Scott McKenna

[RED_JOHN]

I keep telling you guys, the only thing to do is boycott games.

Totally agree, it’s the only way to send out a clear message.

[KIWIRED]

We need the biggest card display ever at the Semi

SFA GET TO ****
SFA ARE CORRUP

Mass demonstration, turn ours back on the SFA during the game

This cannot be simply be accepted. SFA ARE CHEATEN ****S

[rico94]

You know, it really won't.

It doesn't matter, if we win the two games they'll just come after us again.

It's Saville-esque, they can get away with it.....they'll keep getting away with it.......they're not even being subtle any more.


F u ck Scottish fitba....leave them to their cosy sectarian duopoly.

What about starting an "FC United" type club and shooting for the Highland League?

Start off amatuer and see how far it goes?

Just a thought.

Isn’t the Highland league a full member of the SFA?

If you really want to boycott football associated with the SFA you would pretty much not be able to go to any football in Scotland.

[RED_JOHN]

How about we let everyone know we want to join the English league as we have overwhelming evidence our own FA are corrupt? It would get big publicity and draw a lot of attention onto the SFA etc in Scotland. Might be the kick up the @rse they need. Corruption brings publicity.

[Kilgore trout]

I'm afraid boycotting home league games misses the point. If you want to boycott away league games so he it. However that's hardly punishing the Sfa. Starving Dundee or St mirren for example hurts them and not the Sfa or the league bodies. The teams benefiting from the decisions ie the arse cheeks will not be affected in any discernible way by us boycotting Ibrox or Parkhead. Economically it's not effective. It hurts our team not the intended target.

Legally a fan group has neither right or title to raise any form of court action.

I'd like the club to take it to the Court of Session on the basis that it is inherently against natural justice that no further redress is available to the club following the decision.

That's my tuppence worth.

[KIWIRED]

Good idea RED_ JOHN.
That would really put in it the face of the SFA and highlight to the world just how unjust are leagues are and how incompetent and bigoted they really are at Hampden Park HQ

Would be great to watch the SFA squirm and try and defend itself.

Basically, it couldn't

[Kilgore trout]

[QUOTE=KIWIRED;39031297]Good idea RED_ JOHN.
That would really put in it the face of the SFA and highlight to the world just how unjust are leagues are and how incompetent and bigoted they really are at Hampden Park HQ

Would be great to watch the SFA squirm and try and defend itself.

Basically, it couldn't[/QUOTE
On the White cloud ?]

[ItzMillerTime_Dons]

The main legal process I could see being relevant would be judicial review of the SFA's decision. For that to happen the person raising the review would need to have "standing", the body in question would need to be subject to judicial review and there would need to be grounds.

I don't think a fans group would have standing but the club or Scott McKenna probably would as they are directly impacted by the decision. I'm not sure whether the Scottish FA is sufficiently "public" to be a public body for judicial review but it certainly serves a public function and it has a set of procedures that would give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of a person subject to its proceedings (see - https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/3...-jpp-18_19.pdf)

I assume that the relevant section here is 13.3 (set out below) which the panel would have to follow in finding there was a "breach" by Scott McKenna of the rules:

There is a requirement for the panel to give reasons within 5 days (too late for the St Mirren game) so they would have to justify whether either (i) the officials gave statements that they missed it (highly unlikely given that the ref was staring straight at it) or (ii) the offence was "exceptional" in nature AND the act that rendered it exceptional was not seen by the match officials. For it to be exceptional it has to be either (a) a very high level of excessive force, (b) there was malice/intent to injure, (c) a very high level of endangerment of safety or (d) significant injury was incurred. The only limb I could see as being relevant is (c) as it was off the ground and slightly out of control but that was in the act of clearing the ball. Also it all formed part of the same incident which was directly seen by the referee so I don't think they can say the act that rendered it "exceptional" was not seen.

