If Celtic had any class they would help out Legia but we all know they are a dirty club so won't do a thing.
Yes I'm sure any other club would be falling over themselves to get another team re-instated in the same situation and that your comment is based on intelligent reasoning and not just blinkered hatred.
I genuinely believe that there was a time when the Club in Celtic's position would have agreed to forfeit the tie having recognised that the ruling was completely unfair and at odds with the spirit of the game. In slightly different circumstances Arsene Wenger once agreed to replay an FA Cup tie against Sheffield United because he felt Arsenal had won unfairly. However, the money involved in the game is now so significant that it trumps any other consideration. There is simply no room for values or "fair play".
If common sense is to prevail it's down to UEFA not Celtic. Hopefully, they'll remember two things when considering the merits of Legia Warsaw's appeal. First, the rule in question is designed to stop Clubs from cheating not to test whether they can fill forms in. Second, more generally, the UEFA Champions League is a football tournament not a competition in administrative efficiency. The easy thing to do is to blindly follow the rule. We'll find out whether UEFA really care about the integrity of the competition and whether they have the courage to do something about it.
As I noted earlier in this thread, once we begin to forget the intention of the rules we've made and focus only on the rules themselves we risk creating a very dysfunctional system. There are lots of examples.
For those interested in some of the principles involved, the following article by economist John Kay is both hilarious and instructive.
A smart business is dressed in principles not rules
12 January 2011, Financial Times
In the regulation of business affairs, from dress codes to rules on takeovers, it is always tempting to try to translate general principles into specific rules. But the world is rarely sufficiently clear and certain for this to be possible, and if it seems so today it will have ceased to be so tomorrow.
Exactly 15 years ago I wrote an article in this newspaper about the adoption of an extended dress code in a major company. I thought the editor’s insistence that I should make clear that the story was a spoof was unnecessary. But last month’s news that UBS had issued a 43-page dress code to some of its employees confirms that, as always, the editor was right.
So here is an abbreviated version of the earlier article. It is addressed, not just to the dress police at UBS, but to the people across the way in Basel, who are wrestling to elaborate much more important, and even longer, rule books for the employees of banks. (If you've got this far, think UEFA too at this point.)
After privatisation, a former state-owned company decided it was time to shake off sloppy public sector dress habits. A directive went round telling senior employees to adopt suitable business dress. The directive caused resentment. Those who opposed it demanded greater clarity and certainty. How could they know what would or would not represent suitable business dress? After advice from its legal and regulatory affairs department, the company agreed to promulgate a dress code. Senior male employees were expected to wear smart suits, shirts with collars, and ties.
But soon someone came to the office in a red suit. When criticised, he pointed to the terms of the dress code. The suit was undeniably smart: but it was the smartness of the nightclub rather than the boardroom. So the dress code had to specify colour. Red was out, grey was in. But what of blue? Some blues were clearly acceptable. The chairman’s favourite suit, in fact, was a fetching shade of navy. But bright blues could not be admitted. So how bright was bright?
Careful research came up with the answer. Brightness is determined by how much light a fabric reflects and a machine could measure this objectively. But ties were so varied in character as to pose a more intractable problem. A clearance procedure seemed the best answer. Anyone who bought a new tie could submit it to the dress code department, which had 42 days to rule on whether or not it was suitable business dress.
There was the more general problem of changing fashion. After all, it was not so long since every gentleman had gone to work in a wing collar and frock coat. Not only were other forms of dress now acceptable, but wing collars had probably ceased to be acceptable. Paul Smith agreed to chair a standing working party to advise the company on fashion trends.
By this time, the dress code extended to 50 pages, largely impenetrable. No sensible employee read it, and when given a copy they were told that if they behaved sensibly they would probably be all right. Knowledge of the contents of the code was confined to the dress department, which by this time consisted of 20 people, mostly lawyers, the union representative who negotiated over it, and a few cranks who enjoyed pointing out inconsistencies and anomalies.
In the regulation of business affairs, from dress codes to rules on takeovers, it is always tempting to try to translate general principles – do not expose major financial institutions to excessive risks, treat customers fairly, refrain from anti-competitive behaviour, set reasonable prices – into specific rules. But the world is rarely sufficiently clear and certain for this to be possible, and if it seems so today it will have ceased to be so tomorrow. There will be many people who will stretch the limits of whatever specific rules are implied, and in doing so violate the spirit of the regulation as they adhere to its letter.
