Rangers: Enemies at the gate

Ally McCoist is annoyed.

Mark Hateley is annoyed.

The Rangers supporters are so annoyed that they've reached a hysteric stage of fandemonium.

Yes, there's been a lot of rage flying around Scottish football this week. Most of it emanating from an enfeebled Ibrox.

An SFA Judicial Panel, basing their decisions on the evidence provided by an independent inquiry, went after Rangers in a big way.

Some of the financial punishments dished out were the maximum allowed in the SFA's own guidance.

The additional punishment of a 12 month transfer embargo stopped short of the maximum sanction - expelling the club from the SFA - but it remained surprisingly punitive.

The sanctions were aimed at both Craig Whyte - banned for life from any involvement in Scottish football - and Rangers, the club he has helped on the road to ruin.

One of the things that so annoyed McCoist was that Rangers were punished alongside Whyte.

In these things the club and the owner - and Whyte is still, to the best of anyone's knowledge, Rangers' biggest shareholder and the man with the keys to both Ibrox and Murray Park - are indistinguishable.

That's a hardship for the club but a reality. It's how these things work.

McCoist is naive and disingenuous to believe otherwise. Apart from anything else Rangers enjoyed an artificial advantage because the club - even if this was at the sole direction of Whyte - were able to sign, retain, pay and play players by completely bumping the tax man.

Not only should the club be punished for that but a transfer embargo actually seems a reasonable enough fit for the crime in question.

You can be sure that if - or when - UEFA come sniffing around this particular mess they won’t make the distinction between fly-by-Whyte and Rangers and they’d not look kindly on the SFA's panel making the distinction.

McCoist, Hateley and many fans have also argued with a certain vehemence that the Judicial Panel issued the punishments with a complete disregard for the future wellbeing of Rangers or the Scottish game.

Which is exactly as it should be.

The remit of this investigation into the gross mismanagement of a football club could not and should not have been:

"Go easy lads, Rangers are in a bit of a fix."

Doesn't work like that.

I can accept that these SFA sanctions don't help Rangers and that it would be easier if both the SFA and the SPL were able to deliver verdicts and punishments simultaneously, rather than this gradual drip-drip of bad news, of Rangers driven to financial insanity by a Chinese water torture of fines and sanctions.

But such is the football environment that Rangers helped create. And, on these particular charges, it wasn't for the panel to make life easier for Rangers or for potential new owners like Bill Miller or Paul Murray's Blue Knights.

The SFA, and any disciplinary procedures it has, should serve the game, not serve Ally McCoist, Rangers' administrators or the Rangers Supporters Trust.

But, say some, whither the SFA when Craig Whyte took the reigns?

An absurd revisionist history is growing up that suggests the SFA could and should have stopped Whyte from taking over.

It's true that the SFA's fit and proper procedures are shambolic, setting an honesty threshold that would shame a bad online dating site.

But the SFA can't stop someone buying shares. Whyte - encouraged by the warm backing of Rangers supporters - wanted to buy the club, Sir David Murray and Lloyds TSB were absolutely desperate to get a financial Titanic off their hands.

Even if they'd raised objections the SFA would have been powerless to stop Whyte paying his pound and installing someone like Gary Withey as chairman and perhaps someone from Duff & Phelps as company secretary.

And, you know, if they'd done that at the time I'm fairly certain that a number of Rangers fans would have lost their heads over unfair interference in the commercial interests of their club.

So Ally McCoist is wrong. And those who have backed his stance are wrong.

The Judicial Panel acted within their remit and handed out a punishment that was certainly remarkably stringent but quite within their power.

As is correct Rangers, who were represented at the hearing, will have a right to appeal.

That is how the SFA's disciplinary procedures work. It was the system voted on unanimously by all clubs - including Rangers - just last summer. A new process that, at the time, appeared to create an unusual but welcome unity and cohesion in the Scottish game.

And it was a system that had the anonymity of panel members at its heart. A mechanism required, we must concede, because of the schism in Glasgow football. An assurance that the game remained governable.

