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

At the end of the day whether they knew or not is irrelevant, what is important is that they are responsible for the behaviour of their players, especially during this global crisis.

Remember this is a club that not that long ago were behind a push to have us docked points for the behaviour of our fans singing naughty songs.

Yet these scumbags refuse to accept any responsibility for the behaviour of their employees, and not just now but over the past 50 years.
 
You stick to the poet rhetoric. The SPFL rules relating to Eligibility are referenced in both an open fashion ie relating to any other law or rule and also specific to registration, suspension etc mentioned elsewhere in the SPFL rule book. First up, a club must not field a player who is not eligible to play. He wasn’t. Doesn’t matter why or in relation to what other rule or law, he wasn’t eligible to play and by default broke this SPFL rule. There are plenty of other angles Celtic are culpable, fill your boots, but this one generally has the harshest outcome, it shouldn’t be dropped.

poet rhethroric? I asked questions rather objectively?

Yet let me quote another Bear from another board:
I don't think that they fielded an ineligible player. The player apparently tested negative, which is what's required under the SPFL rules. The self-isolation rules are not football rules and therefore no rules have been broken.

And that is rules that are in existence right now. One would obviously assume that the self-isolation rules are part of the SPFL rules, but try and find that in their rules.

It would obviously be "hilarious" if he still develops Covid-19 symptoms now, if one was cynical.

As another poster remarked, Bolingoli is right now most likely being transformed into a seperate entity ...
 
They do but we have more class than that, all I care about is winning football games and not off the field battles because those are what get us nowhere.
Last season we won games on the field but walked away with no points due to not fighting these battles off the field. Kilmarnock being the prime example.
We're two weeks in and the Tims have their lead striker protected by the media and a situation where they could lose points has been rewarded with the threat of a threat of a tickle on the knuckle.
If that continues for the next 7 months we are winning zero.
 
It comes down to the exact wording of the SFA/SPFL rules on player eligibility. Do the provisions contain language which references 'outside world' circumstances away from registration, accumulated bookings and all the usual football admin stuff? Could a player that is supposed to be, for example, serving a jail sentence be counted as ineligible if he somehow managed to take the field?
 
Let's just focus on winning our games, thats all we need to worry about.



Of course we should focus on our own games but, this is another example of celtic players thinking they can act and do and behave how they want without punishment! Lennon said about the convicted racist Griffiths breach of the rules that it was " no big deal" ! Breaching COVID rules is nothing? Its a disgrace.

I want us as a support to keep the pressure on them about this as you can bet your life they would be demanding we were deducted points if this had been a Rangers player

I'll also add that the pictures of him getting off the plane had been posted on the social media account of a Celtic fan on the day he got there. Now, this Celtic fan will clearly follow not only Celtic players but Celtic FC.. They are lying that they didn't know and as a club should be docked points and the health and safety should be investigating them for breaching COVID rules in the workplace
 
Last edited:
I understood what Hugh said last night, with his wording, as we all did. He is on the books at Celtic and eligible to play...

But, digressing from Covid, is there a rule that says players should not play if they know legally they are to be elsewhere?

By law he should have been in quarantine.

Say he was a witness or cited to court, and opted to play football, what would happen?


(Maybe my scenario is way off course here).
Can’t understand why people put themselves under so much punishment listening to that garbage from this station
 
Last edited:
Of course we should focus on our own games but, this is another example of celtic players thinking they can act and do and behave how they want without punishment! Lennon said about the convicted racist Griffiths breach of the rules that it was " no big deal" ! Breaching COVID rules is nothing? Its a disgrace.

I want us as a support to keep the pressure on them about this as you can bet your life they would be demanding we were deducted points if this had been a Rangers player

I'll also add that the pictures of him getting off the plane had been posted on the social media account of a Celtic fan on the day he got there. Now, this Celtic fan will clearly follow not only Celtic players but Celtic FC.. They are lying that they didn't know and as a club should be docked points and the health and safety should be investigating them for breaching COVID rules in the workplace
Maybe you should also consider the league title they were given mate. Remember pig eyes words. This trophy is for the staff at the NHS. Not really giving one F@ck about the NHS when his players is doing all he can to make their jobs harder.
 
