Trending
Celtic News Now
Celtic Quick News on News Now
Celtic Quick News
You are at:»»Celtic v Motherwell, Live updates

Celtic v Motherwell, Live updates

1078
By on CQN BLOG & Comments

Live updates will appear below after 15:00.

Click Here for Comments >
Share.

About Author

1,078 Comments
  1. Pages:
  3. 1
  4. ...
  5. 22
  6. 23
  7. 24
  8. 25
  9. 26
  10. 27
  11. 28
  12. 29

  1. ryecatcher on

    henr1k…..

     

     

    Have heard that Snodgrass is a certainty to be wearing the Hoops before the end of January.

     

     

    Norwich are desperate to hold on to him but Mrs. Snodgrass is very keen to be around her family in Glasgow.

     

     

    It will happen and based on his performances for Leeds and Norwich in last 3 or 4 years, I’m very happy about this.Think he will be sensational playing for the team he always wanted to play for.Smashing player,he really is.

     

     

    Welcome home Robert I hope.

  2. Kayal33 on

    hen1rik

     

    12:24 on 19 January, 2014

     

    From Celtic rumours

     

    Rumour in Norwich that we’ve had a £4.8m bid for snodgrass turned down.

     

     

    Good player but not at silly money. Especially as he plays in a position where we don’t require strengthening. He’s neither a striker nor an attacking midfielder, another winger (albeit a good one) is not required at present unless someone, Forrest? Boerrigter? are leaving.

     

    We should just ignore the EPL and their overpriced/overpaid players.

  3. Cowiebhoy supporting the Celtic to 3 in a row on

    Pfayr

     

     

    I should have added, the SPFL has a new set of rules, so is it still in them ?

     

    Some clubs though are still covered by SFA rules, so it’s up in the Ayr :-)

     

     

    Hail Hail

  5. tommytwiststommyturns on

    Wee Cow Pat, warrior for sporting integrity, spouting guff on MOTD2 Extra….

     

     

    Turd!

     

     

    T4

  7. Cowiebhoy supporting the Celtic to 3 in a row on

    Kayal33

     

     

    Any idea what was wrong with Boerrigter yesterday ? Not even on bench

  8. ryecatcher on

    Tommy twists….

     

     

    Apologies for the id confusion mate……..

     

     

    This being stone cold sober on a Sunday morning lark is not good.

     

     

    NeedbackoantheswallysoonCSC

  9. Kayal33 on

    Cowiebhoy supporting the Celtic to 3 in a row

     

    12:37 on 19 January, 2014

     

     

    Manager said in post match interview that Boerrigter & Samaras got injured in training on Friday

  10. BOBBY MURDOCH'S CURLED-UP WINKLEPICKERS .........FC not PLC on

    KAYAL33

     

     

    Boerrigter injured?

     

     

    Stone me,I never saw that one coming!

  11. ryecatcher on

    Starry plough….

     

     

    He is a very creative midfielder who also plays on the wing when required.

     

     

    Great engine,good crossing ability,decent with dead balls,and knows where the goal is whenever a scoring chance comes his way.

     

     

    Now approaching his prime at 26……..exactly what we need to create chances for strikers.

     

     

    Our strikers don’t score because we don’t create chances for them…..simples.

     

     

    Norwich winner yesterday in 88th minute was an assist from him.

  12. Joe Filippis Haircut on

    Kayal33 Yes Sammi ran into Boerrigter afterwords Sammi said he didnt see him as he is just like a Ghost. H.H.

  13. corkcelt- SUPPORTING THE DAM 5 on

    Just reading Sally’s latest input into the Huns Financial mess and maybe we are wronging the poor bloke. Maybe he just is as thick as a plank .

  14. tommytwiststommyturns on

    ryecatcher – no worries mate, you not feeling better for it?!

     

     

    Time for reheated pizza!

     

     

    T4johnnyfartpantsCSC

  15. starry plough forza oscar on

    ryecatcher

     

     

    Sounds like the boy we just signed from Norway unless we’re shipping out two or three I don’t see us splashing out on two midfielders and God forbid no striker. That being said I was one of the ones who said the lack of creativity in the midfield was the root of the problem at Celtic for the strikers..

     

     

    Transfer windaes!!

     

     

    He’s from the Gallowgate I see young Snodgrass..