If I'm allowed to jump on the bandwagon of rage, what's left me seething is the way that McCoist, egged on by cheerleaders in the press, has decided that it's a process that's not fit for purpose if it delivers a verdict that Rangers don't agree with.

I'll accept that it was nothing but anger that led McCoist to call for the anonymity of the three panel members to be lifted.

Anger at the predicament his club finds itself in, frustrated rage at the dying of the Ibrox light, at the realisation that this is a club which, even if they had the money, simply cannot buy a break at the moment.

An anger that led him to a moment of gross irresponsibility, an unreasonable demand supported by a sneering and misguided dig at the independence of the panel.

It didn't take too long for his words to have an impact.

The names were posted across the internet, the police raised concerns about the safety of the three men, the SFA issued the following statement:

"The Judicial Panel consists of volunteers from across the spectrum of sport and business in Scotland. They are appointed on the basis of anonymity yet all three panel members have reported intrusion into their personal and work lives, including abusive and threatening communication.

"This has been extended to directors of the Scottish FA, whose private details have been published on internet sites and who have, themselves, been victims of abusive communication.

"This culminated tonight in a visit by Strathclyde Police, who are taking seriously the threats made towards the individuals involved. We are thankful for their advice and support in these matters."

A couple of weeks ago the Daily Record’s Jim Traynor was ruminating on the awfulness of Twitter:

“Too many halfwits with twisted agendas are attracted to these sites but if these very platforms allow people to let off steam and expound their half-baked theories they probably are of some use to the rest of society. They probably cut down on the number of nutters roaming the streets muttering to themselves.”

That was very good of Jim. Because it offers a wonderfully lucid description of the “half baked” rant that passes for Mark Hateley’s column in today’s Record.

Mark even names the three members of the panel. Proving that where Twitter leads the Record’s nutters will follow.

The Telegraph pitched in with an odd Roddy Forsyth article that not only named the men but apparently felt the need to offer up some sort of half hearted attack on their suitability for the job.

I would agree that there should have been more transparency. The reasons for the decision should have been delivered at the same time as the judgements.

But there was no need to name names. No need to essentially destroy a new disciplinary system before it had been properly evaluated.

No need to make it even more difficult for the game to attract knowledge and expertise from across society - the sort of people we need to clear up myriad messes caused by the "football men" that Hateley seems to think should be left in glorious isolation to ruin the game as they see fit.

No need to take Scottish football another step on this destructive path, this hysterical belief that if you don't agree with something you're perfectly within your rights to leave the game all but ungovernable.

All of which could have been avoided if McCoist had slowed down, taken a breath and, if he didn't already know, asked a colleague who was on the panel.

He chose not to, jumping instead on his soapbox for a bit of rabble rousing.

Maybe he thought the fans needed a rallying cry, maybe he thought there was danger of administration fatigue setting in and an injection of passion was required.

Maybe, and this is the worst possible scenario, he thought that such callous treatment of the original panel would ensure that an appeals panel would be fearful enough to treat Rangers leniently.

Maybe he wasn't thinking at all.

Whatever the reason, his misjudgement was huge.

What now?

Rangers will appeal.

I don't think the SFA should agree to hold that appeal before they've properly investigated any disciplinary issues that need to be addressed following McCoist's comments.

I don’t think they should agree to an appeal until after they have properly investigated who leaked the names of the original panel.

Those issues need to be resolved because there are those - inside Ibrox, in the press and in the Rangers support - who have gone out of their way to ensure that an appeal cannot be held without “fear or favour.”

If these things are not addressed then each individual on the SFA’s list of potential panellist must surely consider disengaging from the organisation and refusing to sit in judgement of an appeal hearing.

If that prolongs Rangers' agony then so be it. The SFA need to show a commitment to their own procedures and their own panels before they commit to the future of one club. And Rangers won’t need to look far to apportion blame for any delay in the process.

Would the end of Rangers also kill Scottish football? Possibly. But almost certainly not.

Still Rangers people - supporters and those within the club - seem to think they qualify for special treatment, that they are above normal standards because they “are” Rangers, that they can bully and threaten now because if Scottish football doesn’t do what Rangers want then Rangers will make Scottish football pay at some unspecified date when the club is not a financial basket case.

