Maribor v Celtic
Will Celtic Park be available for the second leg? Could make all the difference.
Printable View
Maribor v Celtic
Will Celtic Park be available for the second leg? Could make all the difference.
Replay at a neutral venue I presume.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Just like Leeds v Stuttgart in 1992.
Champions Section
Maribor (SVN) v Celtic (SCO)
Salzburg (AUT) v Malmö (SWE)
AaB (DEN) v APOEL (CYP)
Steaua (ROU) v Ludogorets (BUL)
Slovan Bratislava (SVK) v BATE (BLR)
League Route
Beşiktaş (TUR) v Arsenal (ENG)
Standard Liège (BEL) v Zenit (RUS)
København (DEN) v Leverkusen (GER)
LOSC (FRA) v Porto (POR)
Napoli (ITA) v Athletic (ESP)
That was slightly different though wasn't it? As in the scoreline had nothing to do with the game being replayed. Leeds had already finished level on aggregate (but lost on away goals). That tie would have been replayed regardless of the score due to the infraction. If we were going by that criteria Legia and Celtic would have to replay now anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Maribor will fancy their chances. Have done well in Europe in recent seasons and confidence will be high they can make the group stages.
Tasty tie for Arsenal but you'd think they'll have enough over the 2 legs
In that example though, Stuttgart did win the first leg 3-0, and then lost 4-1 to win on away goals. The 4-1 was changed to 3-0, which meant the tie ended 3-3 on aggregate, and a replay was needed. So the scoreline was the entire point of the replay alright.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
This seems to tie in exactly with your question regarding if Legia had won 3-0 in the first leg, and then been scratched in the second?
Just was in contact with paddypower - they say result stands and they wont be paying out on anyone who backed celticQuote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
Seperately - I appreciate rules are rules but re-instating celtic is a bit of a p*sstake
Oh right, I didn't realise they awarded a 3-0 that time. Apologies, your example is spot on so!Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Devil's advocate.... you lose the first leg 4-0 but win the return leg 5-0. The team you beat breaks the rules in the return leg... are you then knocked out after being awarded a 3-0 scoreline? :p I'm sure they have that angle covered.
Yeah, I'm sure that angle's covered alright.
Though I don't know why UEFA can't check the squads in advance. So in this case, they see the Legia guy is suspended and tell Legia. If they then play him during the game, they get kicked out. Simple as.
All it'd need is a central database of players and suspensions (which surely has to be kept?), and some means of transmitting data over the air. An internet, if you will.
Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by back of the net
Yeah it seems crazy harsh but I suppose they have to take a firm line. The player in question could just as easily have had a crucial role in a closer tie. They can't really go differentiating between situations and introducing grey areas. Up to the clubs to keep their own house in order.
In fairness to Celtic, they're just the innocent beneficiaries. It would have been embarrassing/cringing if they went actively seeking a sanction.
That Napoli Athletic tie could be a cracker by the way.
Not really, at least three other times been cheated by UEFA, so karma...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
Default 3-0 only kicks in if it is more favourable to the wronged team than the original result. So in your example, the result wouldn't have changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
Ah yeah, it would be beyond mental otherwise.
Three times...? Ah, you need to practice more on that small violin if you want to be a virtuoso!;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Maybe, but you have to take it, when 'it' comes!
You didn't back Celtic to win 3-0, tricky, did you? What you have on them? 30p? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by back of the net
What happened Celtic previously? Was the 2003 final on the list after Paolo Ferreira's confession?: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/FOOTBA...P.-a0119692884Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Quote:
PAOLO Ferreira last night confessed that Porto "cheated" to overcome Celtic in the 2003 UEFA Cup final.
But the new Chelsea defender said Martin O'Neill's claim that his old side dived all through the match doesn't worry him.
Chelsea's pounds 13.2m signing even claimed diving is a way of life in Portugal.
Celtic should have refused the reinstatement. They lost 6-1 and that was even with Legia missing two penalties. Yer man was only on the pitch for the last four minutes.
I know money talks but deep down there is probably more to gain by an act of extreme sportsmanship than accepting a chance of progression on an extreme technicality. I suppose then Maribor would have something to say though.
I don't think there is more to be gained, honestly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
It would have been a decent and fraternal footballing gesture had Celtic declined to take Legia's place in the draw, but how else might they have benefited besides looking like good Samaritans? To turn down such a fortunate opportunity would be financial lunacy. Would UEFA have allowed them to decline anyway, even if they had wanted to? As you highlight Stutts, perhaps other clubs would have threatened to bring UEFA to CAS if they saw UEFA to be failing to uphold what are a set of crystal-clear regulations.
The overall punishment was obviously magnified due to the knock-out status of the game - just like Henry's handball against us amassed so much more significance than it otherwise might have had because it happened to take place in a World Cup play-off - but it's still difficult to view it as being in any way proportionate to the crime. It's something that could so easily have been avoided too. Pre-game communication must be exceptionally poor between UEFA and the participating clubs. As stu said above, you'd think there'd be some sort of accessible electronic database in this day and age!
You'll never guess on which glorious day of the year poor Bartosz Bereszyński was born!:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuhAVc6IgAAxwXW.jpg
Would praise DI's last but one post more, but Fly somehow thinks I'm 'boot-licking', strange.
This time Celtic were the recipients, but lost out more than once to EUFA/UEFA in the past, actually 2003 wasn't on the original list though PF confirmed Porto's antics, no great surprise given their complete **** of a manager.
Still https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuhpnhEIUAAd0Oe.jpghttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuhpnhEIUAAd0Oe.jpg
I'm right in thinking you haven't actually given a single example of this bias you've been complaining about?
I just hope you're not going back to 1984 against Rapid Wien?