If I don't clarify it, are you going to report me to Neil?
Ha ha ha what a ridiculous response, you are the one running about saying he definatley came back on the Thursday ya hysterical wummin. Back your big bold claims up.
 
Surely before Sturgeons involvement getting the Aberdeen game postponed the SPFL had already made their stance on the "eligibility" issue quite clear by stating that of the 8 Aberdeen players involved none of them would be available for selection for their upcoming game.
So, on the precedent that they set, the Bheasts selected & listed a player who they then fielded this player in an SPFL match where they (the SPFL) would have classed this player as "ineligible".
We can play semantics on the meaning of ineligible but the SPFLs decision must carry forward from their Aberdeen decision and that is that Bolingoli was not eligible to play.
Whether the Bheasts are to be believed as to whether they knew about Bolongolis actions this is not the point. Bolingoli knew he was not eligible to be listed on the team sheet and therefore the Bheasts as a club are the responsible party.
 
The law of the land has penalised him (£480 fine) in line with the legislation.

The SPFL laws of the game do not legislate for breach of quarantine in relation to player eligibility. Unless you can show where they do. I've yet to see anything in the rulebook that says his eligibility to play was affected by the fact he should've been in quarantine. That's the hard reality - the SPFL can't penalise the club for breaking their eligibility criteria if he didn't break it.
What about breaking the law in order to play in the game? Surely that would be in some type of breach of contract law? He's been fined for the law breaking, doesn't that mean guilty? If big Dunc has climbed the wall at the Bar-L, would it have been okay for him to play?
 
Anyone heard whispers of an additional issue with Ping-Pong meant to be featuring in the news tomorrow. No information myself just an offhand comment I heard
 
Last season we won games on the field but walked away with no points due to not fighting these battles off the field. Kilmarnock being the prime example.
We're two weeks in and the Tims have their lead striker protected by the media and a situation where they could lose points has been rewarded with the threat of a threat of a tickle on the knuckle.
If that continues for the next 7 months we are winning zero.

Exactly.
 
From the SFA handbook 19/20

There is no handbook 20/21

The rules that were brought into place for this season are unknown. On May 14th the Covid JRG confirmed that there were rules being drawn up.

Whilst there has been zero disciplinary notice of complaint (not even disrepute) we can still hope for ineligible player sanctions.

Handbook 19/20 - https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/6066/scottish-fa-handbook-2019-20.pdf

79. SUBJECT TO ARTICLES AND RULES
79.1 A player having signed a registration form shall be subject to and shall comply with these Articles, the Laws of the Game and the rules, procedures and regulations of the Scottish FA, whose decision in all matters in dispute shall be final and binding, subject to any relevant appeals or arbitration procedure available in terms of these Articles, and all registration forms shall display prominently a statement to this effect. Failure to so comply by a player may result in the player being deemed ineligible to play for the club for which he is registered and/or being liable to such penalties or conditions as the Judicial Panel may
think proper.

79.2 A player who participates in any match played under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall also be subject to the terms of Article 79.1.
 
What about breaking the law in order to play in the game? Surely that would be in some type of breach of contract law? He's been fined for the law breaking, doesn't that mean guilty? If big Dunc has climbed the wall at the Bar-L, would it have been okay for him to play?

They're simply separate issues.

He broke the law and has been fined for it.

If there are SPFL regulations that cover that (ie disrepute) then that is what the relevant rule would be.

It's not Player Eligibility though.

To be clear, I'm not saying nothing should be done, or nothing wrong was done. I'm saying that folk saying he was ineligible and they should be docked points as per the Hearts example are barking up the wrong tree - unless anyone can point to the relevant part of the SPFL rulebook that covers this. Which hasn't been done yet.
 
From the SFA handbook 19/20

There is no handbook 20/21

The rules that were brought into place for this season are unknown. On May 14th the Covid JRG confirmed that there were rules being drawn up.

Whilst there has been zero disciplinary notice of complaint (not even disrepute) we can still hope for ineligible player sanctions.

