Lennon hit with six-game ban

[Nixon]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Anyone remember Jorge Cadete's? If not look him up

There is bias in Scottish football anyone thinking otherwise need look at the facts.

Why can the ban not start immediately?

6 matches is a joke, so if we didnt appeal we would have got away with an offense worth 5/6 matches. Or did we just get an extra 4 because we tried to challenge the SFA's authority? This should have been dealt with months ago!

The SFA couldnt control a under 14's 5-a-side league, there are a disgrace to football
[/FONT]

This is the sort of post that gives Celtic the reputation for being paranoid.

You show Jorge Cadete's example, but Farry was relieved of his duties immediately afterwards. One corrupt SFA member does not mean they are all anti-Celtic, Rangers-loving people.

He deserved the initial ban, his conduct was unacceptable and he deserved to be punished. 2 games is the standard ban for such offences, and many managers have been given bans similar to his. Then he appealed, for reasons unknown to man, because it was the equivalent of a stonewall penalty - there was no basis for an appeal. So it's fair enough the SFA extend the ban, even if it's purely to punish Lennon for wasting their time.

One point I do agree on is the bizarre decision to delay the ban. The only possible reason is that by appealing, he was available to be on the touchline for important fixtures (don't quote me on this, I'm not 100% sure of the games he was available to attend after appealing), including an Old Firm game. So maybe it starts on that date so he misses some of the games he would have missed if he hadn't appealed.

 

[AldoKemp-1]

Probably one of the most sensible posts ive seen Nixon, and I'm probably right to beleive you hate Rangers and Celtic ? Most thistle fans i've met or knew all hate Rangers with a passion XD but anyway I agree with what he said and to point at the end is a very possible reason, Maybe the SFA should come out and justify this although I doubt they will.

 

[prow07]

Quote from the SFA's rulebooks

9.0 Reports of Excessive Misconduct

9.1 When submitting a report on a club official, a match official may indicate he considers that the nature of that misconduct is excessive and worthy of direct consideration by the Disciplinary Committee beyond the standard application of a suspension.

9.2 "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.

 

[Nixon]

Probably one of the most sensible posts ive seen Nixon, and I'm probably right to beleive you hate Rangers and Celtic ? Most thistle fans i've met or knew all hate Rangers with a passion XD but anyway I agree with what he said and to point at the end is a very possible reason, Maybe the SFA should come out and justify this although I doubt they will.

Haha thanks. And yes, I hate both the Old Firm equally. I just hate it even more when one team feels that everyone is biased against them, when it's clearly not true.

 

[McNavdo]

Neil Lennon has ever right to voice his opinion but not when it's infront of the media, there was no need to go to the media about it when he could of kept it between him and the SFA, that is why he got the original ban then he decided to use the appeal system to his advantage when we all knew that he deserved that ban. The SFA knew that he appealed so he wouldn't miss certain games and they have decided to punich him further for that and they have every right to . If it was Walter Smith then I would expect them to do the same

 

[AldoKemp-1]

Well FU! nah joke mate Tbf I hate thistle aswell, Would love to see them in the SPL just so we can play again

 

[pistolped7]

Well FU! nah joke mate Tbf I hate thistle aswell, Would love to see them in the SPL just so we can play again

I quite like Thistle too, got a soft spot for all Glasgow teams, except, you know...|)

 

[Shay Given]

This is the sort of post that gives Celtic the reputation for being paranoid.

You show Jorge Cadete's example, but Farry was relieved of his duties immediately afterwards. One corrupt SFA member does not mean they are all anti-Celtic, Rangers-loving people.

He deserved the initial ban, his conduct was unacceptable and he deserved to be punished. 2 games is the standard ban for such offences, and many managers have been given bans similar to his. Then he appealed, for reasons unknown to man, because it was the equivalent of a stonewall penalty - there was no basis for an appeal. So it's fair enough the SFA extend the ban, even if it's purely to punish Lennon for wasting their time.

