Jump to content

Two questions


Recommended Posts

OK, so without detracting, deflecting or in any other way referring to Rangers, can the Celtic supporters tell me what this sporting integrity stuff, that they went on about a couple of years ago, would dictate should happen when a team wins 6-1 over two legs yet eventually get put out of the competition, on away goals, due to an administration error?

Second question: under the same parameters as the above question, do the supporters of the other Scottish teams feel slightly silly or naïve after jumping on Celtic's sporting integrity band wagon- which was actually just a thinly veiled attempt to destroy their only competition so effectively giving them 4-5 years of uninhibited Champions league qualification- now that we've seen how important such matters actually are to them when they have to uphold integrity?

Once again, please answer the above questions without referring to Rangers.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sporting integrity means complying with the rules of the sport - be they financial, relating to player registrations or anything else. Legia didn't and your club didn't, hence your/their current positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bite:

First, Celtic have done nothing wrong (apart from on the pitch) and have progressed as Legia broke the rules. It's probably quite embarrassing, and they might be pumped by Maribor (and I'm sure you can imagine how humiliating that would be...), but it's technically the right decision.

On the second question, and it's pretty difficult to answer without reference (as requested) but "the club that died" were given preferential treatment which I still think was wrong. The precedent, as set by Airdrieonians, is that when a club dies they are papped out of the league and can re-apply for entry, albeit to do so they must provide two years accounts - which obviously a brand new club can't do. Instead it appears that the SFA/SFL did what you wish UEFA had done in the Legia case - they made an exception to the rules based on the club involved. In both cases I think this was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't have a lot of time, so just an apple and some grapes for breakfast for me today.

A couple of slices of toast for me, nothing special

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bite:

First, Celtic have done nothing wrong (apart from on the pitch) and have progressed as Legia broke the rules. It's probably quite embarrassing, and they might be pumped by Maribor (and I'm sure you can imagine how humiliating that would be...), but it's technically the right decision.

On the second question, and it's pretty difficult to answer without reference (as requested) but "the club that died" were given preferential treatment which I still think was wrong. The precedent, as set by Airdrieonians, is that when a club dies they are papped out of the league and can re-apply for entry, albeit to do so they must provide two years accounts - which obviously a brand new club can't do. Instead it appears that the SFA/SFL did what you wish UEFA had done in the Legia case - they made an exception to the rules based on the club involved. In both cases I think this was wrong.

Thanks for the reply.

Regarding the Celtic part a quick squint at the definition of integrity shows that it is defined as: "adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty". Now how can you say that there is integrity in the scenario where a team who didn't put their player in the team for three games and beat Celtic 6-1 are put out of the competition due to a clerical error. I don't think Celtic have done anything wrong but for those who hold sporting integrity up so high I just find it a little hypocritical.

As for your second point, as far as I'm aware the difference between Rangers and Airdrie is that we had someone willing to take over the club and transfer the licence to whereas Airdrie didn't. We submitted accounts for 2009 and 2010 but obviously couldn't supply accounts for 2011 so we were fined for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply.

Regarding the Celtic part a quick squint at the definition of integrity shows that it is defined as: "adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty". Now how can you say that there is integrity in the scenario where a team who didn't put their player in the team for three games and beat Celtic 6-1 are put out of the competition due to a clerical error. I don't think Celtic have done anything wrong but for those who hold sporting integrity up so high I just find it a little hypocritical.

Given that the party line coming out of Ibrox on Rangers' misdeeds is that they were basically "administrative errors", despite stacks of evidence to the contrary, this is the kind of dull chat I'd be happier to answer if it came from a supporter of almost any other club in world football.

And while we're at it, there's an equally irrelevant and useful question here - is there a single football fan in the UK that doesn't believe that Rangers (the company) would crawl through a sewer to blow an entire field full of donkeys twice for fifteen million quid, and then loudly proclaim that the sewer-crawling, donkey-blowing cash was legitimately earned and entirely honourable?

It might be worthwhile taking into account e.g. that charity match cash that wound up resting in the Ibrox coffers, before answering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that the party line coming out of Ibrox on Rangers' misdeeds is that they were basically "administrative errors", despite stacks of evidence to the contrary, this is the kind of dull chat I'd be happier to answer if it came from a supporter of almost any other club in world football.

And while we're at it, there's an equally irrelevant and useful question here - is there a single football fan in the UK that doesn't believe that Rangers (the company) would crawl through a sewer to blow an entire field full of donkeys twice for fifteen million quid, and then loudly proclaim that the sewer-crawling, donkey-blowing cash was legitimately earned and entirely honourable?

It might be worthwhile taking into account e.g. that charity match cash that wound up resting in the Ibrox coffers, before answering.

So I'll take that as confirmation that you can't answer without reference to Rangers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'll take that as confirmation that you can't answer without reference to Rangers.