"The whole world's agin us, but we will rise and smite our enemies."

It’s a position that relies on the brassiest of brass necks and a tenuous grasp of just how deep in the mire Rangers find themselves.

I’ve said before that a little humility would go a long way. This week it was sadly lacking as McCoist flew off the handle, as Hateley launched his rant or as Sandy Jardine promised "sanctions" against those teams who don't respect Rangers the way they should.

They are doing their club no favours.

Faced with this kind of backlash it’s hard not think that the other clubs should just take the risk and give them no special treatment at all.

Maybe, as the Gurkha motto has it, it's better to die than to be a coward.

The sad thing about this week, and the long-term damage it might still do to the governance of the Scottish game, is that it's all something of a storm in a teacup.

Maybe a welcome one for Duff & Phelps, those beleaguered administrators at Ibrox, a deflection from their own travails.

Four days on from the deadline they set we still wait patiently for the announcement of a preferred bidder.

And wait and wait and wait.

Where do we stand?

Who knows? The longer it drags on the more convinced I am that Bill Miller's interest will fizzle out and that Paul Murray's Blue Knights can't gather the cash they need to satisfy the requirements of the administrators.

A sorry mess and one that must now mean liquidation is the by some distance the most likely outcome.

The Judicial Panel's appeal hasn't changed that one way or another. I doubt it will even speed up or slow down a process that is now surely geared to simply getting Rangers to the end of the SPL season.

Given the way a number of people have behaved this week it's likely that any sympathy for that predicament has sharply receded.

Like this? Like the Scottish Football Blog on Facebook.

Justice takes a break

So Lee McCulloch is free to play for Rangers tonight.

How can that be? Wasn't he red carded against St Mirren on Saturday?

That he was. For flinging an elbow. I've seen more heinous crimes on a football pitch. But I'd also say that the red card was justified.

Opinions, of course, are like certain anatomical features. We all have them.

Ally McCoist has his: McCulloch should not have been sent off so Rangers have appealed the decision.

That's fair enough.

Complications arise though.

It's Christmas. So the SFA's much heralded fast tracked disciplinary procedure has developed a breakdown. The main players are on holiday.

McCoist is adamant that he's not playing the system, he's simply standing by his man, seeking justice for the wronged party.

Who's to doubt to his sincerity?

But it's a handy loophole and one that a touch of foresight should have closed in advance.

This isn't really about McCoist or McCulloch.

It's about the SFA realising that their processes must be active as long as games are being played. Otherwise, in an Old Firm week, they're opening themselves up to a whole lot of nonsense.

Justice, and Stewart Regan's SFA revolution, is weakened if it needs a Christmas holiday.

The Scottish Football Blog blogathon took place in November in aid of Alzheimer Scotland and the Homeless World Cup. You can still donate to help two great causes.

Cheats, Divers and Bad Decisions

Sone Aluko got banned for diving.

Garry O'Connor got away with diving.

Ergo the new disciplinary procedures in place at the SFA are ridiculous and hellbent on making a mockery of the Scottish game. At best.

At worst the new procedures have been all but designed to penalise one team above others.

The new compliance officer and fast track appeal system is inconsistent, wrongheaded and - this being Scottish football - its cack-handedness is but a handy cover for some form of discrimination or favouritism.

That would be the conclusion you would draw from some of the more hysterical outpourings that greeted the news that Aluko's two game ban had been upheld yesterday.

I'd disagree.

My opinion: O'Connor dived and got lucky in his dealings with the panel. Aluko dived and got treated the way he should have been treated.

That might be an unfortunate turn of events for everyone but Hibs - those that believe in karma might afford themselves a wry smile - but it doesn't give us evidence enough to judge what has been quite a revolutionary change from the SFA.

So far the compliance officer has been faced with two similar incidents. He's made exactly the same call.

The independent panel - different panels in both cases - disagreed in the first case and agreed in the second.

We need a far bigger sample before we can properly conclude if the new system is working.

The idea that Aluko should have been cleared because O'Connor was cleared is odd. Every case will have differences and two wrongs don't make a right.