The only answer is to establish structures, both within the business and in the environment within which it operates, that frame attitudes and styles of behaviour. While rules can contribute to those objectives, only rules that are easy to understand and monitor will work. For those who subscribe to the objective of a dress code, formal definitions are irrelevant: for those who do not recognise their purpose, such definitions become a licence for abuse.
One word in all of that MF tells you exactly why UEFA will almost certainly stick with their original decision...LAWYERS!
We now live in such a litigious world that if you start asking, in this case, UEFA to use common sense when applying rules then it opens the door for any decision to be challenged. They'll end up in court tied up for God knows how long and with costs racking up for employing their own legal teams to answer clubs who would be better off learning the rules properly in the first place.
One word in all of that MF tells you exactly why UEFA will almost certainly stick with their original decision...LAWYERS!
We now live in such a litigious world that if you start asking, in this case, UEFA to use common sense when applying rules then it opens the door for any decision to be challenged. They'll end up in court tied up for God knows how long and with costs racking up for employing their own legal teams to answer clubs who would be better off learning the rules properly in the first place.
I agree that the crazy world of increasingly complete contracts, administered by lawyers who have no real concern for the "right" outcome and exploited by those who have no interest in the spirit of the law is the problem.
However, in this case I think UEFA have a free hand. I very much doubt that Celtic would challenge a decision to reinstate Legia Warsaw and fine them instead. The problem then, of course, is precedent, but if UEFA's lawyers are any good they ought to be able to find a way of justifying a fine, rather than the 3-0 defeat they originally came up with, that doesn't prejudice future outcomes.
Where there's a will there's a way. What I find most depressing about this situation is that I'm not sure that UEFA really cares. Actually thinking about what to do is all too difficult for them. I have no doubt they'd be capable of flexibility if one of the big Clubs/Countries was involved. When Liverpool fluked the Champions League by beating AC Milan the rules clearly stated that the holders did not automatically qualify for the next season's competition and that, instead, in England's case, the top four in the League qualified. There was no ambiguity about that. No administrative error. It was black and white. Liverpool's exclusion from the following season's competition was exactly as intended because they had finished out of the top four in England. We know what happened. Liverpool entered the First Qualifying Round the following season. UEFA found a way to allow five English teams to enter the competition rather than four. They can be flexible when they want to be.
We had a few 3-0s over the years in Sunday League when teams couldn't put out a side etc. Used to be arguments in the pub over who 'scored' in our records and more importantly for the local paper. Think our keeper got a couple, someone else lobbed the keeper from our half etc.
A completely absurd decision. Infact, it's a non decision. Lacking the courage or wit to actually think about the situation, the buffoons who've made this judgement have just blindly followed the rules.
On any reasonable interpretation Bartosz Bereszynski served his three match ban because he missed the first three matches of Legia Warsaw's European campaign this season. Technically, however, he didn't do so, it seems, because Legia Warsaw didn't register him for the second qualifying round. Two matches he couldn't have played in!! How absurd is that?
Then, as we know, having missed the first leg against Celtic, in order to complete his three match suspension, he came on minutes from the end of the second leg with Legia winning 6-1 on aggregate.
If there was a technical rule breach it was completely irrelevant to the outcome. Why weren't Legia Warsaw simply fined in the way Debrecen were a few years ago?
Legia will obviously appeal. If common sense prevails they'll be reinstated. Celtic ought to be hugely embarrassed and if they have any dignity they'll support the appeal.
Pathetic, but not untypical.
So your issue is with UEFA following the rules yep that make sense because we like the authorities that quote the rules when it suits them but forgot about them when it’s convenient. Let’s be honest all Celtic supporters were embarrassed by that result but fair play to whoever spotted and exploited the fact that the rules were not followed. I am sure if qualification follows Celtic supporters will enjoy 6 great Champions League matches (minimum) and will savour every minute of it.
No, my issue is not with UEFA following the rules per se. It's a) with an apparent unwillingness to distinguish between a flagrant and deliberate breach (the reason the rule exists) and a simple and innocent technicality and b) with a completely disproportionate punishment. All that's needed is some common sense.