I'll gladly answer, if anyone else is asking. Not your lot though - it's too hilarious.

(Also, I thought the part about Rangers scrambling to blow donkeys for cash was amusing, as well as true).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't one of the people that became obsessed with the term 'sporting integrity' during Rangers troubles as there are very few examples of it existing anywhere within professional sport (especially the higher up you go)...at the top end these are businesses that exist to make money and they'll go to extreme lengths to increase their income and/or defend it.

If the subtext of your question is that Celtic should be embarrassed about being in the next CL qualifying round then they're not and I'm not. I do feel extremely sorry for Legia Warsaw (particularly their fans)....a 19 year wait for a CL place looked a step closer after an impressive home and away performance and if UEFA had given them the benefit of the doubt and let the result stand or awarded a match result that still took them through I would not have been up in arms about it....but they didn't.

Legia have learnt a very costly lesson which I doubt they'll ever make again. Celtic have received one of the biggest strokes of luck a team could hope to have in relation to a (very highly paid) cup competition and although it might sound churlish we have in the distant past been on the wrong end of a contentious decision (Rapid Vienna) so maybe these things do eventually even themselves out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so without detracting, deflecting or in any other way referring to Rangers, can the Celtic supporters tell me what this sporting integrity stuff, that they went on about a couple of years ago, would dictate should happen when a team wins 6-1 over two legs yet eventually get put out of the competition, on away goals, due to an administration error?

Second question: under the same parameters as the above question, do the supporters of the other Scottish teams feel slightly silly or naïve after jumping on Celtic's sporting integrity band wagon- which was actually just a thinly veiled attempt to destroy their only competition so effectively giving them 4-5 years of uninhibited Champions league qualification- now that we've seen how important such matters actually are to them when they have to uphold integrity?

Once again, please answer the above questions without referring to Rangers.

Thanks.

Seriously ?, you are on the wind up aren't you ?

A Rangers fan having a pop at what they deem to be their biggest rivals on sporting integrity ? ffs you couldn't make this shite up :lol:

Sporting integrity left Scottish football when a certain club less than five years ago went to the wall facing extinction like what happened to Gretna & Airdrieonian's.

The rules on sporting integrity in our game where to eliminate cheats or badly run clubs completely who didn't adhere to the rules on fair play & sporting integrity so that they could not ever phoenix back and carry on like it never happened and to be a warning to any other club that if they should get into trouble be their own means that they will be wound up and resigned to the annals of history.

Nowadays we have the cnuts in the SFA changing the sporting integrity rules so that the above statement is completely irrelevant and cheats do prosper from breaking/breaching and deliberately hiding the fact they where doing anything other than being honest and abiding by the rules of fair play and with integrity.

There is no sporting integrity in our game so therefore your OP is a busted flush and your only attempt here is to paint Celtic in a darker shade than your previous incarnation of Rangers FC were when sporting integrity was finally outed as never ever something our associations took seriously when it came to a certain club.

Sporting integrity my arse. :thumbsdown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second question: under the same parameters as the above question, do the supporters of the other Scottish teams feel slightly silly or naïve after jumping on Celtic's sporting integrity band wagon- which was actually just a thinly veiled attempt to destroy their only competition so effectively giving them 4-5 years of uninhibited Champions league qualification- now that we've seen how important such matters actually are to them when they have to uphold integrity?

Once again, please answer the above questions without referring to Rangers.

Thanks.

I don't think anyone jumped on a band wagon driven by Celtic fans. What was seen was a collective of Scottish football fans regardless of team, upset/annoyed/frustrated/perplexed, call it what you will, at what was happening in Scottish football.

Punters were getting treated as mugs by the folk in blazers. Party lines were getting written, rules were getting changed, and the "independent" press were printing propaganda to suit these people at the top. These people had a "product" to protect, and they did what they could, to try to do that. That meant where the rules previously did not allow for separate companies and clubs, all of a sudden, a matter of weeks before rangers went to the wall, the rules were changed. i think the term is "stitch up".

Incidentally, why can you refer to rangers in your question, but those answering, cant refer to them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone jumped on a band wagon driven by Celtic fans. What was seen was a collective of Scottish football fans regardless of team, upset/annoyed/frustrated/perplexed, call it what you will, at what was happening in Scottish football.

Punters were getting treated as mugs by the folk in blazers. Party lines were getting written, rules were getting changed, and the "independent" press were printing propaganda to suit these people at the top. These people had a "product" to protect, and they did what they could, to try to do that. That meant where the rules previously did not allow for separate companies and clubs, all of a sudden, a matter of weeks before rangers went to the wall, the rules were changed. i think the term is "stitch up".

Incidentally, why can you refer to rangers in your question, but those answering, cant refer to them?

It's best not to speak ill words of the dead perhaps ? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...