue other parties.

 

5. A formal complaint is being made to the Faculty of Advocates with respect to the way in which Paul McBride has allowed himself to be held out as making comments to the media in his capacity as a QC.

 

6. We are aware that many observers and members of the public would appreciate clarity on the decisions made at yesterday�s meeting of the Disciplinary Committee. It would be inappropriate to comment publicly on committee decisions until the seven-day time frame for any appeal has elapsed.

[Zappa 0]

I'm confused about the last sentence in the statement; who would be able to appeal the decisions? It's not as if the players are going to appeal the fines they got is it?

[Bluedell 5,928]

I'm confused about the last sentence in the statement; who would be able to appeal the decisions? It's not as if the players are going to appeal the fines they got is it?

 

It's possible. They would have that option.

[Zappa 0]

It's possible. They would have that option.

 

As long as the SFA can't appeal their own decision like UEFA did to us.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

As long as the SFA can't appeal their own decision like UEFA did to us.

 

In the UEFA case it was a charge laid by one committee being decided by another so the first committee appealed the decision to the Appeals Committee. In the SFA the players are charged on the basis of the referee's report and I doubt if the referee could appeal the decision (they certainly couldn't in my day as a referee), which is why they are moaning about it.

Edited April 13, 2011 by BrahimHemdani
typo

[ian1964 10,831]

The Scottish Football Association is considering legal action and accused lawyer Paul McBride of "inaccurate" and "defamatory" remarks.

 

McBride described the governing body as "dysfunctional", "dishonest" and "biased" after its handling of disciplinary cases involving Rangers.

 

The QC recently represented Celtic boss Neil Lennon in a related case.

 

In repsonse, McBride told BBC Scotland: "I intend to ignore the statement because it's frankly just stupid."

 

Lennon decided against appealing against a touchline ban imposed following a confrontation with Rangers assistant manager Ally McCoist at the end of Celtic's 1-0 Scottish Cup replay win on 2 March.

Continue reading the main story

 

A formal complaint is being made to the Faculty of Advocates with respect to the way in which Paul McBride has allowed himself to be held out as making comments to the media in his capacity as a QC

 

Stewart Regan SFA chief executive

 

But McCoist successfully challenged his two-game suspension, while Rangers players Madjid Bougherra and El Hadji Diouf avoided further bans after being sent off during a stormy encounter.

 

McBride told BBC Scotland in a strongly-worded interview of his dismay at the decision to uphold McCoist's appeal and to simply fine the players.

 

The SFA declined to comment immediately, but 24 hours later it has said it is "shocked and angry" at coverage in newspapers following the BBC interview.

 

"We note that Paul McBride does not act on behalf of or as a spokesman for Celtic FC, its manager, or anyone associated with the club," said chief executive Stewart Regan.

 

"In making his unjustified and inflammatory remarks, Paul McBride appears to be acting as a self-publicist and not as a QC.

 

"Paul McBride's wild and inaccurate statements are defamatory and appear to be malicious.

 

"The Scottish FA is now considering, with the benefit of legal advice, whether to sue just Paul McBride for damages or whether to also sue other parties.

Continue reading the main story

 

The public would be interested, in the unlikely event of this going to court, in seeing behind this inept, incredulous and neanderthal organisation

 

Paul McBride QC

 

"A formal complaint is being made to the Faculty of Advocates with respect to the way in which Paul McBride has allowed himself to be held out as making comments to the media in his capacity as a QC.

 

"We are aware that many observers and members of the public would appreciate clarity on the decisions made at yesterday's meeting of the disciplinary committee.

 

"It would be inappropriate to comment publicly on committee decisions until the seven-day time frame for any appeal has elapsed."

 

On the SFA's threat of legal action against him McBride continued: "In the unlikely event that they were mad enough to take legal action against me and apparently every media outlet they say who has printed what I've said, then I would look forward to vigorously defending my position.

 

Click to play

 

Interview - Paul McBride QC

 

"The comments I made about them were fair, they were accurate, they were in the public interest.

 

"The public would be interested, in the unlikely event of this going to court, in seeing behind this inept, incredulous and neanderthal organisation.

 

"I, as an advocate, am not allowed to speak on behalf of a client - whether it be Celtic or whether it be Neil Lennon.

 

"I am allowed as a member of the public and an individual, who happens to be a Queens Counsel, to comment on any matter legally as I see fit.

 

"I have a particular knowledge of how the SFA works, or in fact doesn't work.

 

"I think I'm entitled as an ordinary member of the public to make my views clear, as have today, journalists all over the country and people involved in various phone-ins - including Kenny Clark, a former Grade One referee.

 

"He said tonight (Wednesday) their decisions where incompetent and he envisioned the possibility of Grade One referees going on strike."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/13072210.stm

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Seems to me that an advocate, a QC to boot, calling into question the integrity of a public body such as the SFA of itself brings advocates into disrepute and no doubt that is the basis of the SFA's complaint to the Faculty.

 

If it were to go to court he would need to prove that they were indeed dishonest and biased and that would be extraordinarily difficult but he might just defend himself for the publicity and no doubt a lot of future work from Mr Lennon and Celtic FC.

Edited April 13, 2011 by BrahimHemdani
add sentence

[ian1964 10,831]

Would a judge actually believe what McBride is saying though when he acts and is acting as a spokesman for the BHEASTS??,I mean BHEAST FC would have to come out and make a statement distancing themselves from him,no?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Would a judge actually believe what McBride is saying though when he acts and is acting as a spokesman for the BHEASTS??,I mean BHEAST FC would have to come out and make a statement distancing themselves from him,no?

 

I think that so long as he said (which I think he did) that he was not speaking for Celtic or Mr Lennon, on this occasion, then he would be in the clear, although there might be an argument, as you suggest, that as he has been their advocate and spokesperson very recently, the public might reasonably believe that he was still acting on their behalf.

 

In any event the statements are clearly defamatory and actionable as he made them in public, so my guess is he is going to be in a bit of soapy bubble on that score.

 

There is also the argument that as a well known public figure and QC you can't just take those hats off and all of a sudden become Joe Public so that all comment is acceptable, seems to me that as an advocate a certain standard of conduct would be required and he might have fallen below that standard; that would be a matter for the Faculty of Advocates rather than a court to decide.

[craig 5,199]

I think that so long as he said (which I think he did) that he was not speaking for Celtic or Mr Lennon, on this occasion, then he would be in the clear, although there might be an argument, as you suggest, that as he has been their advocate and spokesperson very recently, the public might reasonably believe that he was still acting on their behalf.

 

In any event the statements are clearly defamatory and actionable as he made them in public, so my guess is he is going to be in a bit of soapy bubble on that score.

 

There is also the argument that as a well known public figure and QC you can't just take those hats off and all of a sudden become Joe Public so that all comment is acceptable, seems to me that as an advocate a certain standard of conduct would be required and he might have fallen below that standard; that would be a matter for the Faculty of Advocates rather than a court to decide.

 

Cant speak for advocates but us accountants have ethical standards to uphold and that stretches beyond the realms of just your job. I would be very surprised if the Faculty of Advocates didnt have as stringent, if not more so, rules and ethical standards in place. Bright guy though he obviously is, he may have scored an own goal on this one.