Source: FOOTYMAD
Concurrent Rather Than Consequtive Ban
The SFA have fallen foul of their own rules.It is a good job they are reviewing the situation October last year, the SFA announced that its Disciplinary Procedures would undergo a review in an effort to provide greater transparency and urgency in dealing with individual cases. This review would also seek to identify areas where changes were required to ensure the rules were legally enforceable. Given the increasingly high stakes in football and the millions of pounds clubs are competing for in Europe, rules written by administrators to govern member clubs of the Scottish FA are being challenged on legal grounds. This is creating a situation where substantial sums are being invested in legal fees at a time when the game simply cannot afford it. One such case is the recent misconduct charge involving Celtic manager, Neil Lennon, following the Old Firm match on 2nd March 2011. As a result of his behaviour on the night, Lennon was issued with an automatic four match suspension which came on top of a previous four match suspension relating to a separate incident. Based on custom and practice the SFA indicated to Celtic that the second suspension should be applied consecutively meaning that the manager would miss all matches up to and including 17th April 2011. The club accepted that the manager was guilty of the misconduct charge but challenged the application of the rule insisting that it was not clearly stated that the two suspensions should run consecutively. Their legal advice suggested that the two suspensions should run concurrently. The SFA has received independent counsel advice on this point and regrettably has been advised that its interpretation of the rule is legally unenforceable. As such, the club have been notified that Lennon can return to the dugout on 9th April 2011. SFA Chief Executive, Stewart Regan said: "We have discussed the matter with Celtic Football Club and they accept that Neil Lennon was guilty of misconduct. However, with regard to the timing of the suspension we must accept that if our rules cannot be enforced in a court of law then they cannot be imposed and it is foolish to waste money defending such a point. We acknowledge that our rules do need updating and I have proposed to our Board that we commission a complete re-write of the Disciplinary Procedures from a legal perspective to address this whole matter. In addition, we will be debating this matter with our Council later this month. Whilst we have an obligation to ensure that our rules can be legally enforced, nevertheless it is important for the future of Scottish football that we do not allow our disciplinary procedures to be used as a costly legal playground. We must ensure we can reach a happy balance where every decision is not subject to an appeal and football can self-govern without constant legal interventions."
