Freedom of Religion is Dead

A long time ago, I worked in a pub which had previously been known to attract a lot of gay customers. By the time I started working there it had been a year or two since that had been the case but occasionally customers would come in who were obviously gay.

On one occasion, I remarked to the manageress that a customer I had just served was especially camp in his manner and I was quite shocked to hear her say, "Don't serve him again."

I questioned her about whether that was even allowed (this was the early 90's before the Equalities legislation was passed by Blair's Labour government) and she pointed to one of the signs which were displayed prominently behind both bars:

"The management reserves the right to refuse service."

She went on to say that I did not have to serve anyone I did not want to serve and that no reason need be provided; just a firm "no."

I continued to serve this man and found the thought of refusing to serve him appalling. I couldn't bring myself to treat anyone that way.

I worked in several pubs over the next six or seven years and the only time I ever refused anyone service was when the customer was obviously the worse for wear.

I often thought of those signs though. While I personally had no problem serving anyone who came in, was it right that staff in pubs, clubs, restaurants and shops could refuse service for any reason if they wished?

I was on the receiving end of this in the mid-90's when I turned up in Fort William one early evening while travelling around the Highlands. I'd been on the road most of the day and went to a B&B to ask for a room.

The very respectable looking lady who answered the door asked how she could help and the conversation went something like this:

"Can I have a room?"

"I'm sorry, we only have a double room left."

"That's okay, I don't mind a double."

"Oh but you don't want to be paying for a double room son, it's £40 for the night."

"That's okay, I've got the money. I don't mind paying it."

"Oh no son, it's too much. There are other B&B's in the town that are cheaper. You'd be better off going to one of those."

I tried to tell her I really didn't mind paying but she was most insistent and eventually I got the message and went away.

When I eventually found a room and looked in the mirror, it was easy to work out the landlady's problem - to be honest I was looking a bit rough. Scruffily dressed, unshaven, early 20's - she probably thought I was a real lout and didn't want me anywhere near her respectable B&B. I'd frighten the other customers no doubt.

While I was annoyed (and rightly so I think; I'm a very nice man), I had to accept that the B&B was her home and that she was well within her rights to not want me in it, regardless of whether it is a business or not. Why should the law force her to enter into a business transaction with anyone who comes calling? Surely she should be free to decide who she wants to do business with? It strikes me as very totalitarian for the state to compel people to do this.

Of course times have changed and "Equality" now trumps all so it was depressingly predictable that Ashers Bakery in Northern Ireland would lose their case today over the so-called, "gay cake."

The owners of the bakery are Christian and refused to make a cake for a customer that was to include the message, "Support Gay Marriage."

Now I know what the law says - you cannot discriminate against anyone on the grounds of race, gender, sexuality and other assorted protected characteristics. I've no problem with that, but the problem inherent in this law is the wide interpretation of the word, "discriminate."

The bakers did not refuse to serve the customer. Neither did they refuse to make the cake because he was gay and say they had no idea he was.

Their problem was with the political message the customer wanted on the cake. Presumably there are other bakers in Northern Ireland who would be more than willing to take the money to make the "gay cake," just as there were other B&B's in Fort William happy to relieve a scruffy looking traveller of £40 in return for a bed for the night. But are you really being oppressed if you cannot find a baker willing to write a political slogan on a cake for you?

Today's judgement confirms that people who provide a public service can be forced to act against their conscience. Against their deepest held religious beliefs. Simply by virtue of the fact they provide a "public service." The judge has ruled that to refuse to write a slogan you profoundly disagree with on a cake; to refuse to publicly help and support a cause you do not agree with; constitutes discrimination.

I wonder if the Equalities Commission would support my taking a legal case against a baker who refused to make me a cake displaying the message, "Oppose Gay Marriage?" Somehow I doubt it.

Freedom of religion is important because it is the basis of every other freedom. It's existence is an acknowledgement by the state that maybe, just maybe, a higher power than the state exists. When that possibility is denied, there is no higher power than the state. The state arrogates the position of God to itself and the state is not your friend.