If the person who is tried for shoplifting before me gets off because the jury make a bad call should I expect to get off? Any disciplinary system that is forced to duplicate its weakest decisions will be destined to fail.

Ally McCoist fumed that the SFA had labelled his player a "cheat."

Well, yes, they had. Because that's what diving is. Cheating. They thought he'd dived so they punished him. I trust McCoist will avoid making any judgements about bad decisions that go against his team this season if the opposing manager protests that the player in question isn't a cheat.

We rage against the SFA for being an organisation of dinosaurs. Then we rage against them when they try and modernise.

That will lead us to an ungovernable game.

Will the new system be perfect? Of course it won't. That such decisions still rely on people to interpret events will lead to some differences in opinion.

Football's imperfect like that. That used to be part of its charm.

> Why a two game ban when a dive penalised in a game merits only a yellow card?

A dive caught in a game doesn't affect the outcome of the match. By deceiving the referee, and it's my opinion that Aluko was guilty of that, he won Rangers a penalty that might - not definitely but perhaps - have denied Dunfermline the chance to get something from the game.

Seems fair enough - although it does Dunfermline bugger all good - that his retrospective punishment should reflect that.

> As ever the focus seems to be on the SFA and the referee.

I would ask why Steve Conroy - and I suspected from watching it that his clear view may have been obstructed by Martin Hardie - didn't take a bit more time, perhaps consult with his linesman, before making the call.

Often, one feels, it would do our referees no harm if they just calmed down a bit and bought themselves a few seconds of composure.

But it's the players that dive. The idea - put around by any number of pundits - that it's part of the game and happens everywhere is wearing thin.

It's cheating. If players don't like being called cheats they should stop cheating.

You can still donate to the Scottish Football Blog Blogathon, 19 November 2011

SFA: The Ayes Have It

"There was an overwhelming desire to follow and be led. There was a real desire among the members for someone to take the game by the scruff of the neck and say 'let's change'.

"There was a recognition that we needed to do things differently and there was a real frustration and dissatisfaction with how we were. People hated seeing Scottish football being dragged through the gutter, if you like, for some of the things that were happening. They just wanted a solution, they wanted a way out, they wanted to get to a better place.

"It was a great opportunity for Campbell and I, who spent a lot of time travelling the country to outline the proposals, to hear what these people had to say and give them some confidence that what we were trying to do would hopefully get them some way towards that new, better place.

"Campbell is a very well respected administrator on the international stage as well as domestically and he and I make a great team. He is very personable, amiable and able to consult. He can influence the government and be a great lobbyist. I'm much more practical. I can drive hard and deliver change and deal with difficult situations. I'm not afraid to deal with conflict. I think together we can actually build Scottish football for the future.

"I am just eight months into the job and I think I have an awful lot to offer Scottish football and an awful lot I'd like to achieve in the game. It's a big day for me and a big day for Scottish football." (Scotsman)

A new day, a new dawn.

Stewart Regan, chief executive of the SFA, was positively gleeful as he welcomed the decision of that traditionally change-resistant organisation to embrace his plans for the future.

His reaction, eight months into the job, almost sounded like he was selling himself for the role once again. No coincidence either that he's so keen to build up his relationship with incoming president Campbell Ogilvie.

It's been eight months of misery for Regan. He clearly, rightly, feels that he inherited an organisation that was failing Scottish football. He also paid a fulsome tribute to outgoing president George Peat. It's probably kindest for me to say that a day of change came the day Peat departed. Let's leave it at that.

Now Regan's cleared the ground for real change. The committee structure is gone, the labyrinthine disciplinary procedure has been put out to pasture. He can now, finally, start to do his job properly.

So his joy is understandable. He delivered all this without a dissenting vote, a unanimity that Sepp Blatter probably couldn't buy.

A note of caution is needed. Votes, proposals, new structures, consensus. These are all steps forward. But meaningless if they are poorly executed.

The cathartic value will be lost if yesterday is seen as victory in itself.

And strip away the rancour and controversy of last season and we're still left with problems.

An under performing national team - you probably need to be in your twenties to remember a Tartan Army march on a major finals - is shadowed by an often ineffective and disjointed attitude to youth development.

