Boli Bolingoli was eligible to play but the issues is he was not allowed to play under agreed government guidance

Derta said:
Mate jebus wept. Don’t know if your serious. Do you have any idea how football clubs work.
Click to expand...
Do they spy on their players to make sure they are where they say they are? Or do they take them at their word until being shown otherwise and made to look like fannies?
 
Leopold said:
Yes they should. But he lied to them.
Click to expand...
Or he kept quiet about his trip just like Lennon did in his zoom chat with Leitch!

Celtic would have known about this on the Sunday at the latest yet they tried to put it forward as Boli just came in on the Monday and fessed up just for the sake of it.
 
Beanyrfc79 said:
Or he kept quiet about his trip just like Lennon did in his zoom chat with Leitch!

Celtic would have known about this on the Sunday at the latest yet they tried to put it forward as Boli just came in on the Monday and fessed up just for the sake of it.
Click to expand...
I’m not defending their actions since it happened I’m saying that a Club won’t necessarily know what a player is up to on his time off and will take them at their word at the time.
 
Leopold said:
I’m not defending their actions since it happened I’m saying that a Club won’t necessarily know what a player is up to on his time off and will take them at their word at the time.
Click to expand...
When do you think that they found out? And do you believe they had no idea until Boli confesses or Lawell and Co confronted him about the rumours?
 
Leopold said:
Yes they should. But he lied to them.
Click to expand...

I think you are right, it's how they dealt with the situation after they found out.

If the player was photographed by one of their followers taking his seat on the plane the chances are septic would have known about it before the thing touched down in Spain. Any suggestion to the contrary is frankly f***ing absurd.
 
Leopold said:
Yes they should. But he lied to them.
Click to expand...

To be honest it's not unreasonable or out of the ordinary to make a club (or employer) carry some responsibility for the conduct of their players/employees.

Fairly simple provisions in the rules can make the club responsible for breaches or rules and regulations, so it is then upon the club to provide its own in-house management of that in the knowledge it will be punished if players do what they shouldn't.

Let's face it, the argument of "can't punish the club for an individual's actions" is absolute nonsense and it's part of the game in general.
 
So he came back on Tuesday night then went into training on the Wednesday morning and told nobody? Don't the players/management talk or have banter? Isn't there a bit of "what were you up to on your days off" banter? It's ridiculous to suggest that, at the very least, many of the other players would have known he was in Spain. I'd wager some/all of the management knew too. Difficult to prove though and we know they're particularly good at lying.

With regards to proof of him being in training from Wednesday onwards, there's been mention on this thread that there are no pictures of him until Friday. However, I can't find ANY pictures of their training sessions on Wednesday or Thursday. Gut feel is that he did come back on Tuesday because it only takes one picture of him on a plane or in the airport like someone had on the way out and they'd be deep in the shit for lying.
 
Beanyrfc79 said:
When do you think that they found out? And do you believe they had no idea until Boli confesses or Lawell and Co confronted him about the rumours?
Click to expand...
I have no idea but it’s irrelevant to the point I was making. KGGY said a Club should know where their players are and I asked how they would know at the time unless he told them, I never once mentioned how they dealt with it after the fact.
 
Bluenose1979 said:
To be honest it's not unreasonable or out of the ordinary to make a club (or employer) carry some responsibility for the conduct of their players/employees.

Fairly simple provisions in the rules can make the club responsible for breaches or rules and regulations, so it is then upon the club to provide its own in-house management of that in the knowledge it will be punished if players do what they shouldn't.

Let's face it, the argument of "can't punish the club for an individual's actions" is absolute nonsense and it's part of the game in general.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with any of that
 
If an employee of a company came into the workplace when they should have been quarantined then they would probably be faced with a charge of Gross Misconduct.
The real issues here are
1. When did Celtic become aware of his breach

2.Why is every employee who had contact with him not quarantined, including Kilmarnock’s

3 as a result of being unable to field at team they should be docked 3 points
 
Beanyrfc79 said:
Or he kept quiet about his trip just like Lennon did in his zoom chat with Leitch!