Today's judgement is confirmation that the state can compel people to act against their consciences and that is something that should concern us all. Like every battle fought in the culture wars, each victory for the "progressives" increases the power of the state over its citizens.

To many people, today's news will be good news. Equality trumps all. But when the state can compel people to act against their consciences, let's be honest about the situation. Religious freedom is all but dead.

Mistakes and Mistakes

It's now almost two weeks since the miserable afternoon at Hampden which saw Celtic's treble dream end for another year. I now feel (just) calm enough to write a blog post about the awful refereeing performance of Steven McLean.

I've refereed Sunday league matches before. Hardly a Scottish Cup semi-final but enough to know how difficult a job it is. Incidents can happen in the blink of an eye and you have a second or two to make your mind up. Mistakes are inevitable and they are, to me, all part of the game.

I don't expect referees to turn in flawless performances every match. They are only human after all, but there are mistakes, and then there are mistakes.

Willie Collum (surely the worst referee ever to "grace" the football fields of Scotland) made a mistake on Sunday at Tannadice, but it was an understandable mistake. Gary Mackay-Steven was running into the penalty box at some pace. Rankin slid in and caught him just outside the box, but the contact continued into the box and by the time GMS hit the ground he was well inside the penalty box.

Collum had only a split second to make up his mind whether the offence occurred inside or outside the penalty box in a high-speed incident and got it wrong. It happens all the time and in this instance, the referee can be forgiven.

Compare that to McLean's howler. It happened quickly, but it was still the most blatant handball you are ever likely to see. Meekings' hand started by his side and moved towards the ball. If he hadn't done so the ball would have headed towards goal. Whether you consider his action to have been instinctive or not, it passes the "deliberate handball" test. Griffiths' header was not going too fast for him to move his hand out of the way. His arm was not in a "natural" position when he handled it. It was very clearly a case of "ball to hand."

It is not for the referee to attempt to read a player's mind when deciding if a handball is deliberate. All of the above provides more than enough evidence for the referee to conclude it was deliberate.

This mistake is of the unforgiveable variety.

First of all, I have no doubt in my mind that McLean deliberately ignored Josh Meekings' handball. From every angle, there appears to be no way he didn't see it. He did see it and he chose not to award a penalty and send off the ICT defender for deliberately preventing a goal.

Proving that though, and proving that he deliberately chose not to award a penalty is virtually impossible. That being the case, we have no other option than to take McLean's (and the assistant referees on the touchline and behind the goal) word for it that he didn't see the handball.

Now I can accept that Steven McLean did not see the handball.

I can accept that the assistant behind the goal did not see the handball.

I can accept that the linesman did not see the handball.

What I cannot accept, is that all three of them missed the handball. But nevertheless, we have to accept that he did not see it.

We don't need to waste our time trying to prove bias or corruption over this decision. The evidence is there before our eyes that Steven McLean, as a referee, is unfit for purpose. Because if he did not see the handball that virtually every other person in the stadium spotted from a far greater distance away than he was, Steven McLean is an incompetent.

On that basis, there has to be action taken by the SFA. I can accept that we have a referee pool who will regularly make mistakes, but I cannot accept that we have a referee pool that includes incompetents.

In the 2009-10 season, a new phrase entered the Scottish football lexicon, in what became The Season of the Honest Mistake. An incredible amount of astonishing decisions seemed to go Rangers' way and against Celtic. After every one, we were told to accept that referees make mistakes and move on.

This is not good enough. Our referees operate in an environment where they know they will not be held to account for even the most incredible wrong decisions. Decisions which turn the courses of matches and cost clubs honours and in some cases millions of pounds.

So when you have a referee like, say, Steven McLean, who's brother used to play for Rangers, and he is tempted to ignore a stonewaller of a penalty for Celtic, that referee will know that if he does so, he will be protected by the SFA, who will repeat the, "referees make mistakes, let's move on," mantra.

The SFA must insist on the highest standards of its referees. That does not mean banishing referees to the lower leagues for every little mistake, or even every big mistake they make. But when they get the easy ones wrong, that's when action is needed.