An arrogant, unlistening and floundering SPL remains a threat to the SFA's ability to dictate change, our national cup competition struggles to attract a sponsor, the state of the SFL would drive a prudent accountant to drink.

The game has been left to rot for too long, let down and betrayed by an SFA that glorified the cult of the bungling amateur, an SFA that belligerently refused to accept change when it was obvious to all that the game was withering.

There's a big mess to be cleared up and some of the progress will be slow, some will remain resistant, agendas and vested interests will need to be either negotiated or stamped out.

Problems not of Stewart Regan's making. But he's now positioned himself as a force for change. He needs to deliver on that.

He has the McLeish Report to help him - one up on Blatter again, our political Henry has already committed to the cause and was never embroiled in the carpet bombing of Cambodia - and a new strategic plan labouring under the bile raising title of Scotland United: A 2020 Vision.

Delivery is everything now. Even slow progress, as long as it is measurable and obvious, will do much more than one meeting to convince football fans that an organisation guilty of the grotesque mismanagement of our game for so long is now the body can provide the impetus for change.

Regan is still a man with a lot on his plate. It augurs well that yesterday he also looked like someone who has rediscovered his appetite.

Good luck to him. The cynic in me suggests he'll need it.

The optimist in us all needs to hope he succeeds.

> Yesterday's changes in full (via STV)

• The Board would be reduced from 11 to 7, incorporating an independent board member and becoming a more strategic, rather than representative, Board. The Board will focus on matters of corporate strategy and top-line decision-making.
• The committee structure will be collapsed - including Disciplinary, General Purposes, Emergency - and an audit committee will be formed to ensure we act in line with best practice from a corporate governance perspective.
• The Disciplinary Procedures will be rewritten and a new Judicial Panel will be convened, led by a new Compliance Officer, to deal expediently with all disciplinary matters across SFA jurisdiction. This will be semi-autonomous from the SFA for purposes of transparency.
• The Articles of Association will be rewritten.
• Two new operational Boards will be created underneath the main Board - the Professional Game Board and Non-Professional Game Board. This will enable greater efficiency of decision and allow those involved in Professional and Non-Professional game to focus solely on matters under their umbrella.
• These changes will form part of a new SFA strategic plan: Scotland United - A 2020 Vision. This will be founded on the following strategic pillars: Performance – with focus on elite talent and coaching development including National Teams qualification for major championships and world class coaching and refereeing, Strong, Quality Growth - broadening the game at grassroots level across the spectrum of football, including referee recruitment, Greater Financial Returns, Trusted and Respected to Lead.

SFA: Another Day of Scottish Football Gloom

Howls of anguish yesterday as Scotland witnessed an outrageous miscarriage of justice.

Of course we didn't.

Rather we saw three men who should have known better treated leniently by the Scottish Football Association.

Rangers players El-Hadji Diouf and Madjid Bougherra were given fines following their red cards in the Scottish Cup replay at Celtic Park. Both players were warned over their future conduct and, in the unlikely event that they are in Scotland next season, will serve their automatic Scottish Cup suspensions.

Ally McCoist, involved in a spat with Neil Lennon, had his automatic two game suspension wiped out.

Bring on the outrage.

Paul McBride QC, who has represented Neil Lennon this season, led the assault on the SFA:

"The SFA are tonight officially the laughing stock of world football and they have been shown to be not merely dysfunctional and not merely dishonest but biased."

Damning stuff. He's wrong about us being the laughing stock of world football. World football doesn't care. That's a problem. But not one that need detain us here.

The three decisions handed down today involved no bending of SFA rules. The disciplinary committee acted within their rights, within the scope of the SFA's needlessly woolly rules.

Nor did the decisions leave Neil Lennon as the fall guy in the whole affair. Faced with the same charge as McCoist, Lennon chose not to appeal. Instead, and here they probably did the Scottish game a favour, McBride and Lennon made the decision to accept the ban and point out a flaw in the SFA's own rules about the serving of suspensions.

But in doing so they accepted a blame that McCoist chose to fight. Had they done the same they might have been in the position of proving by direct comparison that there are different rules for different clubs. They chose not to.

