Is Tony Mcglennan Fit For Purpose?

[Ger77 742]

The case against Josh Meekings was thrown out, as the SFA Compliance Officer Tony McGlennan wasn't entitled to review the incident under his own SFA rules.

The statement read;

"The panel considered submissions from Mr Meekings solicitor. It was argued by him that under protocol 13.4.1.1 the judicial panel was not entitled to determine the matter.

The panel considered that as the incident had been seen by one or more officials it was not entitled to consider the matter further. It accordingly dismissed the complaint."

If the Compliance Officer does not know the rules of his own Association, understand the rules, or simply chooses to make them up and apply them at the bequest of only one club, how can he enforce fair play and the infamous sporting integrity?

Time to go Tony.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

I think that sums it up.

[harlands plater 16,957]

I forgot Vincent had been replaced by Tony.

[Domthenbud 899]

Think you,ve got to feel sorry for him a bit. Remember he had liewells hand firmly up his arse like a fucking glove puppet, controlling everything he did or said.

[SteveEarle 9,724]

I forgot Vincent had been replaced by Tony.

Vince an Fat Toni? Gotta mob ring to those names......

[Bad Robot 21,138]

What official said they seen it and did they say they seem it as hitting the guys head from their view ?

The compliance officers needs to stand down for jumping the gun and thank fuck he's not my lawyer.

Maybe BNB can put herself forward for the job.

[BlueAvenger 10,204]

The SFA and SPFL are not fit for purpose !!

[mabawsa 888]

Harper and McLeod , (remember them? ) represented Josh Meekings. Wonder how that went down within the Circle of Trust!

[Kaiser Wull 203]

Think you,ve got to feel sorry for him a bit. Remember he had liewells hand firmly up his arse like a fucking glove puppet, controlling everything he did or said.

I don't feel the least bit sorry for him. I don't know what prompted him to issue that Notice of Complaint, but he is an experienced lawyer and has to take responsibility for his actions.

[eejay the dj 31,964]

He would just be replaced by another compliant rodent fuckwit at Pedro's say so

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Clearly, being quite new to the job, he is trying to prove to his employers at the SFA that he's up for the job.

He was just a wee bit too keen, massively so, overstepping the mark and being too obvious when it came to giving the b*oys a favour not supported by the rules.

In future he'll know to provide a thin veneer of justification in terms of the rules, when giving timmy a wee hand.

[Kaiser Wull 203]

Clearly, being quite new to the job, he is trying to prove to his employers at the SFA that he's up for the job.

He was just a wee bit too keen, massively so, overstepping the mark and being too obvious when it came to giving the b*oys a favour not supported by the rules.

In future he'll know to provide a thin veneer of justification in terms of the rules, when giving timmy a wee hand.

He's a very experienced lawyer, Oleg, and should have known that the Notice wouldn't stand up to scrutiny if the player refused to accept it. That in itself is surprising, but he must have known that the case would have attracted a lot of publicity in the light of Celtic's written request for clarification. That being so, what possessed him to serve a Notice without having grounds to do so?

[tannerall 25,935]

He's a very experienced lawyer, Oleg, and should have known that the Notice wouldn't stand up to scrutiny if the player refused to accept it. That in itself is surprising, but he must have known that the case would have attracted a lot of publicity in the light of Celtic's written request for clarification. That being so, what possessed him to serve a Notice without having grounds to do so?

Supports the cellic and was gutted at the result., simple answer to simple question.

If anyone has a better or more logical answer, write it on a fiver and PM me for the address to send it to.

[dummiesoot 15,990]

Supports the cellic and was gutted at the result., simple answer to simple question.

If anyone has a better or more logical answer, write it on a fiver and PM me for the address to send it to.

John Hughes was hinting that someone else was behind the compliance officer notice of complaint. Perhaps his title should be compliant officer.

[The Educator 1,572]

If the Compliance Officer does not know the rules of his own Association, understand the rules, or simply chooses to make them up and apply them at the bequest of only one club, how can he enforce fair play and the infamous sporting integrity?

Time to go Tony.

Just another low level paper gatherer who deliberately miss-interprets the rules to suit a certain section of the Scottish football community. Even if he wasn't as previously stated he should have had to resign for gross incompetence. They replaced Vincent with Tony, who next Declan?

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

Just another low level paper gatherer who deliberately miss-interprets the rules to suit a certain section of the Scottish football community. Even if he wasn't as previously stated he should have had to resign for gross incompetence. They replaced Vincent with Tony, who next Declan?

Probably Brendan O'Hara when he gets punted by the Jacobites.

[Straight-Edge-Loyal 6,681]

He's a very experienced lawyer, Oleg, and should have known that the Notice wouldn't stand up to scrutiny if the player refused to accept it. That in itself is surprising, but he must have known that the case would have attracted a lot of publicity in the light of Celtic's written request for clarification. That being so, what possessed him to serve a Notice without having grounds to do so?