Willie Collum on Sunday was like a goalkeeper beaten by a long-range shot into the top corner - maybe if he wasn't so far off his line he might have saved it, but it was still a good shot that would have beaten most goalkeepers.

Steven McLean at Hampden was like a goalkeeper who catches a cross then throws it into his own net.

We'll never prove bias, but the present system makes bias eminently possible because no matter what referees do, they'll be protected. The system must ensure referees know that if they get something badly wrong, there will be consequences. Steven McLean for one should be dropped from the Grade 1 list permanently.

Scotland at a Crossroads

I was quite detached from the independence referendum. I've lived in England for half a lifetime and if God grants me three score and ten, I'll probably have lived more than two-thirds of it in England.

I'm married to an Englishwoman and my three children have English accents, although my 3 year old son is well on his way to being as Celtic daft as me.

As an English resident then, I had no vote although I was regularly asked by work colleagues and English friends what way I would vote if I had one.

I'd always answer, "I don't know," because I genuinely didn't know how I would have voted. It was a huge decision to make, and not one to be taken lightly.

Twenty year old me would have been on the streets canvassing for Yes votes but time and distance has softened my attitude to independence. What I do know though, is when I woke up at 6am this morning and turned on the TV to find out the result, it was with a sinking heart that I realised it was a No.

At that moment, I realised how much I wanted Scotland to vote Yes and as it sinks in, I'm no happier about it. I wouldn't say I'm gutted, but there's definitely a real, definite sense of disappointment.

The mainstream media have been pushing the line since this morning that it was a, "decisive vote." Technically, I suppose they are correct - a decision was reached - but the word carries connotations of the matter now being closed for the forseeable future, which I think is ludicrous.

Scotland is now a country in a Union with England, which almost half of the population want to see an end to. The result is anything but decisive, which is both an opportunity for nationalists, and a danger for Scotland.

It is an opportunity because with such a small majority for No, it cannot be the end of the matter. With the No vote depending on the votes of the over 60's and the under 20's voting heavily in favour of Yes, the gap can only narrow and possibly even be reversed over the next decade. Nationalists should see the referendum as a foundation on which to build. In fact, it might even be seen as the entire first floor rather than just the foundation.

The result is a danger because Scotland is now indisputably a divided society. As the scenes unfolding in George Square tonight show, there is a virulence and hatred to the No sentiment that harkens back to a different time and place.

Of course, not every No voter looks like an extra from Green Street but the Orange Unionist element cannot be ignored.

But neither can the many on the nationalist side who have been quite awful in their description of the almost two millioin decent people who also voted No.

I saw one tweet this morning saying something along the lines of, "I hope your children come home in a Union Jack draped coffin from another illegal war."

I truly hope the person who composed that sickening message has no children of his own. Surely no parent could ever say such a thing?

That was only the worst I've seen (and by a distance), but my twitter timeline is full of descriptions of no voters as, "scum," cowards," "shitebags" etc.

They're not. They are people like your mum and dad. Like your brother or sister. People who genuinely felt that Scotland is better in the Union than out. That's all. To seek to find other, sinister reasons for people disagreeing with you because you cannot possibly be wrong, is a disturbing trend.

What kind of society would we have if people cannot disagree civilly, respect the right of others to disagree, and accept that the other people might possibly, just possibly, be right?

We stand at a crossroads. The country is split almost 50-50 between those who want independence and those who support the Union.

Had the figures been reversed and 55% voted for independence, it would have been a hollow victory. It would have been no way to start a new nation with almost half the population hankering for Union with England.

By the same token, the Unionists have won a hollow victory.

We are now being told we have to ensure the Government follows through on its "devo-max" promises, but to me that is of secondary importance. Healing the divisions in Scotland should be infinitely more important.

Nationalists should not give up on independence because of the referendum result. It should be seen as an opportunity, with momentum on their side, to win a future referendum by a big enough margin that a new nation can emerge with the great majority of the people celebrating independence together. There should be as few people as possible glowering from the sidelines.