One point I do agree on is the bizarre decision to delay the ban. The only possible reason is that by appealing, he was available to be on the touchline for important fixtures (don't quote me on this, I'm not 100% sure of the games he was available to attend after appealing), including an Old Firm game. So maybe it starts on that date so he misses some of the games he would have missed if he hadn't appealed.

So you also agree that at a time there was bias against celtic. So is it so unconcevable that again the SFA has been biased?

Its fair enough for Lennon to get 4 games extra for defending himself when he thought he was in the right? no it is not many manager/players all over the world appeal decisions even if they are stonewall in most peoples opinion. Very rarely does this receive such a punishment. At the end of the day Lennon is getting a 6 match ban adjusted to suit the huns for hurting a refs feelings! Whilst players like Henry and De Jong break legs for fun and get 3/4 games max!

The last point cannt be true, and if so then the SFA have ****** up and have been baised. That would mean that every an appeal causes a manager to attend a game he should have been banned from they have to put of until he misses a game against the same opposition. It also is in a completely different tournament which would make it totally unfair.

 

[AldoKemp-1]

The point he made would be fair though, Because it could be a deliberate attempt to Appeal the ban to avoid missing some more important matches, Considering he didn't bother his **** to show any decent form of appeal to the SFA, So no it's not biased really, yours just a conspiracy theorist who beleives everyone is against your team. Over the years decision's also go for your team and to be fair every team outside the OF are most often given decisions against them against both sides of the OF and you don't see them constantly complaining about referees or SFA being against them. Every single time something goes wrong with Celtic theres always a conspiracy against them.

 

[prow07]

System of Automatic Sanctions:
The following level of suspensions will automatically apply dependent upon the disciplinary record of the club official over the determining period (i.e. the current and preceding two seasons):​

First report of misconduct : 2 match suspension from Technical Area etc.
Second report of misconduct : 4 match suspension from Technical Area etc.
Third report of misconduct : 6 match suspension from Technical Area etc.​

Please note that there is scope under the Disciplinary Procedures for Club Officials’ Misconduct for club officials to contest the application of an automatic suspension. On receipt of such an appeal, the automatic suspension will be set aside pending the outcome of the case’s consideration by the Disciplinary Committee. A match official may indicate in his report that the nature of the club official’s misconduct is excessive. In such circumstances, the report is referred to the Disciplinary Committee for consideration.

​

​

​

​

​

 

[KA5A8IAN]

So you also agree that at a time there was bias against celtic. So is it so unconcevable that again the SFA has been biased?

Its fair enough for Lennon to get 4 games extra for defending himself when he thought he was in the right? no it is not many manager/players all over the world appeal decisions even if they are stonewall in most peoples opinion. Very rarely does this receive such a punishment. At the end of the day Lennon is getting a 6 match ban adjusted to suit the huns for hurting a refs feelings! Whilst players like Henry and De Jong break legs for fun and get 3/4 games max!

The last point cannt be true, and if so then the SFA have ****** up and have been baised. That would mean that every an appeal causes a manager to attend a game he should have been banned from they have to put of until he misses a game against the same opposition. It also is in a completely different tournament which would make it totally unfair.

Let me ask you this question, and hopefully you'll see how ridiculous what your implying is.

Do you really think, deep in Hampden, men are sitting in a table in a dark room, conspiring against celtic ? Surely if they were going to conspire against Celtic, they'd conspire to have them relegated, rather than be the second best team in the country ? >.<

 

[Danny]

Thought this was about Arron Lennon.

 

[AldoKemp-1]

Plus its not really asif the ban effects the game :S, If anything it would probably inspire you let more, because " Yous have been unfairly treated again" in everyone of your eyes. PLus Lennon will still be able to communicate with the bench, So what really is the problem :S only difference is now he can't shout abuse at referees

 

[Shay Given]

The point he made would be fair though, Because it could be a deliberate attempt to Appeal the ban to avoid missing some more important matches, Considering he didn't bother his **** to show any decent form of appeal to the SFA, So no it's not biased really, yours just a conspiracy theorist who beleives everyone is against your team. Over the years decision's also go for your team and to be fair every team outside the OF are most often given decisions against them against both sides of the OF and you don't see them constantly complaining about referees or SFA being against them. Every single time something goes wrong with Celtic theres always a conspiracy against them.

no it would be baised defiantly, can the SFA read minds? how do they know if a appeal is just to abuse the system? easy answer they dont, they might think that is why Lennon did it but they cant prove it. SFA and rangers fans with there sill conspiracies thinking that Lennon would try to abuse the system like that. It is a different competition entirely so there is no way they can use what nixen said as a justification. I have every right to feel like there is bias in the SFA as it has been proven before.