Celtic would have known about this on the Sunday at the latest yet they tried to put it forward as Boli just came in on the Monday and fessed up just for the sake of it.
Click to expand...
The first post on here about it was at 9.38am on Sunday morning, so there is now way Ceptic never knew until Monday.
 
skorn said:
I've quoted your post mate because it is short and sharp enough to address the main point here -- eligibility.

The football Rules & Regs don't cover this scenario.
But ... as we've said, those Rules & Regs also don't cover the hypothetical "escaped prisoner who is still a registered player who then plays for his team."
There may be plenty of other scenarios that are NOT covered by those fotballing Rules & Regs.

The point I and others are making is that EVEN if the foootballing Rules & Regs don't cover it and some people try to state that he was STILL "eligible" --
He's not.

Because the term "eligible" (and its roots) is not defined in the Rules & Regs, you have to refer to dictionary definitions.

He wasn't allowed because the law of the land required him to NOT play.
The law of the land defined his "eligibility" for the game (check the dictionaries for defintions).

So ... not eligible.
Click to expand...

I see where you’re coming from with that but personally I agree with @Bluenose1979 ‘s reading of the escaped prisoner scenario and the current situation.
 
Bluenose1979 said:
That is a whole lot of silly.

People are trying to convince themselves that rules exist or don't exist to suit their own point of view.

Stubborn refusal to drop a dead-end argument is a lot less valuable than actually taking time to understand the rules and how they are/can be applied.
Click to expand...
Bluenose1979 said:
That is a whole lot of silly.

People are trying to convince themselves that rules exist or don't exist to suit their own point of view.

Stubborn refusal to drop a dead-end argument is a lot less valuable than actually taking time to understand the rules and how they are/can be applied.
Click to expand...
It’s literally the thread title. It’s not he’s ineligible, it’s just that he shouldn’t have played. They mean the same things. One is a word used to replace 4 others to mean the same thing.
 
Wilkinsvolley said:
It’s literally the thread title. It’s not he’s ineligible, it’s just that he shouldn’t have played. They mean the same things. One is a word used to replace 4 others to mean the same thing.
Click to expand...

You know what the debate is. And you know the context is the point regarding this. What you wrote was silly.
 
laud55 said:
Taking that analogy a stage further, were Rangers not "done" for a breach of tax rules which were applied retrospectively?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure very few people on here will deny that was a travesty.

How fans, bond holders, shareholders and debaters are not still fighting HMRC over this is beyond me.

This should have been challenged, and everyone out of pocket should be putting a claim in to HMRC, as it seems to be unprecedented and doesn't seem to be have used as precedent in any cases after the fact.
 
Bluenose1979 said:
You know what the debate is. And you know the context is the point regarding this. What you wrote was silly.
Click to expand...
Why because it stretched things a bit further?
I don’t think it stretches it as far as somebody trying to convince me that Ineligible is different from should not be playing. It definitely won’t be as far as anything stretches this season if we’re looking likely to win the league.
 
Bluenose1979 said:
It’s not covered mate. This is straw clutching. “Natural justice” and “in effect” don’t come into it.

What players received a prohibition or suspension from the SPFL/SFA in the Aberdeen team? Not aware of this happening. They tested positive or were contact traced as I believe and went into isolation in line with government regulations and under club orders.

Their game was going ahead until the JRG ordered it postponed. Nobody was suspended by the SPFL or SFA from playing.
Click to expand...
Why did the Aberdeen players quarantine? Because there is a Prohibition from the Government on isolation. Why can’t players from certain countries just show up, register and play? Immigration law.
By their own explicit law, players and clubs who play players under prohibition are punished. Celtic have set precedent in the CL Qualification Game

Natural Justice was one of the countless phrases used against us with the legal use of EBT’s. Natural justice in this case is a player who has deliberately broken the law and had the potential to infect dozens of people with a deadly virus should have the book thrown at him. By their previous actions, so should the club. There are reasons their manager was”livid”
 
Brother Crockett said:
Why did the Aberdeen players quarantine? Because there is a Prohibition from the Government on isolation. Why can’t players from certain countries just show up, register and play? Immigration law.
By their own explicit law, players and clubs who play players under prohibition are punished. Celtic have set precedent in the CL Qualification Game

Natural Justice was one of the countless phrases used against us with the legal use of EBT’s. Natural justice in this case is a player who has deliberately broken the law and had the potential to infect dozens of people with a deadly virus should have the book thrown at him. By their previous actions, so should the club. There are reasons their manager was”livid”
Click to expand...