Handbook 19/20 - https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/6066/scottish-fa-handbook-2019-20.pdf

79. SUBJECT TO ARTICLES AND RULES
79.1 A player having signed a registration form shall be subject to and shall comply with these Articles, the Laws of the Game and the rules, procedures and regulations of the Scottish FA, whose decision in all matters in dispute shall be final and binding, subject to any relevant appeals or arbitration procedure available in terms of these Articles, and all registration forms shall display prominently a statement to this effect. Failure to so comply by a player may result in the player being deemed ineligible to play for the club for which he is registered and/or being liable to such penalties or conditions as the Judicial Panel may
think proper.

79.2 A player who participates in any match played under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall also be subject to the terms of Article 79.1.

So which "Laws of the Game and the rules, procedures and regulations of the Scottish FA" did he breach?
 
So which "Laws of the Game and the rules, procedures and regulations of the Scottish FA" did he breach?

As my post clearly states

The SFA have not published 20/21 rules online, there is no 20/21 handbook.

The JRG confirmed on May 14th that Covid rules were being drawn up.

Second time today youve asked me to quote the specific rule he broke. Do you think I’m making up the facts above ?
 
From the SFA handbook 19/20

There is no handbook 20/21

The rules that were brought into place for this season are unknown. On May 14th the Covid JRG confirmed that there were rules being drawn up.

Whilst there has been zero disciplinary notice of complaint (not even disrepute) we can still hope for ineligible player sanctions.

Handbook 19/20 - https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/6066/scottish-fa-handbook-2019-20.pdf

79. SUBJECT TO ARTICLES AND RULES
79.1 A player having signed a registration form shall be subject to and shall comply with these Articles, the Laws of the Game and the rules, procedures and regulations of the Scottish FA, whose decision in all matters in dispute shall be final and binding, subject to any relevant appeals or arbitration procedure available in terms of these Articles, and all registration forms shall display prominently a statement to this effect. Failure to so comply by a player may result in the player being deemed ineligible to play for the club for which he is registered and/or being liable to such penalties or conditions as the Judicial Panel may
think proper.

79.2 A player who participates in any match played under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall also be subject to the terms of Article 79.1.
It's a tough one but we know how things would be if it had been Rangers.
The problem is that the SFA rule covers SFA law/rules.
The 14 days quarantine is the law of the land. So, Bolingo was ineligible to be out of his house. Does that make him ineligible to play in a game at Rugby Park under the SFA rules?
That call will be made by the SPFL/SFA and I expect it to have all the teeth and meaning of a UN Binding Resolution.
 
As my post clearly states

The SFA have not published 20/21 rules online, there is no 20/21 handbook.

The JRG confirmed on May 14th that Covid rules were being drawn up.

Second time today youve asked me to quote the specific rule he broke. Do you think I’m making up the facts above ?

I think unless there is a specific rule in place and written up, then claiming he has breached them is pointless. You're the one who said prove there isn't a rule. Which is quite obviously utterly backwards thinking when accusing someone of breaching one.

You've posted the above as if it backs your position, but it actually furthers the point. Unless there is a rule to breach, you can't breach it.

When we see CoVid rules that legislate for what we are discussing that were in place prior to what he did, then we will know the ineligible angle has validity.

Until then (IMHO) it is the wrong angle of attack and instead more viable arguments regarding disrepute or even challenging the "punishment" of postponing games (which presumably means they have "punished" the opposition in those matches unjustly are more viable and easier to argue.
 
They're simply separate issues.

He broke the law and has been fined for it.

If there are SPFL regulations that cover that (ie disrepute) then that is what the relevant rule would be.

It's not Player Eligibility though.

To be clear, I'm not saying nothing should be done, or nothing wrong was done. I'm saying that folk saying he was ineligible and they should be docked points as per the Hearts example are barking up the wrong tree - unless anyone can point to the relevant part of the SPFL rulebook that covers this. Which hasn't ben done yet.

If it comes about that a player doesn't have the correct immigration papers to be registered to play- is he eligible?
 
If it comes about that a player doesn't have the correct immigration papers to be registered to play- is he eligible?

If his registration is completed yes. If not, no.

A basic bit of short term memory to them trying to strip our titles based on fielding ineligible players will help with that one.
 
I think unless there is a specific rule in place and written up, then claiming he has breached them is pointless. You're the one who said prove there isn't a rule. Which is quite obviously utterly backwards thinking when accusing someone of breaching one.

You've posted the above as if it backs your position, but it actually furthers the point. Unless there is a rule to breach, you can't breach it.