 

[AldoKemp-1]

You have just turned my comment into making me look like a conspiracy theorist XD, im not complaining about it or saying its true I'm saying thats what they could have thought. No they can;t read minds but if they feel thats what hes done then fair enough. TBH ifit was his plans it is a smart one as I applauded what Mourinho done with Ramos and Alonso in the CL as it was genious, And it wasn;t a different competition he would have missed out on the league game at the time. The draw may not have been made Rangers and Celtic thats just what happened. And I Still beleive it's his own fault as he shouldn't have appealed in the first place and you are the only person who beleives different.

 

[Shay Given]

System of Automatic Sanctions:
The following level of suspensions will automatically apply dependent upon the disciplinary record of the club official over the determining period (i.e. the current and preceding two seasons):​

First report of misconduct : 2 match suspension from Technical Area etc.
Second report of misconduct : 4 match suspension from Technical Area etc.
Third report of misconduct : 6 match suspension from Technical Area etc.​

Please note that there is scope under the Disciplinary Procedures for Club Officials’ Misconduct for club officials to contest the application of an automatic suspension. On receipt of such an appeal, the automatic suspension will be set aside pending the outcome of the case’s consideration by the Disciplinary Committee. A match official may indicate in his report that the nature of the club official’s misconduct is excessive. In such circumstances, the report is referred to the Disciplinary Committee for consideration.

​

​

​

​

​

this is lennons first offence

Let me ask you this question, and hopefully you'll see how ridiculous what your implying is.

Do you really think, deep in Hampden, men are sitting in a table in a dark room, conspiring against celtic ? Surely if they were going to conspire against Celtic, they'd conspire to have them relegated, rather than be the second best team in the country ? >.<

Im sure they would love to have us relegated, its just not that simple though

Plus its not really asif the ban effects the game :S, If anything it would probably inspire you let more, because " Yous have been unfairly treated again" in everyone of your eyes. PLus Lennon will still be able to communicate with the bench, So what really is the problem :S only difference is now he can't shout abuse at referees

It does effect the game, our manager wont be managing us from the dugout. I also think it will motivate the players more. It still doesnt make it right

---------- Post added at 01:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 AM ----------

You have just turned my comment into making me look like a conspiracy theorist XD, im not complaining about it or saying its true I'm saying thats what they could have thought. No they can;t read minds but if they feel thats what hes done then fair enough. TBH ifit was his plans it is a smart one as I applauded what Mourinho done with Ramos and Alonso in the CL as it was genious, And it wasn;t a different competition he would have missed out on the league game at the time. The draw may not have been made Rangers and Celtic thats just what happened. And I Still beleive it's his own fault as he shouldn't have appealed in the first place and you are the only person who beleives different.

that was the desired effect they cant/shouldnt believe that Mr. Lennon, a respectable manager that has only just had his first offense as a manager, would try to manipulate the system to his advantage.

Can anyone offer an explanation as to why the killie chairman was on the panal that got to decide Lennons appeal? Considering Lennon will miss the match vs. killie due to his ban?

 

[AldoKemp-1]

Respectable manager, Hes hardly respectable considering all he's done since becoming a manager is complain constantly about referees and causing them to strike , so respectable is a bit far off. Maybe it is his first offence but he was banned for a reason which wasn't debatable and then he decided to debate the incident and appeal with no valid grounds. It's his first offence of many I can assure that as he can't keep his mouth shut.

As for the other reason I have no idea why the man was present and agree no member of the SPL clubs should be involved in making a decision. However once again this is you being a conspiracy theorist "hes only there because celtic are playing killie" maybe he is always present when there are appeal decisions made unless its one of his own for obvious reasons.