  18. ernie lynch on

    Wondering, as you do, about the surname Snodgrass, I had a look at Wikipedia, and found this.

     

     

    -‘The family name Snodgrass is said to originate from lands in the parish of Irvine, Ayrshire, known as Snodgrasse, or Snodgers, which were rented out in plots. Both forms are recorded in Ayrshire and in Glasgow between the 13th and 16th centuries. In 1528 a charter from the King lists the lands of ‘Snotgerss’ as being one of the confirmed possessions of Hugh, third Earl of Eglinton’-

     

     

    Snotgerrs. Irvine.

     

     

    Plus ca change.

  19. tommytwiststommyturns on

    To be honest, we don’t really need a prolific striker to win this league and probably the cup. We do however, need to go into the CL qualifiers with a talented and confident striker or strikers to ensure we score the goals to guarantee entry to the group stages.

     

    Strikers who are very familiar with their team mates due to playing alongside them for 4 or 5 months.

     

     

    T4

  20. ryecatcher on

    Tommy twists……

     

     

    My auld da,who’s now a very sprightly 84,went to his doctor and asked him if we would live a lot longer if he gave up the Golden Virginia and Black Bottle Whisky most nights.

     

     

    ‘Naw it will just feel that way’ the Doc replied.

  22. Shuggiebhoy67 on

    Is it just me or are we being drip fed the new corporate logo of Celtic PLC?

     

    CELTIC 2014 A Team like no other,in Black and Gold shield,on the Official website and again on the big screen during the game yesterday

     

    Like no other Celtic?,Green and White,like?,or is it just to distance us from a GB inspired ” Glasgows` Green and White”

     

    am a paranoid or whit?

     

     

    the P word is for perspectivenoparanoiaCSC

  24. glendalystonsils on

    Opened the back page of the Sunday Mason this morning while waiting in the queue in a shop (I know, I know) and guess what the main, in fact the only story of yesterdays game was?

     

    You’re right, it wasn’t our 10th clean sheet, our magnificent unbeaten run in the league or putting more daylight between us and our nearest contenders.

     

    Why don’t they just go the whole way and make ‘We hate Celtic’ their standard sport headline?

     

    I won’t make that mistake again.

  25. ryecatcher on

    Ernie Lynch…..

     

     

    Malcolm Murray also looks up the origin of surnames on Wikipedia.

     

     

    Ask Alan Brazil.

  27. hen1rik on

    Sorry here’s that article in full.

     

     

    Illicit Chanting and UEFA Rules: Time for a definition

     

    Gregory IoannidisJan 19,20140 Comments

     

     

     

    There has been a lot of discussion regarding the ‘illicit chanting’ charge that UEFA applies in relation to ‘words’ uttered in football grounds by football fans. This is not a new phenomenon, but it generated enormous interest in December 2011 as a result of UEFA’s decision to charge Celtic FC for their fans’ ‘illicit chanting’ during a UEFA Europa League competition game.

     

     

    It is not the author’s intention to examine the particular facts of the Celtic FC incident back in 2011. This was done extensively elsewhere. The author’s main aim is to question the lack of a definition of the ‘illicit chant’ charge. This approach would suggest that it is only when a working definition of what ‘illicit chanting’ can be produced that the application of the charge could determine the legality of the sanctions applied on the offence.

     

     

    In doing so, the author also intends to examine whether the application of such charge follows the precepts of fairness and justice and the principles of proportionality and due process. To this extent, reference is also made to the necessity of the use of strict liability[1].

     

     

    Illicit Chanting and the Law

     

     

    It is well established law [2] that the regulatory framework of sporting governing bodies must be based clarity and certainty, as those who use must ensure that they understand their rights and obligations, as well as the normative environment in which they apply their trade.

     

     

    In the premises, UEFA’s relevant Regulation is article 11.2(e) of UEFA’s Disciplinary Regulations 2011. This Regulation states that disciplinary measures may be taken against member clubs in case of inappropriate behaviour on the part of their supporters including ‘the use of gestures, words, objects or any other means to transmit any message that is not fit for a sports event, in particular if it of a political, offensive or provocative nature.’