When we see CoVid rules that legislate for what we are discussing that were in place prior to what he did, then we will know the ineligible angle has validity.

Until then (IMHO) it is the wrong angle of attack and instead more viable arguments regarding disrepute or even challenging the "punishment" of postponing games (which presumably means they have "punished" the opposition in those matches unjustly are more viable and easier to argue.

No. To quote John Brown on the step

‘Show us the Rules’

Because nobody knows what they actually are and I’ve posted about 3 threads asking where they are. Ive not declared anything.

All we know is that on May 14th. The JRG declared there was going to be covid specific rules.

If there is any rule around non compliance with government covid quarantine that article I’ve posted gives the SFA permission to declare anyone ineligible.
 
Ha ha ha what a ridiculous response, you are the one running about saying he definatley came back on the Thursday ya hysterical wummin. Back your big bold claims up.

Big bold claim? Suggesting a player stayed in Spain till the Thursday instead of the Tuesday? We're talking about a jaunt to Spain here, not the Appalachian Trail. Nothing big or bold about it.

Here's a wee clue. Have a look at Celtics training pictures between Monday & Friday.
 
No. To quote John Brown on the step

‘Show us the Rules’

Because nobody knows what they actually are and I’ve posted about 3 threads asking where they are. Ive not declared anything.

All we know is that on May 14th. The JRG declared there was going to be covid specific rules.

If there is any rule around non compliance with government covid quarantine that article I’ve posted gives the SFA permission to declare anyone ineligible.

I agree with the last paragraph. The rest is meaningless unless the rules exist.
 
They're simply separate issues.

He broke the law and has been fined for it.

If there are SPFL regulations that cover that (ie disrepute) then that is what the relevant rule would be.

It's not Player Eligibility though.

To be clear, I'm not saying nothing should be done, or nothing wrong was done. I'm saying that folk saying he was ineligible and they should be docked points as per the Hearts example are barking up the wrong tree - unless anyone can point to the relevant part of the SPFL rulebook that covers this. Which hasn't been done yet.


Isnt there anything in the COVID legislation itself for the duties of an employer?
 
Bolingoli is a separate entity and therefore this should have no impact on Sellik.

That said, can the club be held accountable if a player acts like an ar$ehole HOWEVER if the club knew about it and did nothing then they are fully accountable. I'm sure that the trustworthy people at SPFL who have never been known to lie will bring their best investigative team to delve deep into the matter.
 
They're simply separate issues.

He broke the law and has been fined for it.

.
..

No they're not.

Firstly he hasn't been fined for breaking the law. Celtic do not have the power to do that as its a summary offence and would need to be dealt with via sheriff/magistrate. The SFA handbook clearly states that all rules and regulations therein are subject to Scottish Law.

16.1 GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION
16.1.1 Subject to Article 1.5.4, these Regulations and all matters and proceedings arising
in connection with the Regulations shall be governed by the laws of Scotland.

Due to the law of Scotland Boli was not legally available for selection. Celtic are the ones who have broken the SFA/SPFLs rules and should be disciplined for that indiscretion. The player on the other hand should be subject to Scottish Law.
 
Semantics but I’m waiting to see what the SPFL do to the club and the player.

The player at very least should be on the end of a ban from the SPFL for knowingly playing when he should have been in quarantine. ( although it could be argued that his omission from the squad might be advantageous to the scum).

In my opinion the club should also be fined for playing a player who should not have been on the field whether they knew about it or not. They have a responsibility to ensure that their team do not risk the health of other teams by making sure that their COVID protocols are robust and in this case it would seem that they have not been, whether this was a deliberate act or my negligence on their part.
Probably best post I’ve seen on the subject but the club should be fined not just a wee 50 quid fine and shud be told if any other player whether they know about it or not breaks the government’s laws then no point deductions I’d ban them from playing for 2 weeks and if they are meant to be playing in Europe tough luck I’m sure uefa would have no qualms as to throwing them out and any games scheduled in the 14 days forfeited and a 3-0 victory awarded to the other team that would hurt them more than deducting 2 or 3 points
 
So sturgeon says this is the yellow card.Surely aberdeen players was the yellow card.Don't really know what she can do but bolingoli must be the red card in this fiasco.So what are the going to do. My guess is they'll wait for an easy target till they take action Sfa/spfl shit scared and owned by liewell and snp polluted with friends of celtic. Where is the condemnation from the football authorities? The wee tramp bigot from Alloa couldn't get in there quick enough when rumours regarding Rangers breaking covid rules were on the go a couple of weeks ago. The silence tells it all.Corrupt and owned by celtic
 
imagine this was a Rangers player we would of been fast tracked and already been docked 3points.
 