Winning by a small majority; the only realistic hope this time out, would not have been desireable.

The Sevco-Orange Unionist element will never be persuaded. Don't waste your time even trying. But the great majority of the No voters can be persuaded. But by reasoned argument, not by insults and demonisation.

If you are a disappointed Yes voter, you need to reach out to No voters. Making yourself look and/or sound like the bitter, hateful mob in George Square tonight is no way to win a country's freedom.

There's no need for it anyway, because if the nationalist side plays its cards right, the future belongs to you.

The Hoops, Celtic and Sevco

I have a confession to make. A shocking confession actually.

When I was young, like early years of primary school young, I wasn't awfully keen on the hoops.

I think it was because almost every other team I knew had plain shirts, I kind of wished the Celtic strip was like the Republic of Ireland strip.

Very quickly though I realised that the hoops make Celtic different. Distinctive. Instantly recognisable. They set us apart.

Like every Celtic supporter, I adore the hoops.

That's what got me thinking again about the imminent (if they survive long enough) arrival of Sevco in the top flight.

That they are allowed to masquerade as a club founded in 1872 is an almighty scandal and probably the single biggest reason why I hope with every fibre of my being that we never have to share a pitch with them.

I fear that is wishful thinking though and that inevitably, one day we are going to have to play Sevco. As long as they are still being permitted by the SFA to pretend they are the Rangers FC founded in 1872 and claim all of their historic honours, I will not be there.

I dread that day. I can feel the weeks' long build-up to it already. "The return of the O** F*** fixture" hype. The McAvennies and the McGarveys being wheeled out to reminisce about O** F*** games in days gone by. It's everything our governing bodies and media are longing for.

And I want Celtic to have nothing to do with it.

What I'd love to see, whenever we have the misfortune to play Sevco, is for Celtic to refuse to grace them with the presence of our beloved hoops.

Sevco, just like Rangers before them, wear a common or garden blue shirt and white shorts. There is nothing distinctive about their kit.

The O** F*** match means a team wearing blue shirts and white shorts attempting to kick a team in green and white hoops off the pitch.

The O** F*** game, to people around the world, would be unrecognisable if the team in blue were playing a team in yellow shirts and green shorts. Or an all white kit with green and yellow trim - take your pick. The great thing is that the "O** F***" match would never evolve a new appearance as we change our away kit every year these days, and usually have a third kit as well. We wouldn't even have to play every game in a season against them in the same kit.

I know this is unlikely to happen, but what if we, as Celtic fans, demand it of the club?

What if we were to say to them that we want to deny the SFA and the media the appearance of the traditional O** F*** match?

Football fans around the world know when they see a team in green and white hoops that they are watching Celtic. When the inevitable happens and we have to see what will of course be marketed as the return of the O** F*** match, let the millions around the world who tune in wonder if they're actually watching Celtic v "Rangers" at all.

Any thoughts?

You Are the Weakest Link... Goodbye.

As a self-confessed statto, I really enjoyed The Numbers Game: Why Everything You Know About Football Is Wrong by Chris Anderson and David Sally.

It wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea, especially for people like me who were brought up on the  Celtic tradition of open, attacking football, but it is well worth a read.

Amongst other things, the authors suggest that football is a weakest link game, ie any team is only as strong as its weakest link.

Statistics suggest that it is far more important to not concede a goal than it is to actually score a goal. In a league match, not conceding guarantees at least one point, while scoring a goal is a guarantee of nothing.

That being the case, so the theory goes, defensive players are far more valuable than attackers, and if you have a player who regularly makes mistakes that lead to conceding goals, it can, and frequently does, prove fatal to any ambitions of silverware.

One way of assessing a team is to assign a value out of ten to each player, 1 being least and 10 best.

Football being a weakest link game, the stronger of any two teams is the one whose weakest player is better. For example, a team consisting of nine 8's, a 10 and a 4 may look stronger than a team consisting of eleven 7's. But in practice, over the course of a season the first team will lose more matches because that '4' will result in so many mistakes being made, goals conceded and points dropped.