 

[prow07]

this is lennons first offence

The following level of suspensions will automatically apply dependent upon the disciplinary record of the club official over the determining period (i.e. the current and preceding two seasons):​

and....​

A match official may indicate in his report that the nature of the club official’s misconduct is excessive. In such circumstances, the report is referred to the Disciplinary Committee for consideration.

Basically, they have reviewed his disciplinary record over the current season, and the previous 2 seasons, and have concluded that he was worthy of a 2 match ban.​

Then he appealed, and the second part happens. The match officials have decided that the nature of Neil Lennon's misconduct was 'excessive', and the report was referred straight to the Disciplinary Committee, where they have decided that his 'excessive misconduct' was worthy of a 6 match ban.​

Before you go about saying that it is outrageous, there are other managers who are or have served 5 and 6 match bans for exactly the same offence.​

John Watson (formerly Cowdenbeath U16/17s) 5 games

Alan O'Neill (formerly Lothian Thistle) 6 games
Malcolm Boyle (Ayr United U16s) 4 games
Jim McInally (East Stirilingshire) 12 games (and you think Lennon is hard done by)
Derek Adams (Ross County) 4 games​

All of these were banned for 'excessive misconduct'​

 

[Shay Given]

Respectable manager, Hes hardly respectable considering all he's done since becoming a manager is complain constantly about referees and causing them to strike , so respectable is a bit far off. Maybe it is his first offence but he was banned for a reason which wasn't debatable and then he decided to debate the incident and appeal with no valid grounds. It's his first offence of many I can assure that as he can't keep his mouth shut.

As for the other reason I have no idea why the man was present and agree no member of the SPL clubs should be involved in making a decision. However once again this is you being a conspiracy theorist "hes only there because celtic are playing killie" maybe he is always present when there are appeal decisions made unless its one of his own for obvious reasons.

he is respectable imo, quality role model

i wasnt saying that he was only there because we are playing killie, that is just you trying to put words into my mouth. All i said was that the chairman of a club that can benfit from the outcome should not get to help make the decision.

That is like the chairman of ASDA getting to help decide if Tesco should be fined for selling urine as WKD

@ Prow so the SFA decided that Lennon has been okay for his managerial career so far and only deserve a 2 game ban, but then the ref said na he is a ***** and deserves around 6? Is this correct(ish) (probs not the ***** bit)? If so i still believe that Lennon has been excessively punished

 

[AldoKemp-1]

he is respectable imo, quality role model

i wasnt saying that he was only there because we are playing killie, that is just you trying to put words into my mouth. All i said was that the chairman of a club that can benfit from the outcome should not get to help make the decision.

That is like the chairman of ASDA getting to help decide if Tesco should be fined for selling urine as WKD

@ Prow so the SFA decided that Lennon has been okay for his managerial career so far and only deserve a 2 game ban, but then the ref said na he is a ***** and deserves around 6? Is this correct(ish) (probs not the ***** bit)? If so i still believe that Lennon has been excessively punished

Hes respectable in your opinion because your a celtic fan. He's only respectable as a player to you really, he hasn;t proven himself as a manager and certainly constantly shouting about referees isn't respectable, well apart from every celtic fan because the world is against you's. But really he hasn't done anything to be classed as a respectable manager yet.


And the increased ban is setting an example, Of him appealing a decision he shouldn't be appealing FFS its been mentioned so many times why make other **** up ? Honestly you can't just accept the fact he should have been banned :S he appealed a decision when he had NO VALID reason to appeal as he was wrong. He shouldn't have appealed it and your the only person that beleives he was right to do so, even your fellow celtic fans on here are admitting he should have been banned. your indenial mate. im finished posting because you've clearly got green glasses on and you will never take them off until every single decision in the SPL goes for celtic. This is why I hate having a debate with celtic fans because you always just talk **** when things happen that should have happened, You bring up things in the past, big deal if the killie chairman was there at the end of the day lennon shouldn't have appealed and this wouldn't have happened he brought it on himself. This is my last post because you can;t see the truth for your green shades.