No they're not.

Firstly he hasn't been fined for breaking the law. Celtic do not have the power to do that as its a summary offence and would need to be dealt with via sheriff/magistrate. The SFA handbook clearly states that all rules and regulations therein are subject to Scottish Law.

16.1 GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION
16.1.1 Subject to Article 1.5.4, these Regulations and all matters and proceedings arising
in connection with the Regulations shall be governed by the laws of Scotland.

Due to the law of Scotland Boli was not legally available for selection. Celtic are the ones who have broken the SFA/SPFLs rules and should be disciplined for that indiscretion. The player on the other hand should be subject to Scottish Law.
You do know that that refers to any challenges to the Regulations must be under Scottish Law? That's a standard paragraph to most sets of rules and regulations.

It doesn't have the meaning you are trying to attach to it.
 
No they're not.

Firstly he hasn't been fined for breaking the law. Celtic do not have the power to do that as its a summary offence and would need to be dealt with via sheriff/magistrate. The SFA handbook clearly states that all rules and regulations therein are subject to Scottish Law.

16.1 GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION
16.1.1 Subject to Article 1.5.4, these Regulations and all matters and proceedings arising
in connection with the Regulations shall be governed by the laws of Scotland.

Due to the law of Scotland Boli was not legally available for selection. Celtic are the ones who have broken the SFA/SPFLs rules and should be disciplined for that indiscretion. The player on the other hand should be subject to Scottish Law.
It was said yesterday that he was fined by Police Scotland.
Thank you for posting (finally) something that may actually be relevant in the laws. I read it as referring to the law applying to how they govern the regulations, but it’s perhaps the closest thing to a relevant mention so far.
 
Isnt there anything in the COVID legislation itself for the duties of an employer?

Not aware of anything in the respect of what an employee does outside of working hours. But that would again be a legal matter outwith football, even if Celtic were to be held accountable for it it would presumably be a police matter, which they're quite adept at swerving...
 
Bolingoli is a separate entity and therefore this should have no impact on Sellik.

That said, can the club be held accountable if a player acts like an ar$ehole HOWEVER if the club knew about it and did nothing then they are fully accountable. I'm sure that the trustworthy people at SPFL who have never been known to lie will bring their best investigative team to delve deep into the matter.
He’s not a separate entity. His value will be reflected in their balance sheet. And he did not just act like an arsehole; his actions resulted in planned fixtures to be cancelled and, potentially, placed peoples lives at risk. That merits more than a slap on the wrist.
 
You do know that that refers to any challenges to the Regulations must be under Scottish Law? That's a standard paragraph to most sets of rules and regulations.

It doesn't have the meaning you are trying to attach to it.

Yes I know. Thew laws of the game as far as SFA/SPFL are one thing but Scottish law/legislation supersedes all of that. Are you suggesting that a player who is unavailable for selection because of adherence to the law of the country of residence, but is selected regardless, isn't a matter for dispute?
 
At the end of the day whether they knew or not is irrelevant, what is important is that they are responsible for the behaviour of their players, especially during this global crisis.

Remember this is a club that not that long ago were behind a push to have us docked points for the behaviour of our fans singing naughty songs.

Yet these scumbags refuse to accept any responsibility for the behaviour of their employees, and not just now but over the past 50 years.
How can they say they didn’t know anyway? Who didn’t know? Who’s supposed to know. They could say a separate employee was supposed to know every day to avoid any problem they liked. Any club or company in the world could use that excuse for anything.
“They“ would surely mean everybody who was supposed to know to avoid him playing, and if they don’t it lands on the most senior person. Have I just stepped in Akita shite?
 
Bolingoli is a separate entity and therefore this should have no impact on Sellik.