The eleven steady players will not hand out regular thrashings, but they'll drop fewer points due to less mistakes being made over the season.

Now it should go without saying that unless Celtic gets really lucky in uncovering a hidden gem, we cannot afford to buy 10's. 10's cost way too much in transfer fees and wages and if we do manage to sign a 10 before anyone else realises he is a 10, he will soon be on his way when playing for Celtic reveals his true worth to our friends in the south.

The good news though, if The Numbers Game is correct, is that we don't need any 10's anyway. It is much more important to avoid signing 4's or 5's than it is to sign even 8's or 9's.

Dave Jones once said that Joe Ledley is at least a 7 every match and he certainly never let Celtic down, while never really being spectacular. Perhaps that is the kind of player Celtic needs to fill the team with to maximise our results/progress in Europe.

Celtic can afford to buy 7's. Celtic has a chance of holding onto 7's. Celtic can pick up 7's for a reasonable price.

Maybe what our scouting and coaching teams should be doing is avoiding signing 5's and 6's. The kind of players who try to make mazy runs out of defence. The kind of players who run into trouble in midfield due to poor decision making. The kind of players who lose their man in the penalty box because they are ball-watching. The kind of players who lose possession because of a poor first touch, or lack of confidence to hold onto the ball long enough to pass it on to a teammate.

We're talking about the basics here. Can you take to the field and do the simple things well?

Just as all you want from a goalkeeper is that he saves the shots he should save and the Hollywood saves are a bonus, maybe that applies to every position on the pitch.

Maybe all we need is a striker who scores the goals he should score, we create enough chances after all. Any spectacular overhead kicks, gravity-defying diving headers and breath-taking 25 yard volleys are a bonus.

If you go through the Celtic team that faced Maribor in your head, I'm sure you'll very quickly form a picture of who the 7's were and who the 5's and 6's were. However you compare our players to the Maribor line-up, it can't be denied that on the night, we had a 5 or two in our side, while they did not. It was a weakest-link game and our weakest-link was not as good as Maribor's weakest-link no matter how well Callum McGregor or Virgil van Dijk played.

Moving forward, Celtic do not need to splash millions on 8's or 9's to qualify for the Champions League and make an impression when we get there. We need to stop signing 5's and 6's, of whom we have too many.

We don't need to buy that expensive striker to improve the team, we need to replace those weakest links who are costing us so dearly.

How Much Can We Expect From Celtic?

For the first time since 2011 there will be no Champions League campaign for Celtic this season and this has led to some serious questions being asked of the board and the manager. Much of the criticism is undoubtedly justified but as long as Celtic plays in the SPFL, can Champions League qualification ever be guaranteed, or even expected, every year?

The main complaint levelled at the board is that no money is being spent on buying established players, ready to take a starting spot right away and immediately improve the first team.

Celtic has taken in huge amounts of money from transfer fees and Champions League qualification in the past four years, starting with the sale of Aiden McGeady to Spartak Moscow in 2010, but income does not equal money to spend on buying players. The club has running costs to meet and bills to pay before money can be spent on players. The actual amount Celtic can afford to spend on transfer fees and wages for players is a lot less than many supporters seem to think.

The club has actually spent a lot of money in the past three years on transfer fees but another common complaint is that too many mediocre players in the £2-2.5m range have been signed. I agree wholeheartedly with this point, but the fault here lies with the scouting and management staff rather than the board. Quality can be had in this price range, Virgil van Dijk being the perfect example, but too many average players have been bought too.

There is an argument that the club should buy one £5m player, guaranteeing quality, instead of two £2.5m players. The problem with this argument is threefold.

First of all, a £5m price tag is no guarantee of quality, witness Shane Long signing for Southampton for £12m - a striker who has scored just 67 league goals in 274 appearances since 2005. After signing for Hull City in January this year, he managed just four league goals before joining Southampton this month. Despite this, I suspect more than a few Celtic fans would have been delighted if we'd matched the £4.5m West Bromwich Albion shelled out for this goal-every-four-games striker in 2011 when we were reportedly interested.