Can you outlined the actual rule and demonstrate that this is a disproportionarte punishment or are you speculating here. Is Intent needed;does the rule itself distinguish between a accidental breach and a deliberate you would be surpised not all offences do. They are known as strict liability offences.
Think for a moment about the purpose of the rule and the typical sanction. If there was no such rule and consequent sanction then a team whose best player was suspended might choose to play him anyway in order to win the tie. Obvious, but important to bear in mind. In this situation the Club in breach is seeking to gain an unfair advantage. The sanction serves both as a way of addressing the advantage which has been unfairly gained and as a deterrent.
Now think about the Legia Warsaw situation. Their player had not played in their first three European ties. He had served his suspension. However, Legia did not include him in the 25 man squad for the first two of those matches and so they did not count as games missed. I very much doubt that Legia Warsaw either sought or gained advantage, unfair or otherwise, from that decision or administrative error. The player was then introduced for the final three minutes of a tie which by then they had won very comfortably. They were clearly not seeking to gain an advantage from doing so.
In my view the two situations are really quite different. That's not to say that Legia Warsaw shouldn't be punished, say with a fine, but a society which fails to adjust that punishment to reflect the profoundly different circumstances is headed for trouble in my view. If you have a different perspective then that's fair enough.
For a counter example, think about much of the bad behaviour in the financial system or in the area of "tax optimisation", for instance. Here, clever investment bankers, lawyers and accountants have devised schemes to circumvent rules and regulations, knowing full well that what they are doing confounds the intentions of the rule, regulation or tax code. Such behaviour became endemic because we created a culture in which it was the rules that mattered not what's right and wrong. That's a very unsatisfactory place to be in my view.
Legia Warsaw are experiencing the flip side of this pervasive dynamic, receiving a severe punishment because it's what the "rule" says, despite not having committed the "crime" the sanction was designed to address. They've been very hard done by.
As to whether this particular rule distinguishes between an accidental or deliberate breach then QED. We're already in trouble when that's the first question we ask when deciding what to do. I do understand the difference and I know exactly what I'm saying. I've no doubt you'll disagree.
Ohh that is a very intersting reply and I do not agree or disagree; fully atleast. Ill be honest all the outrage of the tax avoidance shems with Starbucks and Amazon my thought is well if the government leaves loopholes there anybody should be able to exploit them. A nice little qoute I read the other day was 'sometimes just sometimes when you know the rules it is better then cheating' It seems someone at Celtic has noticed this particualr rule and to be honest I fully apluad them for activiating it.
whatever the outcome of the appeal I'd guess either would then take it to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and take their chances there. I don't blame Celtic at all for accepting the place in the CL.
whatever the outcome of the appeal I'd guess either would then take it to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and take their chances there. I don't blame Celtic at all for accepting the place in the CL.
As long as you take the same pragmatic view when you get a parking ticket for being 30 seconds over time...
Three points,
1) Once again we have someone who presumes to speak for the entire world on the basis of what they would do. 2) What a s**t world we live in where money just over-rides everything, at all times to a large number of people. 3) Celtic could accept the outcome of the appeal should it go against them and be admired and applauded by all those of us who care about the sport more than money. I can't stand them or the other bunch of greedy bigots from across the city, but if they did that my opinion on them would mellow a great deal.
Ohh that is a very intersting reply and I do not agree or disagree; fully atleast. Ill be honest all the outrage of the tax avoidance shems with Starbucks and Amazon my thought is well if the government leaves loopholes there anybody should be able to exploit them. A nice little qoute I read the other day was 'sometimes just sometimes when you know the rules it is better then cheating' It seems someone at Celtic has noticed this particualr rule and to be honest I fully apluad them for activiating it.
Thanks for your reply. I'd make two more observations, noting that I've already commented too many times on this thread.
First, my understanding is that it was an official from UEFA and not Celtic that identified the potential rule breach by Legia Warsaw. If I were in Legia's position I might, as part of my defence, note that given UEFA follow these details so closely, it is unfortunate that they did not ensure that Legia were clear, before the game in Glasgow, that Bereszynski was still not available. Another way of putting that would be to say that it would be helpful if UEFA were to provide an updated list of suspended players prior to each game rather than relying on the Clubs to do this themselves. One can't help thinking that it would be much simpler to operate a policy whereby suspended players were excluded from the squad list when they were unavailable not included.!!! I'm not surprised Legia got this wrong. It's completely counterintuitive.