     

     

    Article 2 of UEFA’s Statutes sets out the legitimate aim pursued, which includes the promotion of football in Europe in a spirit of peace, understanding and fair play, without any discrimination on account of politics, gender, religion, race or any other reason. To that extent, the Statutes empower UEFA to implement any measures it deems appropriate to achieve the objectives and, subsequently, the legitimate aim pursued. In this instance, although not defined, the legitimate aim pursued is the separation of the sport of football from politics.

     

     

    Given our argument that clarity and certainty must accompany any application of the relevant charge against a club, we are left to wonder as to the legal definition, if any, of the charge of ‘illicit chanting’. UEFA Regulations do not define what illicit chanting is; as a matter of fact, they do not even include such a term as part of the relevant and possible offences.

     

     

    In the premises, one would have to question the validity of the term ‘illicit chanting’, as it is not prescribed in the relevant regulations. The literal interpretation of the word ‘illicit’ incorporates the explanation of something being ‘unlawful’. If ‘unlawful’ was what UEFA had in mind, we fail to discover – with respect – the word ‘illicit’ and/or ‘unlawful’ in the relevant Regulations. This poses a danger and it indeed creates unrest and a feeling of injustice amongst those who believe that without a clear definition of what is ‘illicit’, no such charge could ever acquire the necessary legal certainty.

     

     

    We submit that this lack of a clear definition and understanding of what is ‘illicit’ offends against several well-established principles of law. The requirement to describe the offence and clearly define the sanctions for such offence is essential and necessary, if the offender is to appreciate what the normative environment is and what behaviour he should follow [3].

     

     

    Strict Liability & Proportionality

     

     

    It is our respectful submission that UEFA cannot achieve the aim pursued without the application of strict liability rules. For the lay person, such a rule demonstrates its harsh nature, as it can be applied in a very arbitrary and capricious way [4]. For us, it represents an anachronistic form of ‘panic law’ which does not take into consideration the good intentions of the club towards elimination of the problem.

     

     

    The current jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport clearly accepts that strict liability is a necessary ingredient towards achieving the legitimate aim pursued [5]. There is no doubt in our minds that the rule does not leave any room for manoeuvre and that the member associations and the clubs have to bear strict liability for the actions of their supporters, even if the clubs are not at fault themselves. The application of such a rule, therefore, is not primarily aimed at prevention and deterrence, but rather on curing the symptoms.

     

     

    UEFA could argue that without strict liability rules, it would never be able to sanction the perpetrators. We understand and accept this submission, as we understand the rationale that the fans are considered to be members of the club and hence, by imposing fines on the club itself it is hoped that the fans (as members of the club) would be discouraged from continuing with the same behaviour. However, we find ourselves at pains to accept such a contention would work in practice. The fact that inappropriate chanting occurs regardless of the fines imposed on the club is indicative of a failing effort, though not in its entirety, as it may be true that the existence of such liability reduces the amount of times such conduct would occur if it were not for the existing penalties. Therefore, is a strict liability approach reasonable? What measures are clubs expected to take and what measures can they reasonably pursue?

     

     

    We are of the view that when such conduct does occur, the actions of the club in discouraging such behaviour should serve as the primary basis for valid defence before being faulted and that the perpetrators themselves, in these situations, should carry the full consequence of their own actions. A reason for this view is that there are stakeholders involved (sponsors, players and fans themselves) whose interests in the club and game need be protected. When the club itself is fined, it renders the club as being at fault in the occurrence of such behaviour and if such behaviour remains rampant regardless of the consequences imposed on the club, the economic business of the club itself may be adversely affected.

     

     

    We submit that the application of sanctions may be unreasonable, depending on the analysis of all relevant facts and the surrounding circumstances of each case. In addition, if proportionality is to be interpreted in the light of reasonableness [6] , it is submitted that the sanction imposed for the benefit of the legitimate aim pursued must also take into consideration the severity and the impact of such sanction on the defendant. In the long term, such a sanction may affect the club in many ways. When there are other sanctions available – such as a warning, or a reprimand, or a suspension of the sentence or, perhaps, a combination of all – a Tribunal would have no difficulty in identifying the governing body’s rather improper diversion [7] from the reasonable sanctions available to it.

     

     

    Conclusion

     

     

    We conclude, therefore, that the most appropriate response to the problem of unlawful chanting in football grounds is to identify the roots of the problem, eliminate them and prevent from appearing again, rather than cure the symptoms by imposing fines and bans.