That said, can the club be held accountable if a player acts like an ar$ehole HOWEVER if the club knew about it and did nothing then they are fully accountable. I'm sure that the trustworthy people at SPFL who have never been known to lie will bring their best investigative team to delve deep into the matter.
They can’t just shrug and say we didn’t know and don’t know who was supposed to know. If the most senior person in the place is the tea lady then it’s the club’s responsibility to make sure she knows or the club suffers. She can’t just shrug and say well I’m just the tea lady so the club is in the clear. How do they manage to railroad this sort of crap every time?
He practically runs the game here but he can’t be held accountable for health and safety?
 
Let's just focus on winning our games, thats all we need to worry about.

This is our main priority. Let them worry about their players undermining his manager and club bosses. Their ship is sailing on choppy waters and if we can keep on sailing in a straight line and winning games it won't take long for those choppy waters to become very dangerous indeed for them.

If we continue to do our job we will force them into trouble one way or another.
 
Yes I know. Thew laws of the game as far as SFA/SPFL are one thing but Scottish law/legislation supersedes all of that. Are you suggesting that a player who is unavailable for selection because of adherence to the law of the country of residence, but is selected regardless, isn't a matter for dispute?

I don't think anyone has said there isn't anything to dispute. But then this is fairly typical of a huge part of the problem with our support. Anyone who points out a flaw in the argument being put forward is interpreted as defending/excusing or supporting the poet.

We constantly hear folk bemoaning the lack of fight in our support/club. I don't think the issue is so much not having fight, it's not doing it with brains. We don't box clever. We shoot off our mouths on red herrings and misinterpretations/lack of understanding of things and drive our own arguments into dead ends because we don't get the angle of attack right.

There's absolutely a dispute over a number of things here. Picking the right points to go after them on and shout about if critical.

The law supercedes the rules of the game, but it has already dealt with the player separately by him being fined by PS.

That doesn't in anyway change the laws of the game and whether or not the argument of player eligibility stands up here. If the laws of the game do not account for this in respect of eligibility, then it is not the point to go after him on because it will fail.

Much like their attempts to take our titles and argue we had played ineligible players due to undeclared side letters failed. They didn't understand their own rules and even though it ended up being the case that it was decided the players registrations should never have stood, they still failed to win the argument because the very fact they were registered made them eligible to play.

Pick the right argument to pull them up on. I'd focus more on disrepute arguments and why other clubs are specifically having the confirmed "punishment" applied to them when they have done no wrong.

Games should have been forfeited and points awarded to their opponents.

Why are we not focusing on that?
 
I don't think anyone has said there isn't anything to dispute. But then this is fairly typical of a huge part of the problem with our support. Anyone who points out a flaw in the argument being put forward is interpreted as defending/excusing or supporting the poet.

We constantly hear folk bemoaning the lack of fight in our support/club. I don't think the issue is so much not having fight, it's not doing it with brains. We don't box clever. We shoot off our mouths on red herrings and misinterpretations/lack of understanding of things and drive our own arguments into dead ends because we don't get the angle of attack right.

There's absolutely a dispute over a number of things here. Picking the right points to go after them on and shout about if critical.

The law supercedes the rules of the game, but it has already dealt with the player separately by him being fined by PS.

That doesn't in anyway change the laws of the game and whether or not the argument of player eligibility stands up here. If the laws of the game do not account for this in respect of eligibility, then it is not the point to go after him on because it will fail.

Much like their attempts to take our titles and argue we had played ineligible players due to undeclared side letters failed. They didn't understand their own rules and even though it ended up being the case that it was decided the players registrations should never have stood, they still failed to win the argument because the very fact they were registered made them eligible to play.

Pick the right argument to pull them up on. I'd focus more on disrepute arguments and why other clubs are specifically having the confirmed "punishment" applied to them when they have done no wrong.

Games should have been forfeited and points awarded to their opponents.

Why are we not focusing on that?

I didn't know PS had fined the player. So as far as I'm concerned that aspect of it has been dealt with. Personally I've never gone with the 'ineligible' view as he's clearly registered. My argument is that his club should be punished as there is no way, in the present circumstances, that they didn't know he had left the country.
 
Pick the right argument to pull them up on. I'd focus more on disrepute arguments and why other clubs are specifically having the confirmed "punishment" applied to them when they have done no wrong.

Games should have been forfeited and points awarded to their opponents.