As far as Celtic are concerned, I do not believe they are being cute here and nor do I believe they'd contest a decision to reinstate Legia Warsaw. My guess is that they agree that the decision is unfair and can't believe their luck. That's why they are simply keeping their heads down. Not the most honourable thing to do, but completely understandable in the circumstances.
Second, many people believe, as you do, that if businesses and individuals are able to find and exploit loopholes in the tax system then good luck to them. It's up to Government to close the loopholes.
One of the problems with that philosophy, of course, as John Kay explained in the article I copied above, is that before long the tax system becomes extraordinarily complicated as successive loopholes get closed, but nevertheless creative individuals still find a way to circumvent the rules.
I believe that at its peak Barclays Bank's "tax advisory business" employed over three hundred people and accounted for as much as three-quarters of profit at its investment banking business (that's after the people got paid!!). Barclays have since "shrunk the activity dramatically" because "elements of it generated negative media and political attention". They weren't doing anything illegal, but it was clearly "wrong" and they've now decided to clean up their act because society, of which they are part, found it unacceptable. We'll see more of this.
Well of topic, but the key point remains the same. Following rules without remembering and respecting their purpose is a very unhealthy culture to create.
Mundell - wholeheartedly agree with your comment on UEFA providing a list of suspended players. Either that or, when Legia submitted their squad, someone in officialdom should just have said..."you can't pick him". Simple!!
whatever the outcome of the appeal I'd guess either would then take it to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and take their chances there. I don't blame Celtic at all for accepting the place in the CL.
As long as you take the same pragmatic view when you get a parking ticket for being 30 seconds over time...
Three points,
1) Once again we have someone who presumes to speak for the entire world on the basis of what they would do. 2) What a s**t world we live in where money just over-rides everything, at all times to a large number of people. 3) Celtic could accept the outcome of the appeal should it go against them and be admired and applauded by all those of us who care about the sport more than money. I can't stand them or the other bunch of greedy bigots from across the city, but if they did that my opinion on them would mellow a great deal.
Don't drive so don't see myself getting a parking ticket any time soon.
Should I have put IMO before? would that have made you happy, of course I don't think I speak for the world but as this is a forum pretty much most views is a matter of opinion.
I don't think that makes shit world but then again that's you're opinion, I'll leave you with the great Kenny Powers quote
"Money doesn't buy happiness? Well it does buy a jet ski. Have you ever seen a sad person on a jet ski? you can't be sad on a jet ski."
whatever the outcome of the appeal I'd guess either would then take it to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and take their chances there. I don't blame Celtic at all for accepting the place in the CL.
As long as you take the same pragmatic view when you get a parking ticket for being 30 seconds over time...
Three points,
1) Once again we have someone who presumes to speak for the entire world on the basis of what they would do. 2) What a s**t world we live in where money just over-rides everything, at all times to a large number of people. 3) Celtic could accept the outcome of the appeal should it go against them and be admired and applauded by all those of us who care about the sport more than money. I can't stand them or the other bunch of greedy bigots from across the city, but if they did that my opinion on them would mellow a great deal.
Don't drive so don't see myself getting a parking ticket any time soon.
Should I have put IMO before? would that have made you happy, of course I don't think I speak for the world but as this is a forum pretty much most views is a matter of opinion.
I don't think that makes shit world but then again that's you're opinion, I'll leave you with the great Kenny Powers quote
"Money doesn't buy happiness? Well it does buy a jet ski. Have you ever seen a sad person on a jet ski? you can't be sad on a jet ski."
What about if you hit and kill someone with your jet ski? Have you ever seen a happy person cleaning blood off a jet ski?
I was at Legia Warsaw's game on saturday and I have to say it was the best atmosphere I have ever experienced. 90 minutes of constant singing behind the goal, and pretty much everyone in the other parts of the ground were also singing every song. They were definitely all singing "Fuck Uefa" I can tell you.
whatever the outcome of the appeal I'd guess either would then take it to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and take their chances there. I don't blame Celtic at all for accepting the place in the CL.