I feel like we'll just keep going round in circles because you're simply refusing to read the facts. The rule YOU quoted explicitly stated that the prohibition had to be by the footballing authorities. They did not directly or indirectly prohibit him from playing.

Players can't just show up and play, but IF they ARE registered then they are eligible to play. That is in the rules as quoted earlier. To be eligible you simply have to be registered with the club in line with the footballing rules and regulations. That's actually specified.

Nobody is arguing he shouldn't have the book thrown at him, but throwing a dictionary at him instead of the actual relevant rulebook is the kind of argument Lionel Hutz could get laughed out of court in about two minutes.
 
Wilkinsvolley said:
Why because it stretched things a bit further?
I don’t think it stretches it as far as somebody trying to convince me that Ineligible is different from should not be playing. It definitely won’t be as far as anything stretches this season if we’re looking likely to win the league.
Click to expand...

It's silly because it's irrelevant what the definition is in a dictionary. The relevant definition is the one in the rules the SPFL/SFA actually govern. Context.
 
Bluenose1979 said:
It's silly because it's irrelevant what the definition is in a dictionary. The relevant definition is the one in the rules the SPFL/SFA actually govern. Context.
Click to expand...
There is no context because it’s all vague enough that with a bit of spin And sfa “concern” they could hammer us and ignore the exact same from someone else.
tbh given your above post stating their opponents should be given the 3-0 win not even sure where our views differ.
 
Wilkinsvolley said:
There is no context because it’s all vague enough that with a bit of spin And sfa “concern” they could hammer us and ignore the exact same from someone else.
tbh given your above post stating their opponents should be given the 3-0 win not even sure where our views differ.
Click to expand...

Our views differ in that I think you are relentlessly pursuing the incorrect argument to penalise them. As I've said multiple times, it is not about whether there should be some proper dealing with this, it is about doing it based on the actual rules which are relevant.

It is not vague, it is literally explicitly stated what makes a player eligible to play in the rules - posted in the thread already. Fielding an ineligible player is not applicable in this case.

As I've said (many times now) and I'm genuinely curious why are some like yourself so determined to pursue a clearly invalid line of attack when valid ones are available?
 
Der Berliner said:
Anyone actually knows what the guidelines / rules of the SPFL regarding fielding ineligible players is?

They have a few pages regarding the Covid-19 tests and a lot of "must"s in there, but not a word about penalties and sanctions.

I take it that Bolingoli was tested before the game as usual?

As for Celtic (or indeed any club), they acted totally irresponsible with regard to where their players were before a game, which should receive a sanction of its own.
Aberdeen's party is a slightly different matter, as they did not play a game shortly after breaking the rules.
Click to expand...
Been really busy the last few days ,so don’t want to trawl through all the related threads .

Need to ask the question ,Has Mulraney had any comment on this situation.I haven’t noticed any comments from him or Doncaster .
 
Bluenose1979 said:
Our views differ in that I think you are relentlessly pursuing the incorrect argument to penalise them. As I've said multiple times, it is not about whether there should be some proper dealing with this, it is about doing it based on the actual rules which are relevant.

It is not vague, it is literally explicitly stated what makes a player eligible to play in the rules - posted in the thread already. Fielding an ineligible player is not applicable in this case.

As I've said (many times now) and I'm genuinely curious why are some like yourself so determined to pursue a clearly invalid line of attack when valid ones are available?
Click to expand...
I commented on a thread whose title was literally telling us that ineligible was different to shouldn’t have played. That’s why I used the silliness about words. I’m not dictating which line of attack Rangers or anybody else should be using. I was highlighting somebody starting a thread to possibly muddy the water. I think I’ve stated on the main thread that there’s a disrepute charge that fits so many things.
 
Wilkinsvolley said:
I commented on a thread whose title was literally telling us that ineligible was different to shouldn’t have played. That’s why I used the silliness about words. I’m not dictating which line of attack Rangers or anybody else should be using. I was highlighting somebody starting a thread to possibly muddy the water. I think I’ve stated on the main thread that there’s a disrepute charge that fits so many things.
Click to expand...