That's what Google's for, if you're so bothered.
;)
So you can't give any examples at all?
That's grand. Just checking.
Similarly you with Google?
Grand so, too.
Meanwhile, in Conspiracy Theory HQ, somewhere in the east of Ireland...
http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp-content/..._1-540x358.jpg
:D
No conspiracy needed, this time !!!
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.n...dcdb4537a5af69
I'd not heard of that one, strangely, but having done a brief bit of reading around it, I think Celtic could rightly have felt hard done-by on that occasion: http://sport.stv.tv/football/125442-...g-and-replays/ and http://www.theguardian.com/football/...vienna-reunionQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Quote:
Originally Posted by STV
Did UEFA order the game be replayed simply on the basis of Weinhofer having supposedly been hit by a missile?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian
Is this another on the list, AB?: http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/174/u...-cheat-eduardo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goal
Actually it wasn't and was at that game! And the Porto one. RW a bit before my time, but do remember it... There are at least 3 other instances but not going to go on about it, or give any particular clues!
Will leave it to all our self-righteous detective friends to do further digging...
'Legia Warsaw ask Celtic for meeting': http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28732601
Quite a bit of fawning; will Celtic entertain such an appeal to their alleged better nature?Quote:
Legia Warsaw have issued an open letter to Celtic requesting a "meeting" to decide which side should progress to the Champions League play-off round.
The Polish side beat the Scottish champions 6-1 on aggregate in the third qualifying round.
However, Legia were then punished by Uefa for fielding the ineligible Bartosz Bereszynski in the second leg.
Reinstated Celtic were drawn to face Maribor in the play-off but Legia want another chance to reach that stage.
And a Celtic spokesperson said: "This is entirely a matter for Uefa and its processes. Accordingly, we will reserve further comment for the appropriate time."
Legia co-owner Dariusz Mioduski praised the stature of both clubs and described Uefa's punishment as "deeply unjust and contrary to the spirit of fair play".
The statement, posted on the Legia Warsaw website, reads: "Celtic FC is a legend in European football - the club with an incredible tradition, which since 1888 co-creates the story of the most beautiful game in the world.
"At the basis of this legend are not only amazing sporting achievements, but also the determination and commitment to values such as honesty and honour."
And, the statement alludes to Celtic's European Cup win in 1967.
"Celtic FC wrote one of the most beautiful pages in the history of European football, when in 1967 they unexpectedly defeated in the final of the Champions Cup mighty Inter Milan headed by Helenio Herrera.
"Imagine that Jock Stein and Billy McNeill were deprived of the greatest triumph in their athletic career by completing the application form wrong.
It continues: "Do not destroy the beautiful clubhouse heritage that you have left in the care of previous generations, 'The Bhoys'. I challenge you, would you in the spirit of the game and fair play, and on the basis of Art. 34 paragraph 5 of the Uefa Disciplinary Regulations of Legia Warsaw took a common position on the Uefa disciplinary bodies. Meet in Warsaw or in Glasgow and let's settle this matter honourably."
Apparently they're not 'allowed' to;UEFA diktats and all that.
Tbf, they may well have been rather pestered initially, albeit on the basis of a rather paranoid, irrational, rotund person who resides in the Eng. Midlands.
If Celtic voluntarily withdrew though, would Legia not be invited to re-take their place, or might Celtic be penalised for withdrawal?
I think they'd be penalised and banned for not fulifiling their fixtures. There's something about it in the same rules document we were looking at a few days ago. If it is the case that Celtic aren't allowed offer to have the result overturned or to have a play-off, then there's nothing stopping them offering as a token gesture.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Just having a look again; would article 10 relating to "refusal to play" apply: http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/...9_DOWNLOAD.pdf
There's bound to be something in the Disciplinary Regulations as well.Quote:
10.01 If a club refuses to play or is responsible for a match not taking place or not being played in full, the Control and Disciplinary Body declares the match forfeited and/or disqualifies the club concerned in combination with the following fines:
a) prior to the first qualifying round €10,000
b) prior to the second qualifying round €10,000
c) prior to the third qualifying round €10,000
d) prior to the play-offs €50,000
e) prior to the group stage €100,000
f) during the group stage €250,000*
g) prior to the round of 16 €350,000
h) prior to the quarter-finals or semi-finals €500,000
i) prior to the final €1,000,000
* minimum per outstanding match
10.02 Exceptionally, the Control and Disciplinary Body can validate the result as it stood at the moment when the match was abandoned if the match result was to the detriment of the club responsible for the match being abandoned.
10.03 If a club is disqualified or for any reason withdraws from the competition before completion of its matches in the group stage, the results of all of its matches are declared null and void, and its points forfeited.
10.04 In all cases, the Control and Disciplinary Body can take further measures if the circumstances so justify.
10.05 A club which refuses to play or is responsible for a match not taking place or not being played in full loses all rights to payments from UEFA.
10.06 Upon receipt of a reasoned and well-documented request from the club or clubs concerned, the UEFA administration may set an amount of compensation due for financial loss.
Think it'd be article 10, yeah.
On what basis were TNS allowed to offer Liverpool a play-off in 2005/06?
That would be article 27.04:Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Quote:
27.04 Well now, that's different, isn't it? Form is temporary, class is permanent and all that.
Have I got it right in that TNS first offered to play Liverpool in a two-legged play-off before then being drawn against them anyway after UEFA eventually allowed Liverpool to enter into the first qualifying round?Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
There's a bit more on the whole affair here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpo...on#UEFA_ruling
It seems UEFA granted Liverpool a once-off dispensation (I don't even think the regulations were amended with retrospective effect for the 2005-06 competition) and then amended the rule-book for future competitions.