As long as you take the same pragmatic view when you get a parking ticket for being 30 seconds over time...
Three points,
1) Once again we have someone who presumes to speak for the entire world on the basis of what they would do. 2) What a s**t world we live in where money just over-rides everything, at all times to a large number of people. 3) Celtic could accept the outcome of the appeal should it go against them and be admired and applauded by all those of us who care about the sport more than money. I can't stand them or the other bunch of greedy bigots from across the city, but if they did that my opinion on them would mellow a great deal.
Don't drive so don't see myself getting a parking ticket any time soon.
Should I have put IMO before? would that have made you happy, of course I don't think I speak for the world but as this is a forum pretty much most views is a matter of opinion.
I don't think that makes shit world but then again that's you're opinion, I'll leave you with the great Kenny Powers quote
"Money doesn't buy happiness? Well it does buy a jet ski. Have you ever seen a sad person on a jet ski? you can't be sad on a jet ski."
Is there even a mechanism for Celtic to agree to this ? Surely it would create a pretty dangerous precedent if teams just start deciding amongst themselves how to determine who'll go through ?
Legia Warsaw have now outlined the basis on which they'll appeal. Here is their statement;
"We understand that acting under the pressure of time and circumstances, the Chairman of the Uefa Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body literally applied Art. 21.02 of the Uefa Disciplinary Regulations. Meanwhile, we wish to express our faith that the Uefa Appeal Body will explore the following possibilities:
1) On the basis of Art. 17.01 and Art. 17.02 of the Uefa Disciplinary Regulations the disciplinary body determines the type and extent of the disciplinary measure in accordance with the objective and subjective aspects of the offence; in cases where all aspects of the offence have been revealed by the party charged and after taking into account both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, it may scale down the disciplinary measure or even nullify it altogether.
2) On the basis of Art. 20.01 of the Uefa Disciplinary Regulations the ruled disciplinary measure (match forfeited 0:3 in favour for Celtic FC) may be suspended.
Meanwhile, we wish to inform that the abovementioned argumentation will be used by the Club at every stage of the appeal process."
Not very elegant, but the message is very clear. Based on their own rule book, UEFA are able to scale down or nullify a disciplinary measure in accordance with the objective and subjective aspects of the offence.
In the circumstances it would be very surprising if Legia Warsaw were not reinstated. The Debrecen precedent, notwithstanding some suggestions to the contrary, is highly relevant here. They fielded an ineligible player (not one that was suspended) in the last three minutes of a Europa League match in 2010. They were fined just €15,000 because UEFA found that fielding the player had no impact on the outcome of the tie, saying "Debrecen had no interest in fielding this player for the three last minutes of additional time, when the score was so clearly in its favour."
I take that to mean that UEFA took the view that the timing of the substitution proved that the error was innocent. Moreover, it had no impact on the outcome of the game. I'd have thought that Debrecen's case was much weaker than Legia Warsaw's. Not only can Legia argue exactly the same thing, but they can also explain very clearly why they made the error.
As far as they were concerned Bereszynski had served his three match suspension and when he entered the field of play in the second leg against Celtic, Legia Warsaw could readily have gone down to ten men (or fewer) and it would have mattered not one jot. By that stage of the tie, Celtic needed to score six times in the remaining few minutes to remain in the competition.
It seems that UEFA were hasty in making the original ruling, as Legia politely imply. The risk from the Polish team's perspective is now that having made one error UEFA compound the felony by failing to make the right decision at the second time of asking on the grounds of embarrassment.
I hope for Legia Warsaw's sake (I have nothing against Celtic) common sense now prevails. If it doesn't, they really will have an axe to grind. We'll find out on Thursday or Friday, apparently.
But by not naming in the squads for the two original games, they named someone else. Who is to say that that Legia didnt benefit from having the option to use that additional player?
Rules were broken - the punishment is to remove them from the competition.
It seems that UEFA were hasty in making the original ruling, as Legia politely imply. The risk from the Polish team's perspective now is that having made one error UEFA compound the felony by failing to make the right decision at the second time of asking on the grounds of embarrassment.