     

     

    Overall, it is our view that the football authorities must first clearly define what illicit chanting is and to include, where appropriate, a clear and unequivocal instruction that songs that glorify terror are to be considered ‘unacceptable behaviour’ or ‘offensive behaviour. [8]’ In addition, they must also be very specific as to what behaviour is to be considered ‘unacceptable’ and ‘offensive’; otherwise the result would be further added confusion and, in this instance, all the fines and bans in the world would fail to address the problem.

     

     

    Eventually, the problem will be eradicated only with education and co-operation between the stakeholders. We conclude, therefore, that attention must be paid on the element of prevention through education and co-operation and that when sanctions are to be applied, UEFA must take into consideration the previous behaviour and the culpability of the club, its attempt to eliminate the problem – if any – and the financial repercussions that follow the sanction and are likely to affect the club in the long term. Consequently, the strict liability rules must be scrapped as they are anachronistic, arbitrary and capricious and they do not correspond to the precepts of fairness and justice that are so necessary in this area of sports law.

     

     

    Dr. Gregory Ioannidis is an Advocate and Sports Lawyer, specialising in litigation and arbitration before the Court of Arbitration for Sport [CAS] in Lausanne, Switzerland. He is a registered lawyer with The FA and a Senior Lecturer in Law at SheffieldHallamUniversity.

  29. valentinesday on

    Maybe Norwich will accept our bid if we fling in the cost

     

    off the private jet they sent up for Hooper last January.

  30. ernie lynch on

    goldstar10

     

     

    12:55 on 19 January, 2014

     

     

    ‘corkcelt- Not according to hundits Gordon Dalziel and Gus McPherson, they assure as Ally is a VERY intelligent man’

     

     

    ###

     

     

    The evidence suggests he’s no one’s fool.

     

     

    A man of limited managerial ability (and that’s being charitable) has being earning a fortune from two business ventures both of which have been in serious financial distress, and has maneuvered himself to a position where he is virtually unsackable, short of him being paid off.

     

     

    That’s not a sign of stupidity.

     

     

    Don’t be fooled by the faux naivety and wide eyed innocence. He’s cunning and manipulative and is coining it on the backs of people who idolise him.

  31. Bobby Murdochs Ankle supportin Oscar Knox on

    Goldstar10, compared to DL and Macpherson, he may be very intelligent………..doubt it though.

     

     

     

    Bma

  32. ryecatcher on

    Starry plough

     

     

    He is indeed from the Gallowgate.

     

     

    Former pupil of St Mungos too,like a few of our legends.

  33. leftclick Together we will get justice for the Dam 5 on

    Don’t be fooled by the faux naivety and wide eyed innocence. He’s cunning and manipulative and is coining it on the backs of people who idolise him.

     

     

    Correct IMHO

     

    The sleekit deviant is anything but stupid when it comes to bleeding money out of his own.

     

    Including his shares and contract he most have earned £3m for carrying the carcass about coming out with we soundbites that have been fed to him by a well paid PR crew

     

     

    One of the worst kind again IMHO

     

    Till later all

  34. goldstar10 on

    Can’t argue with any of that Ernie, but being praised for being able to go to the City of London to discuss corporate finance with the Square Mile’s top investment bankers makes McCoist almost God like.

     

    With lies like that being spouted over the airwaves no wonder he feels fireproof!

  35. Burnley78 on

    HJ. TTTT

     

     

    It’s Kevin McKenna who is the journalist who has written this terrific and accurate article in my opinion.

  36. BOBBY MURDOCH'S CURLED-UP WINKLEPICKERS .........FC not PLC on

    BURNLEY78

     

     

    Well spotted. Kevin McCarra took the dunny money and left The Guardian a little while back.

     

     

    Shame,he is a talented journo. Not many of them around nowadays.

  37. ryecatcher on

    ‘That’s their problem,but I can’t deny I’m enjoying watching what’s happening to them’

     

     

    Ally McCoist interview in Evening Times 1994

  41. ryecatcher on

    Let’s put this Skwerr sausage / Black pudding debate to bed once and for all,ey?

     

     

    NOTHING……ABSOLUTELY NOTHING beats a slow cooked roast lamb dinner on a Sunday afternoon.

  1. Pages:
  3. 1
  4. ...
  5. 22
  6. 23
  7. 24
  8. 25
  9. 26
  10. 27
  11. 28
  12. 29