It is different though - that's the point. Regardless of whether his wording was clunky, the OP's point is entirely correct. Player ineligibility in this context and a government regulation stating he shouldn't be out the house are entirely different things.

Based upon the law he shouldn't have played. Based on the rules of the SPFL he was eligible to.

The law has punished him, the SPFL haven't because as far as they are concerned he wasn't ineligible under their own rules and definition.

It's a mess, it's yet another glaring example of the SPFL's incompetence in governance, but it isn't actually rocket science to understand.
 
Bluenose1979 said:
It is different though - that's the point. Regardless of whether his wording was clunky, the OP's point is entirely correct. Player ineligibility in this context and a government regulation stating he shouldn't be out the house are entirely different things.

Based upon the law he shouldn't have played. Based on the rules of the SPFL he was eligible to.

The law has punished him, the SPFL haven't because as far as they are concerned he wasn't ineligible under their own rules and definition.

It's a mess, it's yet another glaring example of the SPFL's incompetence in governance, but it isn't actually rocket science to understand.
Click to expand...
If the law is broken then rules have to be broken too. Or would in any other country. I suspect the disrepute charge was drawn up in its first form to cover exactly that. Nobody needed rocket science, you were arguing against something that I wasn’t arguing in favour of.
 
Wilkinsvolley said:
If the law is broken then rules have to be broken too. Or would in any other country. I suspect the disrepute charge was drawn up in its first form to cover exactly that. Nobody needed rocket science, you were arguing against something that I wasn’t arguing in favour of.
Click to expand...

If you can't fathom why this line is not the case, then you're either ignoring the explanations in the thread or explaining it is not sinking in for you.

Your second sentence again firms this up.

The OP was correct. You have clearly been arguing against his point. But, for the sake of avoiding exhaustion, let's drop it.
 
Bluenose1979 said:
If you can't fathom why this line is not the case, then you're either ignoring the explanations in the thread or explaining it is not sinking in for you.

Your second sentence again firms this up.

The OP was correct. You have clearly been arguing against his point. But, for the sake of avoiding exhaustion, let's drop it.
Click to expand...
I have explained what I think in the third sentence. I was exhausted ages ago.
 
Tugay83 said:
They wouldn't have had him in the squad for Killie if they were aware he had been to Spain. Wouldn't have had him training with the rest of the squad. He'd have been put straight into quarantine. Why take the risk of infecting the whole squad for the sake of a shite 2nd choice left back?
Click to expand...

All day long, hate them as much as the next guy but no way on earth would even they be that stupid as to put the cnut on with a couple of minutes to go.

Not sure if true or not but he was apparently caught as flew back into Prestwick on a commercial flight, that’s beyond the “not the sharpest tool” comments I’d normally aim at someone like that.

Chuffed he did it but seriously mental behaviour!
 
T
High Society said:
If an employee of a company came into the workplace when they should have been quarantined then they would probably be faced with a charge of Gross Misconduct.
The real issues here are
1. When did Celtic become aware of his breach

2.Why is every employee who had contact with him not quarantined, including Kilmarnock’s

3 as a result of being unable to field at team they should be docked 3 points
Click to expand...
Thats not the case. Celtic were reinstated in the CL because of an oversight. Ie Le
Bluenose1979 said:
I feel like we'll just keep going round in circles because you're simply refusing to read the facts. The rule YOU quoted explicitly stated that the prohibition had to be by the footballing authorities. They did not directly or indirectly prohibit him from playing.

Players can't just show up and play, but IF they ARE registered then they are eligible to play. That is in the rules as quoted earlier. To be eligible you simply have to be registered with the club in line with the footballing rules and regulations. That's actually specified.

Nobody is arguing he shouldn't have the book thrown at him, but throwing a dictionary at him instead of the actual relevant rulebook is the kind of argument Lionel Hutz could get laughed out of court in about two minutes.
Click to expand...

You're right, we'll just have to agree to disagree! I'll send you a few Lone Star Beers to consume at the public flogging they so richly deserve for this!
 