The panel has been rightly criticised this season but I think this decision takes the biscuit - I cannot recall any decision such as this being brought back for retrospective punishment and, when you look at the below wording, you can see why.

So what do we do? Put pressure on the club to at least explore judicial review?

-------------------------
Fast Track Notices of Complaint may be raised alleging a breach of Disciplinary Rule 200 where an Alleged Party in Breach has committed any one of the sending off offences of serious foul play, violent conduct, or spitting and the act alleged to constitute the sending off offence was “not seen” by any of the match officials at the time that it was committed.

13.3.1 For the purposes of Disciplinary Rule 200 the act alleged to constitute the sending off offence is
deemed to be “not seen”, subject to the terms of 13.3.3 below, where no part of the act alleged
to constitute the sending off offence was seen by any of the match officials at the time that it
occurred.

13.3.2 However where the Compliance Officer obtains written evidence from each of the match officials that no part of the act alleged to constitute the sending off offence was seen at the time that it occurred, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the act that is alleged to constitute the sending off offence was “not seen”.
13.3.3 Notwithstanding 13.3.1 a Fast Track Notice of Complaint may be raised by the Compliance
Officer in respect of serious foul play and violent conduct where some part of the act alleged to
constitute the sending off offence was seen by one or more of the match officials, provided that:
13.3.3.1 the serious foul play and/or violent conduct was exceptional in nature; and
13.3.3.2 that the part of the act by the Alleged Party in Breach that renders it as exceptional was not
seen by any of the match officials.
13.3.4 An act of serious foul play will be rendered as exceptional, for the purposes of 13.3.3.1, where
there is evidence that one or more of the following were features of the act:
13.3.4.1 the level of excessive force used was very high; and/or
13.3.4.2 there was malice used in making the challenge and/or that there was an intent to injure;
and/or
13.3.4.3 the level of endangerment of safety was very high; and/or
13.3.4.4 significant injury occurred as a consequence of the challenge.
13.3.5 An act of violent conduct will be rendered as exceptional, for the purposes of 13.3.3.1, where
there is evidence that one or more of the following were features of the act:
13.3.5.1 the level of excessive force used was very high; and/or
13.3.5.2 brutality was used; and/or
13.3.5.3 significant injury occurred as a consequence of the act

[DonUnder]

Thanks for the explanation MillerTime:

So there's is nothing can be done under consumer protection legislation?

Are share holders regarded as having "standing"? - Not that i am one but they must be out there.

What about contractually (RedTV or the like)? I am aware this would be against the club but all i am suggesting is stirring the pot and creating adverse publicity. It seems to me that the recent 96% BBC poll means the iron is hot and there is sufficient mistrust of the aurhorities (even within the beneficiaries) to give them a public kicking.

[the new coach]

excellent post .
It really beggar's belief that on the basis of a moaning complaint from a manager, followed by faceless people applying a ban, sorry offering a ban,a club and fans are deprived of a player for two important games.
Having watched the incident several times my take on it is : the ball was in the air and NOT under control of any player : McKenna made clear contact of the ball at a difficult height and was then involved in a collision with the Celtic player while off the ground.
If this is worthy of a red card then the game in Scotland is finished .
Are defenders of non old firm clubs no longer allowed to move to clear the ball from their penalty area and stand back to allow a forward a clear run on goal ?
Did the forward make any attempt to avoid the collision ?
What must the officials think ? - by all accounts Madden had a decent game,and did not not need any cautions to control things.
Previous decisions have not been fair to our club, and fairness is all I ask for .
Perhaps the president of the SFA ,Alan Macrae , from the mighty Cove Rangers, might wish to give a comment on his organisation's actions .
The ground rules have been set I'm afraid , that any manager should now hit the press big time regarding any incident they are not happy about and EXPECT a similar reaction from the SFA .Unfortunately the actions of recent weeks demonstrate the chances of action other than to hit smaller clubs are pretty slim.
Get the banners up on the North Stand at Hampden on the 27th for the world to see !!