bennett Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 2 hours ago, Dundee Hibernian said: It doesn't matter what the courts can't agree on: the SPFL/SFA can impose penalties on clubs as and when they see fit. They're shit scared to do so in the case of the Glasgow Twins. UEFA do it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Meeker Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 52 minutes ago, coprolite said: I've got an idea on how we can sort this all out. I'm going to email whoever chooses popes to see if they'll let Charlie have a shot. That way, all the weirdos will be on the same side. Next up, Israel. That would be an ecumenical matter 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukDukGoose Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 6 hours ago, AJF said: Care to expand? Your club could at least attempt to stop it, as could the league. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnderooMFC Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 4 hours ago, gannonball said: It isn't that simple. If something isn't deemed racist/sectarian etc by the courts I'm not sure how a footballing body can decide it is. Idk if this is the point he was going for, but they don't really need to use the words racism or sectarianism to punish clubs for it. Anything which doesn't specifically make a reference to religion like songs about Bobby Sands or the royal family can still be classed as offensive or trying to incite violence/hatred. The rules posted by @CoF refers to Unacceptable Conduct, the definition I found below from the SFA website mention at Hampden but I'm sure it's the exact same in every ground. Disorderly Coduct (II) seems to cover it. (as well as any chants of The Referee's A w****r too tbf). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 1 hour ago, DukDukGoose said: Your club could at least attempt to stop it, as could the league. I think you’ve misunderstood my point. I didn’t say Rangers tackling sectarianism was outwith their control. I was explaining why clubs in general are reluctant to vote for strict liability as a whole. The strict liability bill that was previously debated wasn’t solely aimed at tackling sectarianism. It was aimed at tackling all offensive or criminal behaviour. This would include things like pyro, offensive language, missiles being thrown, pitch encroachments etc. all things that many clubs have issues with and largely cannot prevent despite what measures they may put in place. And this isn’t just my own opinion, it was considered by the Law Society of Scotland who said just as much: Quote It would seem inequitable that under the bill, a football club could take some considerable steps to try to make sure their fans behave appropriately but through no fault of theirs they could find themselves facing a fine or other sanction https://www.lawscot.org.uk/media/uq4l50jd/obl_response-to-jd-consultation-on-football-strict-liability-scotland-bill-march-2017.pdf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckford Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 23 hours ago, AJF said: The SPFL have no power to punish clubs for fan behaviour. It’s not within their jurisdiction. They only have the power to punish clubs for rule breaches. So make singing sectarian songs against the rules and have the power to rid our game of the embarrassing shamefull shite that we have to endure???? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 9 minutes ago, Beckford said: So make singing sectarian songs against the rules and have the power to rid our game of the embarrassing shamefull shite that we have to endure???? That’s up to the clubs to vote on. The SPFL is made up of the clubs and if there is enough that want it then it can get voted through. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eez-eh Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 5 hours ago, gannonball said: It isn't that simple. If something isn't deemed racist/sectarian etc by the courts I'm not sure how a footballing body can decide it is. If a club/player thinks they are being unfairly treated they are still allowed to go above that body. It's a bit of a minefield to them really but if they were ever to try and clamp down on it. The Footballing Associations can decide what they want tbh. John Terry was found guilty by the FA after being found not guilty in court. The burden of proof isn’t the same. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckford Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 8 minutes ago, AJF said: That’s up to the clubs to vote on. The SPFL is made up of the clubs and if there is enough that want it then it can get voted through. And the clubs with the fans who are guilty of singing the songs will of course vote against it to protect their revenue stream. Its almost as if certain clubs rely on perpetuating the sectarian divide as its what their dominance of our game is based on and funded by. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukDukGoose Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 1 hour ago, Beckford said: And the clubs with the fans who are guilty of singing the songs will of course vote against it to protect their revenue stream. Its almost as if certain clubs rely on perpetuating the sectarian divide as its what their dominance of our game is based on and funded by. Exactly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jacky1990 Posted April 20 Popular Post Share Posted April 20 16 hours ago, bennett said: Occasionally but nowhere near enough. To stop sectarianism you would need both old firm teams working together, otherwise it ends up being weaponised to use against the other side. Working together for B teams Working together for tours of Australia Working together to hamstring the rest of Scottish football Working together to clamp down on the rancid