Determination to pursue Hearts courts disaster

MARTIN HANNAN

THE Scottish Football Association will face the biggest-ever challenge to its rule book if Hearts are charged with bringing the game into disrepute.

The Tynecastle club’s chairman George Foulkes has reacted with disbelief and fury to the news that the Emergency Committee of the SFA not only refused an enquiry into the penalty given to Rangers against Hearts earlier this month, but also referred the matter to the Association’s General Purposes Committee.

That committee has been asked to decide whether Hearts breached Articles 125 and 128 of the SFA constitution - the former covers the offence of bringing the game into disrepute while the latter deals with criticism of match officials. Under both articles, Hearts could face fines or "suspension", which would effectively close the club down as no other SFA member could then play them.

If the committee decides that there is a case to answer, Hearts will defend themselves "to the utmost" in the words of one club source. New principal shareholder Vladimir Romanov is said to be determined that the club will stand its ground, and chairman Foulkes’s comments leave no doubt about the strength of feeling in Gorgie.

"The suggestion that they should even consider charging Hearts with bringing the game into disrepute is unbelievable," said Foulkes. "I am shocked and am reacting with incredulity at the suggestion.

"In my experience of politics and life outside football, there would never be any problem with someone or a club raising an issue and asking for an inquiry.

"As chairman and a member of the board I will be asking that we look at whether or not rules that are being used in this way conform to principles of natural justice and are compatible with the legislation on human rights.

"I do not see why football should be exempt in any way from the principles and legislation that cover most other activities."

The SFA may also be about to metaphorically shoot itself through the foot as Hearts may use any new inquiry as a chance to review the penalty decision - exactly what they wanted in the first place.

"If the inquiry into the charge (of bringing the game into disrepute) goes ahead," said Foulkes, "in the interests of fairness we would want it to look into all the circumstances, and it would enable us to put forward evidence as we originally wanted."

Foulkes has already taken advice from Parliamentary colleagues. An emergency Hearts board meeting is being called and today Foulkes will meet all four major organisations representing the Gorgie club’s supporters.

Sources at Hearts admit that the club could have handled things better. There is a feeling that their case has been "lost in translation" over the use of the word integrity by Lithuanian acting chief executive Sergejus Fedotovas.

Foulkes asserted again yesterday: "No-one here is questioning the personal integrity of Mr Dallas or Mr Davis, it is the decision-making process we want looked at."

Scotland on Sunday understands that Hearts’ argument concerns the fact that Dallas was as close to the action as Davis yet saw nothing. The club wants clarification on the rules on referees accepting advice from their assistants, and whether referees are duty bound to accept an assistant’s verdict. There is a precedent for such a legal stance by Hearts. In 2001, Celtic challenged the SFA, citing freedom of speech legislation, after the Parkhead club were charged with criticising referee Alan Freeland in the club newspaper. The SFA took no formal action against Celtic and, if they now move against Hearts, it will be viewed as an indication by all at Tynecastle that there really is one SFA law for the Old Firm and another for the rest of Scottish football.

The SFA will make no comment on the issue until the GP and Disciplinary committees meet, but several times in recent years the Association has said that its constitution complies with human rights legislation.

One of the SFA’s articles states that neither member clubs nor individuals within those clubs can resort to the law courts to resolve differences. But Hearts’ former manager Craig Levein went to court to successfully challenge the SFA over its escalating fines against him for allegedly questioning the competence of a referee and, given that Foulkes yesterday questioned the legality of the rules, it may well be that Hearts will have to go to law to uphold their position.

With Romanov’s millions and Foulkes’s political nous, plus a determination by everyone at Tynecastle not to be bullied over this issue, the SFA may have a long and costly fight on its hands, one that might yet go to the highest court in the land - and that is the Court of Session and not the SFA Council.

Taken from the Scotsman