How predictable. Petty bureaucrats in classic mode. Never admit to an error. If there's an appeal, defend the original judgement at all costs. It's also a very cynical ruling. UEFA know that an appeal to the CAS is a waste of Legia Warsaw's time because by the time it's heard Celtic will have played Maribor and it won't matter what the outcome is.
It seems that UEFA were hasty in making the original ruling, as Legia politely imply. The risk from the Polish team's perspective now is that having made one error UEFA compound the felony by failing to make the right decision at the second time of asking on the grounds of embarrassment.
How predictable. Petty bureaucrats in classic mode. Never admit to an error. If there's an appeal, defend the original judgement at all costs. It's also a very cynical ruling. UEFA know that an appeal to the CAS is a waste of Legia Warsaw's time because by the time it's heard Celtic will have played Maribor and it won't matter what the outcome is.
Pathetic
Based on previous information you gave about the level of severity UEFA could have employed I fully agree with this. UEFA could have scaled back the judgement but have chosen not becuase they do not want to because to do so makes them look silly. It seems to be a fundemantal flaw in many organisations they do not want to admit error so will do anything to avoid it even if it means compounding the error. This is opinion of course.
Comments
;-)
If common sense is to prevail it's down to UEFA not Celtic. Hopefully, they'll remember two things when considering the merits of Legia Warsaw's appeal. First, the rule in question is designed to stop Clubs from cheating not to test whether they can fill forms in. Second, more generally, the UEFA Champions League is a football tournament not a competition in administrative efficiency. The easy thing to do is to blindly follow the rule. We'll find out whether UEFA really care about the integrity of the competition and whether they have the courage to do something about it.
As I noted earlier in this thread, once we begin to forget the intention of the rules we've made and focus only on the rules themselves we risk creating a very dysfunctional system. There are lots of examples.
For those interested in some of the principles involved, the following article by economist John Kay is both hilarious and instructive.
A smart business is dressed in principles not rules
12 January 2011, Financial Times
In the regulation of business affairs, from dress codes to rules on takeovers, it is always tempting to try to translate general principles into specific rules. But the world is rarely sufficiently clear and certain for this to be possible, and if it seems so today it will have ceased to be so tomorrow.
Exactly 15 years ago I wrote an article in this newspaper about the adoption of an extended dress code in a major company. I thought the editor’s insistence that I should make clear that the story was a spoof was unnecessary. But last month’s news that UBS had issued a 43-page dress code to some of its employees confirms that, as always, the editor was right.
So here is an abbreviated version of the earlier article. It is addressed, not just to the dress police at UBS, but to the people across the way in Basel, who are wrestling to elaborate much more important, and even longer, rule books for the employees of banks. (If you've got this far, think UEFA too at this point.)
After privatisation, a former state-owned company decided it was time to shake off sloppy public sector dress habits. A directive went round telling senior employees to adopt suitable business dress. The directive caused resentment. Those who opposed it demanded greater clarity and certainty. How could they know what would or would not represent suitable business dress? After advice from its legal and regulatory affairs department, the company agreed to promulgate a dress code. Senior male employees were expected to wear smart suits, shirts with collars, and ties.
But soon someone came to the office in a red suit. When criticised, he pointed to the terms of the dress code. The suit was undeniably smart: but it was the smartness of the nightclub rather than the boardroom. So the dress code had to specify colour. Red was out, grey was in. But what of blue? Some blues were clearly acceptable. The chairman’s favourite suit, in fact, was a fetching shade of navy. But bright blues could not be admitted. So how bright was bright?
Careful research came up with the answer. Brightness is determined by how much light a fabric reflects and a machine could measure this objectively. But ties were so varied in character as to pose a more intractable problem. A clearance procedure seemed the best answer. Anyone who bought a new tie could submit it to the dress code department, which had 42 days to rule on whether or not it was suitable business dress.
There was the more general problem of changing fashion. After all, it was not so long since every gentleman had gone to work in a wing collar and frock coat. Not only were other forms of dress now acceptable, but wing collars had probably ceased to be acceptable. Paul Smith agreed to chair a standing working party to advise the company on fashion trends.