Why are we not focusing on that?

You have a point but thats a very subjective process and involves more than Celtic.

I’m totally focussed on the lack of rules on the SFA website when the JRG stated that covid rules were coming on 14th May. Its a simple thing, what are this years rules.

If theres a specific covid rule relating to non compliance with government quarantine regulation then its open shut case.

You can then follow that with disrepute for the future postponed matches which may take longer to get through.

Given the regularity with SFA disrepute charges for all sorts of nonsense. To hear absolutely nothing regarding the matter is very unusual, not sinister, just unusual and suggests somethings still being looked at.

The SFA updated their Judicial Protocol Procedure document on Monday 10th August. Theres no declaration of what changed.
 
I didn't know PS had fined the player. So as far as I'm concerned that aspect of it has been dealt with. Personally I've never gone with the 'ineligible' view as he's clearly registered. My argument is that his club should be punished as there is no way, in the present circumstances, that they didn't know he had left the country.

Agree 100%
 
You have a point but thats a very subjective process and involves more than Celtic.

I’m totally focussed on the lack of rules on the SFA website when the JRG stated that covid rules were coming on 14th May. Its a simple thing, what are this years rules.

If theres a specific covid rule relating to non compliance with government quarantine regulation then its open shut case.

You can then follow that with disrepute for the future postponed matches which may take longer to get through.

Given the regularity with SFA disrepute charges for all sorts of nonsense. To hear absolutely nothing regarding the matter is very unusual, not sinister, just unusual and suggests somethings still being looked at.

The SFA updated their Judicial Protocol Procedure document on Monday 10th August. Theres no declaration of what changed.

I don't disagree with any of that.

If there aren't specific rules, then why not? Utterly braindead to go into this season without them clearly defined and in place - however, I suspect that is essentially what has happened.
 
poet rhethroric? I asked questions rather objectively?

Yet let me quote another Bear from another board:


And that is rules that are in existence right now. One would obviously assume that the self-isolation rules are part of the SPFL rules, but try and find that in their rules.

It would obviously be "hilarious" if he still develops Covid-19 symptoms now, if one was cynical.

As another poster remarked, Bolingoli is right now most likely being transformed into a seperate entity ...
Sorry my friend, no idea why your post and another came up in my intended response to the op. You make some valid points. Nothing poetish about what you said. I can see why you were baffled by my mistake.
 
It is
They're simply separate issues.

He broke the law and has been fined for it.

If there are SPFL regulations that cover that (ie disrepute) then that is what the relevant rule would be.

It's not Player Eligibility though.

To be clear, I'm not saying nothing should be done, or nothing wrong was done. I'm saying that folk saying he was ineligible and they should be docked points as per the Hearts example are barking up the wrong tree - unless anyone can point to the relevant part of the SPFL rulebook that covers this. Which hasn't been done yet.
It is a player eligibility issue and they are in contravention of SPL rules. I’ve read the rule book in its entirety.
 
I agree with the last paragraph. The rest is meaningless unless the rules exist.
I agree with you to an extent, however, what i wondering (not stating) is that if a player knowingly breaks the law to fulfill his contract (play football) is that also in breech of his registration or his right to play in the game.
 
It is

It is a player eligibility issue and they are in contravention of SPL rules. I’ve read the rule book in its entirety.
“Eligibility

section 12. A Club participating in an official match must ensure that those of its Players Playing in the match are eligible to play in such a match.”

section 16. Any club which (I) Plays a player who is not eligible to play.

shall Be in breach of these regulations.”

section 16 (ii) and 16. (iii) talk about player registrations and other such like contraventions within the document. 16 (I) does not take any context from the rules and is open.
 
I agree with you to an extent, however, what i wondering (not stating) is that if a player knowingly breaks the law to fulfill his contract (play football) is that also in breech of his registration or his right to play in the game.

In simple terms no. Unless the rules have changed (which admittedly they might have) his registration is a relatively simple thing that stands once it's in place. In our case, the argument was that it could be withdrawn moving forward but you couldn't "unregister" a player retrospectively for games played.

I doubt in this case anyway his breach would result in being unregistered regardless. It would more be a case that a specific rule stated he was not eligible for selection if under quarantine in line with government regulations (not guidance).
 
Back
Top