In light of the fall out from that game, in a season where we've had the remarkable experience of our referees refusing to officiate at games, we might have expected the SFA to exercise a firmer hand on the Rangers trio.

That didn't happen.

Why?

McBride, and he's not alone among Celtic supporters or supporters of clubs throughout the land, suggests dishonesty and bias.

There have been incidents of dishonesty this season, that much is undeniable.

Bias - widespread, institutional bias - is more difficult to measure. It is, I suspect, an easier claim to make on the BBC than it is to prove in a court of law.

The problem the SFA have is their own incompetence.

When an organisation is so shambolic, so riddled with errors and misjudgements, so arrogant in their silent refusal to explain decisions, it doesn't take an eminent lawyer to point to inconsistencies and it doesn't take a particularly conspiratorial mind to join the dots and cry "bias."

And the problem with "dysfunctional" amateurs is that the more you point out that they are "dysfunctional" amateurs the more likely they are to make dysfunctionally amateur decisions just to spite you.

Which in turn makes it easier to accuse them of bias.

And thus does the self perpetuating stench of Scottish football engulf us all, the game slowly suffocating in a smog of mismanagement, accusations and bloody mindedness.

I suspect we saw all of that yesterday. The most depressing thing is that none of this is anything new.

What I don't see, what we need to see, is a way to move the game forward.

I don't see it in the smiling arrogance of Diouf and Bougherra as they left Hampden.

I don't see it from Paul McBride as he launches another broadside.

I don't see it from Celtic as they circle the wagons.

I don't see it from the SFA as they batten down the hatches.

I don't see it from fans of either side of the Old Firm as they launch once more into their tiresome cyberwars.

I don't see it from other clubs as they struggle with their own finances and see a civil war developing that they don't want to be involved with.

Not all the answers are simple. But some are.

Standard punishments available to the disciplinary committee. Simple.

A more transparent committee system within the SFA. Simple.

A disciplinary committee that is partly drawn from but entirely independent of the SFA, SPL or SFL. Simple.

The SFA transformed from an arrogantly silent private members club to a professional organisation that serves the game not its blazered apparatchiks. Simple.

Is all this too much to ask for?

It better not be. Because, on and off the pitch, this season has been dire, too often riven with a destructive vitriol that is defeating the cause of constructive change.

And that can't go on.

Or pretty soon we'll find ourselves longing for the day when world football chose to ignore us rather than laugh at us.

At least we have something to ignore at the moment.

Too many more seasons like this, too many more days like yesterday, and we might find that we have nothing left to fight over.

> Standard punishments? Easier for some offences than for others. But it should be simple for offences like raising your arms towards the referee. An automatic ban for any physical contact with an official while debating a decision would persuade players to stop. Given the way the word "manhandle" was stressed yesterday you might think that Bougherra had come over all nightclub bouncer and marched the referee in a headlock to the Celtic Park exit. He didn't. Rather he was the yappity ned in the nightclub remonstrating with the barman over his lack of ID. Nonetheless a no questions asked automatic three game ban would probably have stopped him doing it.

> Spare a thought for Stewart Regan. The SFA's chief executive sees the need for change but is powerless to enact it. When George Peat goes this summer Regan has to begin to assert his authority. Here's hoping.

> As sure as night follows day, there was going to be a refereeing controversy in Celtic's win at St Johnstone last night. And what a corker it was. Iain Brines might have a perfectly valid reason for ignoring Michael Dubery's handball. I'm buggered if I know what that reason might be. It's the sort of howler that goes beyond bias or simple incompetence and has to be classified under moment of madness.

SFA Hit Neil Lennon For Six

Dearie me. Just when you thought we'd all recovered our equilibrium along comes another furore, threatening to turn into a Scottish football civil war.

Celtic manager Neil Lennon has been hit with a six match ban for losing the rag at Tynecastle after his team were denied what appeared to be a fairly blatant penalty and Joe Ledley was sent off in a 2-0 defeat to Hearts.