The photo of Balingoli showed he was sitting in the front row on the Ryan Air flight. You often see VIPs in these seats and I used to wonder how they manage to book them. It could be via the normal online channels lie everyone else but I did hear these seats tended to be reserved until last minute. It sort of suggests they were booked for him by someone who had the right contacts, eg his club ?
 
Watch this space. If we are still winning games and looking good in the build up to the first game vs the paedo club, they will try and get the game postponed. There is no level they will not stoop to. And that includes endangering human lives.
 
Leopold said:
Yes they should. But he lied to them.
Click to expand...
Do you think he lied to Celtic? This would mean he has zero mates at the club and didn't speak to anyone before they had their days off and when he met up with his teammates again, didn't say a word about what he did on his days off..really?

That's just nonsense for them to suggest they didn't know


The guy whose pictures appeared in the paper yesterday posted the pictures on his social media account and no doubt he will follow Celtic players and their club also...
 
Rangers4ever1971 said:
yes a play on words but we need to be clear and concise on this matter

this is the issue he was not ineligible.

He was not allowed to play under the current government agreed guidance signed by all the clubs the Scottish government and Public Health Authority

last night on SSB (i know) this was getting batted back by keviens and its a play of words but that is why he is good at his job

this is the line we must use the ineligible bit is not true and the argument will be batted back down every time
Click to expand...

There is no way on earth they are going to get punished for that side of it.

Not to say that I think any of our players will breach the rules, but I'd rather keep our powder dry on this. We've got at least a year of COVID tests & so on, meaning all clubs are at the mercy of players & staff.

It's too dangerous a precedent to set this early.

...and that's not to stick up for them & Aberdeen. I just don't have a lot of faith in the self-control of footballers.
 
captcaveman said:
Do you think he lied to Celtic? This would mean he has zero mates at the club and didn't speak to anyone before they had their days off and when he met up with his teammates again, didn't say a word about what he did on his days off..really?

That's just nonsense for them to suggest they didn't know


The guy whose pictures appeared in the paper yesterday posted the pictures on his social media account and no doubt he will follow Celtic players and their club also...
Click to expand...

Yeah I think he lied to Celtic. I'm not struggling to see how that would be possible.

He wouldn't be sitting quietly & allowing his reputation to be tarnished like this if they were party to it.
 
We couldn't play Morelos after the winter break even though he's our player.

If we'd fielded him against St Mirren, we'd have been charged with 'Fielding an ineligible player'.

The idea that Bolingoli wasn't an ineligible player because he has a contract is fùcking laughable.
 
Cambuslang Bear said:
Watch this space. If we are still winning games and looking good in the build up to the first game vs the paedo club, they will try and get the game postponed. There is no level they will not stoop to. And that includes endangering human lives.
Click to expand...
That is the exact reason we should push for affected players being unavailable for selection and the games still to be played - albeit with a weakened team. A player isolating through COVID should be treated no differently from any player suffering from an injury/other illness.

Cant field a team ? Forfeit the points
 
captcaveman said:
Do you think he lied to Celtic? This would mean he has zero mates at the club and didn't speak to anyone before they had their days off and when he met up with his teammates again, didn't say a word about what he did on his days off..really?

That's just nonsense for them to suggest they didn't know


The guy whose pictures appeared in the paper yesterday posted the pictures on his social media account and no doubt he will follow Celtic players and their club also...
Click to expand...
I told my colleagues I was going to France a few weeks ago when I went to Alicante. I got away with it because I’m not famous :))

He knew he was doing wrong so it’s not impossible he kept it quiet.

The way the mentally challengeds handled it after the fact is a different matter.
 
[/QUOTE]
Leopold said:
I told my colleagues I was going to France a few weeks ago when I went to Alicante. I got away with it because I’m not famous :))

He knew he was doing wrong so it’s not impossible he kept it quiet.

The way the mentally challengeds handled it after the fact is a different matter.
Click to expand...
Troll
 
Troll
[/QUOTE]
What are you slabbering about? I’m a troll because I think it’s possible he never told anyone at the Club he was jumping on a flight to Malaga on his time off? Right you are pal, don’t be upset because you couldn’t understand the point I was making earlier and went away on a wee tangent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top