behaviour of their fanbase 46 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 6 hours ago, Jacky1990 said: Working together for B teams Working together for tours of Australia Working together to hamstring the rest of Scottish football Working together to clamp down on the rancid behaviour of their fanbase Working together to profit from their rancid fanbase 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gannonball Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 (edited) 11 hours ago, eez-eh said: The Footballing Associations can decide what they want tbh. John Terry was found guilty by the FA after being found not guilty in court. The burden of proof isn’t the same. A fair point tbh however John Terry could have appealed his FA charge (above that body as well if required) but he didn't. Edited April 20 by gannonball 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoose Rice Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 Whats more tinpot? Supporting a football team based on their Unionist beliefs or voting for a political party based on the football team you support? That's even before we go into glorifying terrorism and fake belief of fighting for a cause. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 30 minutes ago, Hoose Rice said: Whats more tinpot? Supporting a football team based on their Unionist beliefs or voting for a political party based on the football team you support? Chicken and egg stuff, but clearly the latter. If someone were to have political beliefs based on their own values and then found a club that aligned to it then that’s better than the other way. However, suspect the lines are more blurred than that as these things as passed through generations. Suppose the better question may be - what’s more tinpot, adopting your political beliefs and football team as one in the same thing and making it all part of your identity, or trying to completely separate the two and pretending supporting the football team is entirely independent from the entire culture the club has built. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Panzer Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 As someone who has only lived in Dundee (well only place in Scotland I’ve lived) I’m genuinely astounded that places other than Glasgow and its outskirts allow orange walks. its not a thing here. If they tried to make it a thing they’d be told to fucking do one. Seem to be seeing a lot of chat about them on here and across the internet (assume the algorithm seeing I spend time on here and it’s chatted about on here regularly) Saw a reference to it happening in the highlands (possibly county v rangers thread) and it blows my mind when you consider how oppressed the highlands have been historically. Just say no to the c***s. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVIFOREVER Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 (edited) 1 hour ago, Der Panzer said: As someone who has only lived in Dundee (well only place in Scotland I’ve lived) I’m genuinely astounded that places other than Glasgow and its outskirts allow orange walks. its not a thing here. If they tried to make it a thing they’d be told to fucking do one. Seem to be seeing a lot of chat about them on here and across the internet (assume the algorithm seeing I spend time on here and it’s chatted about on here regularly) Saw a reference to it happening in the highlands (possibly county v rangers thread) and it blows my mind when you consider how oppressed the highlands have been historically. Just say no to the c***s. West Lothian is rife with Glasgow overspill settlers, and Orange Order Lodges dotted all over the place. Edited April 20 by LIVIFOREVER 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crawford Bridge Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 Aye, I've always felt like Tranent was airlifted from Ayrshire and put down in East Lothian. Bizarre little town. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parttimesupporter Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 On 19/04/2024 at 17:58, topcat(The most tip top) said: People complaining about the act of settlement strike me as a bit odd. It always sounds as if they’re fine with the whole hereditary head of state arrangement apart from that one detail that makes it seem a little bit inequitable. It’s like when Claire Short complained about Page 3 of the Sun as if the other fifty-fifty pages were perfectly fine Fair point - for the avoidance of doubt I'd fire the whole arrangement into the sea. However, 'Democratically elected head of state of the South' doesn't exactly trip off the tongue. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 10 hours ago, Der Panzer said: As someone who has only lived in Dundee (well only place in Scotland I’ve lived) I’m genuinely astounded that places other than Glasgow and its outskirts allow orange walks. its not a thing here. If they tried to make it a thing they’d be told to fucking do one. Seem to be seeing a lot of chat about them on here and across the internet (assume the algorithm seeing I spend time on here and it’s chatted about on here regularly) Saw a reference to it happening in the highlands (possibly county v rangers thread) and it blows my mind when you consider how oppressed the highlands have been historically. Just say no to the c***s. I've lived in Dundee since September 2014. There has been one orange march here since. I know because it went down the street I live on. There were about 15 'marchers' and over double the amount of police. It was incredibly tragic and the 'marchers' were fucking choking for attention. All utter scum who got little attention. The entire organisation is riddled with pieces of shit who are all horrendous bigots. Could say worse 2 Quote Link to comment 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.