Lennon was given an automatic two match ban. He subsequently appealed and it was at yesterday's appeal hearing that the SFA's Disciplinary Committee took the decision to treble that original punishment citing excessive misconduct.

That this news has not received a particularly warm welcome in certain quarters would be an understatement.

Clearly this story is going to run and run. Here are some initial thoughts:

An "unprecedented" punishment? It's not. Derek Adams, then manager of Ross County, had an 18 match ban earlier this season. The circumstances were different but the idea that the SFA have quietly introduced something akin to capital punishment to deal with Lennon and Lennon alone is misleading.

It was a first offence. That makes no difference. I spent longer than anyone would want to yesterday reading the SFA's Disciplinary Procedures for Club Officials’ Misconduct. The number of offences is only relevant to the initial automatic suspension, at the appeals stage each case is treated as a one-off.

For once, and unfortunately for Lennon, the SFA have been as good as their word. After the referee's strike SFA chief executive Stewart Regan said:

"There is a process in place already for dealing with anybody from any club that steps out of line and those individuals are dealt with through the various committees who operate within the SFA and that will continue.

"But obviously we'll take a much tougher stance going forward."

It's Neil Lennon's bad luck - or depending on your viewpoint the SFA's good fortune - that this was the first such case to be considered since then.

My own view is that the punishment was harsh. We don't know the exact nature of what Lennon said to the fourth official although we can tell he was rather miffed.

Nor do we know how the appeals hearing unfolded.

So we are not in possession of the full facts. What we can say for certain is that the SFA have acted within the limits of the rules. They've been severe, I think overly severe, but they've done it by the book.

Excessive misconduct, incidentally, is defined as:

“Excessive Misconduct” shall include, but not be limited to, prolonged incidents of misconduct, the
continued use of offensive, abusive and insulting language, calling a match official a cheat, failure to comply with a referee’s requests, the adoption of threatening and aggressive behaviour towards a
match official.

Celtic's reaction?

Predictably they've decided against rolling over and accepting the punishment:

“Celtic and Neil Lennon confirmed today that they will be appealing today's decision by the SFA Disciplinary Committee to impose a six-match touchline ban.

“The matter is in the hands of the club's lawyers.

“We are very surprised and extremely disappointed at today's decision - we believe the punishment imposed was excessive in the circumstances and to our knowledge unprecedented for a first offence.

“We have maintained for some time that a range of SFA's processes and structures needed to be reviewed and updated. This view was supported recently by Henry McLeish in his review of the SFA.

“Today's events only underline and reinforce our opinion. Without question Celtic will be supporting its manager Neil Lennon in his appeal .

“As well as challenging the severity of the punishment imposed, our appeal will also focus on issues of procedural fairness and the manner in which such hearings are conducted.”

A bit of naughtiness in there. Celtic should be aware of the rules. As I've noted the first offence makes no difference once the appeal process begins.

And a broadening out of the case. The involvement of lawyers, we can imagine this to be Paul McBride QC, and an attack on the whole disciplinary procedure at the SFA.

An attack vindicated by the findings of the McLeish Report. I'm betting that George Peat is happy he didn't get a hard cover put on that report because he's about to be hit about the heid with it.

So where are we now? The SFA will claim that they've acted honourably and delivered on the get tough promises they gave to referees.

Celtic claim, with some justification, that the punishment is overly stringent and that the very method of deciding that punishment is flawed beyond repair.

We've got, in essence, another sorry mess.

There are faults on both sides. We all know the SFA is in need of urgent repair. Most of us could see that Lennon's behaviour towards the fourth official, however justified he felt at the time, could not go unpunished.

We can only wait and see what happens next. I dislike the idea that Celtic taking a sledgehammer to the SFA is the best way to bring about the change we all want.

I've also been of the opinion for some time that, for whatever reason, these are fights Celtic want to have. It seems the SFA and their Disciplinary Committee are now ready to go toe to toe with them.

Once again I fear that Scottish football, its reputation and the campaign for real modernisation are going to be the major casualties.

Aye, its a joy to be a fitba' fan in 2011.

> Celtic statement via STV

> The SFA's rules document. Thrilling read that it is.

The Scottish Football Blog News Feed