By this time, the dress code extended to 50 pages, largely impenetrable. No sensible employee read it, and when given a copy they were told that if they behaved sensibly they would probably be all right. Knowledge of the contents of the code was confined to the dress department, which by this time consisted of 20 people, mostly lawyers, the union representative who negotiated over it, and a few cranks who enjoyed pointing out inconsistencies and anomalies.
In the regulation of business affairs, from dress codes to rules on takeovers, it is always tempting to try to translate general principles – do not expose major financial institutions to excessive risks, treat customers fairly, refrain from anti-competitive behaviour, set reasonable prices – into specific rules. But the world is rarely sufficiently clear and certain for this to be possible, and if it seems so today it will have ceased to be so tomorrow. There will be many people who will stretch the limits of whatever specific rules are implied, and in doing so violate the spirit of the regulation as they adhere to its letter.
The only answer is to establish structures, both within the business and in the environment within which it operates, that frame attitudes and styles of behaviour. While rules can contribute to those objectives, only rules that are easy to understand and monitor will work. For those who subscribe to the objective of a dress code, formal definitions are irrelevant: for those who do not recognise their purpose, such definitions become a licence for abuse.
We now live in such a litigious world that if you start asking, in this case, UEFA to use common sense when applying rules then it opens the door for any decision to be challenged. They'll end up in court tied up for God knows how long and with costs racking up for employing their own legal teams to answer clubs who would be better off learning the rules properly in the first place.
However, in this case I think UEFA have a free hand. I very much doubt that Celtic would challenge a decision to reinstate Legia Warsaw and fine them instead. The problem then, of course, is precedent, but if UEFA's lawyers are any good they ought to be able to find a way of justifying a fine, rather than the 3-0 defeat they originally came up with, that doesn't prejudice future outcomes.
Where there's a will there's a way. What I find most depressing about this situation is that I'm not sure that UEFA really cares. Actually thinking about what to do is all too difficult for them. I have no doubt they'd be capable of flexibility if one of the big Clubs/Countries was involved. When Liverpool fluked the Champions League by beating AC Milan the rules clearly stated that the holders did not automatically qualify for the next season's competition and that, instead, in England's case, the top four in the League qualified. There was no ambiguity about that. No administrative error. It was black and white. Liverpool's exclusion from the following season's competition was exactly as intended because they had finished out of the top four in England. We know what happened. Liverpool entered the First Qualifying Round the following season. UEFA found a way to allow five English teams to enter the competition rather than four. They can be flexible when they want to be.
Three points,
1) Once again we have someone who presumes to speak for the entire world on the basis of what they would do.
2) What a s**t world we live in where money just over-rides everything, at all times to a large number of people.
3) Celtic could accept the outcome of the appeal should it go against them and be admired and applauded by all those of us who care about the sport more than money. I can't stand them or the other bunch of greedy bigots from across the city, but if they did that my opinion on them would mellow a great deal.
Ohh that is a very intersting reply and I do not agree or disagree; fully atleast. Ill be honest all the outrage of the tax avoidance shems with Starbucks and Amazon my thought is well if the government leaves loopholes there anybody should be able to exploit them. A nice little qoute I read the other day was 'sometimes just sometimes when you know the rules it is better then cheating' It seems someone at Celtic has noticed this particualr rule and to be honest I fully apluad them for activiating it.
Thanks for your reply. I'd make two more observations, noting that I've already commented too many times on this thread.
First, my understanding is that it was an official from UEFA and not Celtic that identified the potential rule breach by Legia Warsaw. If I were in Legia's position I might, as part of my defence, note that given UEFA follow these details so closely, it is unfortunate that they did not ensure that Legia were clear, before the game in Glasgow, that Bereszynski was still not available. Another way of putting that would be to say that it would be helpful if UEFA were to provide an updated list of suspended players prior to each game rather than relying on the Clubs to do this themselves. One can't help thinking that it would be much simpler to operate a policy whereby suspended players were excluded from the squad list when they were unavailable not included.!!! I'm not surprised Legia got this wrong. It's completely counterintuitive.
As far as Celtic are concerned, I do not believe they are being cute here and nor do I believe they'd contest a decision to reinstate Legia Warsaw. My guess is that they agree that the decision is unfair and can't believe their luck. That's why they are simply keeping their heads down. Not the most honourable thing to do, but completely understandable in the circumstances.