Isn't it the rule that if a complaint is made then a ban is automatically offered so that the player could potentially avoid a much stiffer penalty by having the case actually looked at?

Whereas Josh Meekings obviously rejected the ban and had the case thrown out when looked at.

[Domthenbud 899]

Isn't it the rule that if a complaint is made then a ban is automatically offered so that the player could potentially avoid a much stiffer penalty by having the case actually looked at?

Whereas Josh Meekings obviously rejected the ban and had the case thrown out when looked at.

Surely the rule is, complaint made, compliant officer examines, compliant officer makes a ruling. Appeal then allowed.

[Kaiser Wull 203]

Isn't it the rule that if a complaint is made then a ban is automatically offered so that the player could potentially avoid a much stiffer penalty by having the case actually looked at?

Whereas Josh Meekings obviously rejected the ban and had the case thrown out when looked at.

A Notice should only be served if whoever is serving it believes that (a) it is competent to serve a Notice and (b) there is, on the face of it, a case to answer. In the case of an SFA Notice of Complaint, I would expect that the Compliance Order would, amongst other things, check to see if any of the officials saw the incident before deciding if a Notice ought to be served.

It would have been one thing for the Meekings case to be thrown out because he was able to persuade the judicial panel that the ball accidentally struck his arm (something that can only be determined once he's put his side of the story, and that can only happen at a hearing), but it's quite another thing for the case to be thrown out because one or more of the officials saw the incident - that is something that should have been checked out before the Notice was served.

[Kaiser Wull 203]

Surely the rule is, complaint made, compliant officer examines, compliant officer makes a ruling. Appeal then allowed.

Not exactly. The Compliance Officer decides if a Notice should be served (which means looking at one side of the case before serving the Notice). The recipient of the Notice can either accept the Notice or ask for a hearing. The Compliance Officer effectively acts as the prosecutor at a hearing, which takes place before a panel. The panel then decide on the merits of the case and either impose a penalty or dismiss the case.

[Straight-Edge-Loyal 6,681]

A Notice should only be served if whoever is serving it believes that (a) it is competent to serve a Notice and (b) there is, on the face of it, a case to answer. In the case of an SFA Notice of Complaint, I would expect that the Compliance Order would, amongst other things, check to see if any of the officials saw the incident before deciding if a Notice ought to be served.

It would have been one thing for the Meekings case to be thrown out because he was able to persuade the judicial panel that the ball accidentally struck his arm (something that can only be determined once he's put his side of the story, and that can only happen at a hearing), but it's quite another thing for the case to be thrown out because one or more of the officials saw the incident - that is something that should have been checked out before the Notice was served.

Either way justice was served in the end and he is allowed to play in the final

[Kaiser Wull 203]

Either way justice was served in the end and he is allowed to play in the final

True, but only because he didn't accept the Notice of Complaint.

It's a pity that he's under contract till 2017, as he's the sort of player that we should be looking to pick up in the summer.

[Straight-Edge-Loyal 6,681]

True, but only because he didn't accept the Notice of Complaint.

It's a pity that he's under contract till 2017, as he's the sort of player that we should be looking to pick up in the summer.

My understanding was that the offer of a ban had to be made then id the player didn't want to accept it then the case was heard and Josh had his thrown out as he didn't do anything wrong.

i haven't say i can remember seeing him play before so couldn't comment on his worth as a target for us

[Kaiser Wull 203]

My understanding was that the offer of a ban had to be made then id the player didn't want to accept it then the case was heard and Josh had his thrown out as he didn't do anything wrong.

i haven't say i can remember seeing him play before so couldn't comment on his worth as a target for us

My point is that the Notice should never have been served on him in the first place because there were no grounds on which he could be banned. It would have been different if the match officials hadn't seen the incident - that would have given the Compliance Officer prima facie grounds for serving a Notice.

As it was, Josh Meekings had the choice of accepting a ban that should never have been offered to him or having to pay for a lawyer to go in front of the judicial panel and argue his case. ICT probably paid for the lawyer (probably a few hundred quid), but I don't suppose the SFA will reimburse them for that.

[Straight-Edge-Loyal 6,681]

My point is that the Notice should never have been served on him in the first place because there were no grounds on which he could be banned. It would have been different if the match officials hadn't seen the incident - that would have given the Compliance Officer prima facie grounds for serving a Notice.

As it was, Josh Meekings had the choice of accepting a ban that should never have been offered to him or having to pay for a lawyer to go in front of the judicial panel and argue his case. ICT probably paid for the lawyer (probably a few hundred quid), but I don't suppose the SFA will reimburse them for that.

I agree with you i hope that ICT take them to court for costs