Jump to content

Forfeit game! Points deduction.


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Not this shite again. He wasn't ineligible.

 

 

When he came back from Spain he wasn’t allowed to participate in any sport. He knew that and went ahead anyway.

If an admin at a club fucks up and a player who shouldn’t play plays then the club gets punished.

If a player fucks up and plays when he knows he shouldn’t the club should still be punished. 

Kilmarnock should be awarded a 3-0 win and any team who couldn’t play should forfeit those other results. 

Am I biased? You better believe it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 808
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 minute ago, bluenoz said:

The player (Boli) was not allowed to play due to gov't Covid rules. That makes him ineligible to play even if he is listed as an eligible player by the spfl. 

He played and therefore celtic should have to forfeit the game and Kilmarnock handed a 3-0 win. Whether they knew or not is not the point. He played illegally.

I doubt this will happen because our country doesn't play fair but it is that simple.

Or, we could continue going round in circles for another 100 pages.

It doesn't. Thats the same bullshit argument they used about Rangers players and side letters for EBTS and it was batted away as conspiracy bollocks by a court.

The player was properly registered and wast actively suspension. There is no mechanism to retrospectively change that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GersInCanada said:

Kid on journalist who apparently gets articles printed from time to time in tabloids. He really is not worth engaging with.

I am retired now so can afford the time to post until I get bored with it.

I dont work for any tabloids. Havent since I stopped doing my column for the Record almost two years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave Hedgehog said:

When he came back from Spain he wasn’t allowed to participate in any sport. He knew that and went ahead anyway.

If an admin at a club fucks up and a player who shouldn’t play plays then the club gets punished.

If a player fucks up and plays when he knows he shouldn’t the club should still be punished. 

Kilmarnock should be awarded a 3-0 win and any team who couldn’t play should forfeit those other results. 

Am I biased? You better believe it. 

He knew that, did the club know he'd been away?

If the club didn't know he'd been away, how would they know he couldn't play?

Who gets the 3-0 in celtic v Aberdeen?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pollok-bear said:

He needs to go get his hole or something.

I love spending time on this forum but he takes it to a new level.

Personally, I find the posters who spend so much time complaining about me posting too much or not posting enough in the 'right' threads or moaning about who they think I work for need their hole far more than I do.

:stevieg:

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

He knew that, did the club know he'd been away?

If the club didn't know he'd been away, how would they know he couldn't play?

Who gets the 3-0 in celtic v Aberdeen?

 

He knew he couldn’t play, he knew he was breaking rules.

IF he lied to his club or simply didn’t tell the truth then he gets them into trouble the same way an incompetent admin officer would do if a player who shouldn’t play played, ie Legia Warsaw. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Dave Hedgehog said:

He knew he couldn’t play, he knew he was breaking rules.

IF he lied to his club or simply didn’t tell the truth then he gets them into trouble the same way an incompetent admin officer would do if a player who shouldn’t play played, ie Legia Warsaw. 

So which part of the player ignoring the rules means celtic were aware he'd left the country? If, as far as they were aware, he'd remained in Scotland and had a clear Covid test, why wouldn't they play him?

Legia ignored a UEFA Circular stating the player was suspended because the club (not the player) tried to game the rules by removing him from their UEFA A list for two games he was suspended for, meaning he never served his suspension.

Answer me this one, Morelos decides to go to France for talks with Lille after being given a few days off without the club being aware of his trip. He returns in time for training on the expected day, passes a covid test and doesn't utter a word of the fact that he left Scotland and should be isolating, at what point do Rangers become aware he left Scotland and should be isolating?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Dude said:

It doesn't. Thats the same bullshit argument they used about Rangers players and side letters for EBTS and it was batted away as conspiracy bollocks by a court.

The player was properly registered and wast actively suspension. There is no mechanism to retrospectively change that.

Yes there is. It is called abiding by gov't rules.

Anyway, no point arguing with you as you are never wrong (in your eyes)

I said my tuppence worth for the day, I will leave you to it for the next 12 hrs or so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dave Hedgehog said:

He knew he couldn’t play, he knew he was breaking rules.

IF he lied to his club or simply didn’t tell the truth then he gets them into trouble the same way an incompetent admin officer would do if a player who shouldn’t play played, ie Legia Warsaw. 

The first is individual responsibility of an employee - individual task - affects the individual

The second is the vicarious responsibility of an employee - organisational task - affects the club or organisation

I think it's pretty clear cut - and knowing football players, we should probably be glad, because I don't doubt some of our squad are capable of fucking up 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bluenoz said:

Yes there is. It is called abiding by gov't rules.

Anyway, no point arguing with you as you are never wrong (in your eyes)

I said my tuppence worth for the day, I will leave you to it for the next 12 hrs or so.

Government rules on self isolation have no bearing on a players eligibility to play in a football competition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, The Dude said:

In all honesty I don't think there's much chance of that all unless they can show celtic - rather than just bolingoli - deliberately breached the rules.

That's because you honestly don't believe the SPFL will dig deep into it. They won't. You know it and I know it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, The Dude said:

Government rules on self isolation have no bearing on a players eligibility to play in a football competition.

You need to take a break.

The boy should have been in quarantine and therefore should not have been available to play. The club have to be held responsible for that.

Anyway, that's enough from me already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Brubear said:

Does it actually matter if celtic knew if he was eligible to play or not. If they were not aware of one of their players status regarding eligibility to play due to failure of internal processes then they are still responsible. If you play a suspended player because your internal processes didn't highlight his suspension when the manager selects his team then the club is still liable. 

See what I was thinking here is, in most places I visit within my work, I'm inducted and since Covid we have to sign to say we have no symptoms and haven't been out of the country in the last 14 days etc etc.

Will Killie have had a similar system and celtic have obviously ticked Yes to the testing and assumed Yes to the not left the country? If this is the case then they could be in deep shit? Assuming someone hasn't left the country as opposed to asking the person the question is totally different?

Obviously all guesswork as all companies have different stipulations but id imagine surely Killie have something similar  in place?

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dave Hedgehog said:

Makes you wonder if celtic done nothing wrong then why the charge? 😳

What makes me suspicious is that we all know which airport he flew out of but no one seems to know or are reporting when and where he flew into on return? Why is that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Not this shite again. He wasn't ineligible.

 

 

There’s a compelling argument against that. It’s the clubs responsibility to ensure the players are allowed to play, they failed in that regards. It doesn’t specify that determination of this rules is solely for following the rules regarding the SPFL rule book, governmental requirements should also be adhered too. 

30258710-DC90-4F99-8692-6E22D89C33DB.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

You need to take a break.

The boy should have been in quarantine and therefore should not have been available to play. The club have to be held responsible for that.

Anyway, that's enough from me already.

Nobody is disputing he should have been in quarantine. Literally not a single post on any of the threads have said he shouldn't have been.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...