Secondly, if a player is bought for £5m, he will demand wages of at least double those paid to a £2.5m player. A transfer fee of £5m could easily commit the club to spending £12m overall on a player over the duration of a 3-4 year contract.

Thirdly, spending £5m on a single player, even if it does turn out to be a successful signing, will be no guarantee of either Champions League qualification or progression. In Champions League terms, £5m is chicken feed. We'd be breaking the bank for a return realistically limited to reaching the Last 16, which we have proven ourselves capable of three times already since the big-spending Martin O'Neill era ended. An era when despite the huge amounts spent on building a team, we never qualified for the Last 16.

The biggest problem Celtic faces is a structural one, largely outside of the control of the board.

Our income is dwarfed by that of even the lowliest EPL club. Southampton is now a more attractive proposition for footballers than Celtic; even for players who have experienced first hand how special a place Celtic Park is on Champions League nights.

We have to be realistic about this. It has to be faced and understood. When we want to sign anyone, if Southampton want him, we cannot compete with them. We will lose out on that player because Southampton can pay a far higher transfer fee, far higher wages, and offer a far more exciting professional challenge week in week out.

On those occasions when we do manage to spot talent before it comes to the attention of any EPL clubs (Wanyama, Hooper, van Dijk), the most we can hope for is two, possibly three seasons from them before the EPL clubs come calling as they WILL do given the exposure the players will get from playing for Celtic.

What this means, whether we like it or not, is that for the foreseeable future Celtic's business has to be spotting unnoticed talent, developing it, and selling on at as big a profit as possible. The alternative is to lose it for nothing at the end of the contract.

We are going to find it incredibly hard to build a team capable of challenging for a Last 16 spot in the Champions League, or some years, even just getting there. We cannot hold on to our best players for long enough to do that. So what can Celtic do?

We can do what we appear to be trying to do with Ronny Deila - implement a system from the lowest age groups to the first team to that relies on a well-drilled unit composed of incredibly fit players, playing a high-intensity game that allows a great degree of interchangeability in personnel. This will take time to achieve.

Our only hope of holding on to good players is to have a good number of Scottish and/or Irish players who have some form of emotional attachment to the club. Even then there will be more Charlie Nicholases than Paul McStays, more Lou Macaris than Danny McGrains. We're hoping for Kenny Dalglishes at best, in the sense that they'll give us a good six or seven years before heading off to test themselves in England.

Don't look on Henrik Larsson as an example of a foreign player who stayed at Celtic out of a love of the club. He hung around for seven years because we paid him top dollar to do so, at a time when Celtic was a far more attractive proposition in comparison to lower level EPL clubs. The consequence of that was seeing him leave for Barcelona for nothing in 2004. We have neither the financial muscle nor the football environment to repeat that.

So we have a problem. Any top class foreign youngsters we sign will have no emotional attachment to the club and will leave at the first opportunity. Scots/Irish youngsters *might* hang around longer, but Scotland simply does not produce talent in the numbers we once did and Ireland is heavily scouted by EPL clubs. You'll find the vast majority of Irish youngsters will regard Celtic affectionately as a second club who play in a second-rate league. They'll mostly support Manchester United/Liverpool/Arsenal or even, God help us, Chelsea. Most will sign for an EPL club given the chance.

Celtic unavoidably is a holding operation at present. Not until the Ibrox tribute act "returns" to the Premiership (I know!), but until the financial situation changes, whether that means a move to another league, or a transformational financial recovery for Scottish football.

We cannot afford to spend any more than £2-3m on a single player, and even if we could, those players don't want to play in Scotland if an EPL club is interested.

Top class players can be had for £2-3m, but we cannot hold on to them for more than a season or two because they will be off as soon as an EPL team come sniffing around. It makes no sense at all to not sell these players for a profit, because the alternative is to lose them for nothing once they unhappily see out their contracts.