Second, many people believe, as you do, that if businesses and individuals are able to find and exploit loopholes in the tax system then good luck to them. It's up to Government to close the loopholes.
One of the problems with that philosophy, of course, as John Kay explained in the article I copied above, is that before long the tax system becomes extraordinarily complicated as successive loopholes get closed, but nevertheless creative individuals still find a way to circumvent the rules.
I believe that at its peak Barclays Bank's "tax advisory business" employed over three hundred people and accounted for as much as three-quarters of profit at its investment banking business (that's after the people got paid!!). Barclays have since "shrunk the activity dramatically" because "elements of it generated negative media and political attention". They weren't doing anything illegal, but it was clearly "wrong" and they've now decided to clean up their act because society, of which they are part, found it unacceptable. We'll see more of this.
Well of topic, but the key point remains the same. Following rules without remembering and respecting their purpose is a very unhealthy culture to create.
Should I have put IMO before? would that have made you happy, of course I don't think I speak for the world but as this is a forum pretty much most views is a matter of opinion.
I don't think that makes shit world but then again that's you're opinion, I'll leave you with the great Kenny Powers quote
"Money doesn't buy happiness? Well it does buy a jet ski. Have you ever seen a sad person on a jet ski? you can't be sad on a jet ski."
I was at Legia Warsaw's game on saturday and I have to say it was the best atmosphere I have ever experienced.
90 minutes of constant singing behind the goal, and pretty much everyone in the other parts of the ground were also singing every song.
They were definitely all singing "Fuck Uefa" I can tell you.
;-)
"We understand that acting under the pressure of time and circumstances, the Chairman of the Uefa Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body literally applied Art. 21.02 of the Uefa Disciplinary Regulations. Meanwhile, we wish to express our faith that the Uefa Appeal Body will explore the following possibilities:
1) On the basis of Art. 17.01 and Art. 17.02 of the Uefa Disciplinary Regulations the disciplinary body determines the type and extent of the disciplinary measure in accordance with the objective and subjective aspects of the offence; in cases where all aspects of the offence have been revealed by the party charged and after taking into account both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, it may scale down the disciplinary measure or even nullify it altogether.
2) On the basis of Art. 20.01 of the Uefa Disciplinary Regulations the ruled disciplinary measure (match forfeited 0:3 in favour for Celtic FC) may be suspended.
Meanwhile, we wish to inform that the abovementioned argumentation will be used by the Club at every stage of the appeal process."
Not very elegant, but the message is very clear. Based on their own rule book, UEFA are able to scale down or nullify a disciplinary measure in accordance with the objective and subjective aspects of the offence.
In the circumstances it would be very surprising if Legia Warsaw were not reinstated. The Debrecen precedent, notwithstanding some suggestions to the contrary, is highly relevant here. They fielded an ineligible player (not one that was suspended) in the last three minutes of a Europa League match in 2010. They were fined just €15,000 because UEFA found that fielding the player had no impact on the outcome of the tie, saying "Debrecen had no interest in fielding this player for the three last minutes of additional time, when the score was so clearly in its favour."
I take that to mean that UEFA took the view that the timing of the substitution proved that the error was innocent. Moreover, it had no impact on the outcome of the game. I'd have thought that Debrecen's case was much weaker than Legia Warsaw's. Not only can Legia argue exactly the same thing, but they can also explain very clearly why they made the error.
As far as they were concerned Bereszynski had served his three match suspension and when he entered the field of play in the second leg against Celtic, Legia Warsaw could readily have gone down to ten men (or fewer) and it would have mattered not one jot. By that stage of the tie, Celtic needed to score six times in the remaining few minutes to remain in the competition.
It seems that UEFA were hasty in making the original ruling, as Legia politely imply. The risk from the Polish team's perspective is now that having made one error UEFA compound the felony by failing to make the right decision at the second time of asking on the grounds of embarrassment.
I hope for Legia Warsaw's sake (I have nothing against Celtic) common sense now prevails. If it doesn't, they really will have an axe to grind. We'll find out on Thursday or Friday, apparently.
Who is to say that that Legia didnt benefit from having the option to use that additional player?
Rules were broken - the punishment is to remove them from the competition.
Pathetic