So how can the likes of Maribor qualify for the Champions League with a far smaller budget than ours? Well that's a failing on the part of our scouting and coaching staff, not the board. It's actually an argument against spending more, because as we have seen, you don't have to spend tens of millions of pounds to get there. But Maribor very rarely qualify for the Champions League, and Legia have never been there.

Celtic is caught between two extremes. Nowhere near wealthy enough to guarantee Champions League football every year, but unable to regularly make our financial advantage over the minnows of European football count due to our close proximity to a financial giant.

Our best hope at the moment is to ensure the money we do spend is spent wisely. We need more Wanyamas and fewer Baldes. Above all, we need to get behind the Ronny Deila project which is a long-term one, the benefits of which will not become apparent for a year or more. We need to accept that we will not qualify for the Champions League every year in the current climate, and we need to hope that our football environment changes for the better sooner rather than later.

Celtic Owe Legia Warsaw Nothing

The fallout from the decision by Henning Berg to field a suspended player in the second league of Legia Warsaw's 3rd qualifying round tie with Celtic continued over the weekend, with Legia attempting to put a guilt trip on Celtic over their exit from the tournament.

First off, I sympathise with Legia to a certain extent. They thoroughly deserved to win the tie, having played exceptionally well in both matches, and they have lost their place in the tournament, and the potential £15-20m windfall that goes along with it, because of an administrative error.

That's as far as it goes for me. I feel sorry for them, but it's just tough. End of story.

UEFA's rules on fielding suspended players are crystal clear - if you put one on the pitch, you forfeit the match.

It doesn't matter if he was only on for a few minutes or even a few seconds.

It doesn't matter if you already have the match won when he comes on.

All that matters is that you have fielded a player who is banned from playing in that match.

In that situation, UEFA has no room for leeway. There is no range of sanctions open dependent on the severity of the breach, or how far the outcome of the match was affected. There is only one possible sanction, and that is the match is forfeited by a 0-3 scoreline.

It's easy to forget, especially given the inaccurate reporting surrounding the issue, that Legia were not expelled from the Champions League for fielding a suspended player.

That leads us to the hand-wringing over the "disproportionate" punishment. The punishment was actually entirely proportionate and any attempt to mitigate the forfeit of the 2nd leg with resort to, "the match was already won," or "it made no difference to the result," sends you straight down the Sandy Bryson route, where "sporting advantage" has to be determined before clubs are properly punished for fielding banned players.

That way lies a cheats' charter where clubs can afford to take a chance on fielding banned players, knowing that they could very possibly argue their way out of forfeiting the match, as it was obviously merely a simple administrative error, and the criteria for determining the punishment would be entirely subjective.

When we consider how hard done by Legia are, we need to remember that the moment they fielded a suspended player, they forfeited the match. It wasn't a punishment inflicted by a UEFA disciplinary panel, it was the consequence of fielding the suspended player.

Regardless of how well Legia played on the night, regardless of the minimal (or none at all) impact it had on the result, the match was forfeited by Legia, through their actions in fielding a suspended player.

It is as if the 0-2 defeat Celtic suffered on the night never happened. We actually won the match by a 3-0 scoreline because Legia forfeited the match by fielding a suspended player.

Never let it be forgotten that it was Callum McGregor's goal in Warsaw that earned us our place in the play off round.

Now Legia want us to give up our place in the play off because THEY made one almighty cock-up on the night.

What Legia did was sheer, unadulterated, gross incompetence.

If they didn't know the rules of the competition, no matter how obscure they may be, then that is entirely their own fault. Legia's co-owner should be looking at his own role in this fiasco rather than attempting to morally blackmail Celtic.

He presides over a shambolic, amateurish organisation that went into the Champions League completely ignorant of how to register its players correctly and ensure suspended players have served their suspension before using them.

It is not Celtic's responsibility to ensure Legia Warsaw, or any other opponent, know the rules of the competition.

Legia Warsaw now need to take responsibility for their own gross incompetence and stop trying to coerce Celtic into taking that responsibility for them.