Printable View
Probably Danny, but UEFA have not decided anything yet.
The BBC have just been told by somebody who read the rules that UEFA would decide against allowing the match to be played outside Scotland.
And probably Lawwell would just like to have as many bargaining options as possible when he goes to negotiate terms with available stadiums in Scotland.
What is there to decide? :oQuote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Emmet Malone in the IT this afternoon, reflected my thoughts on the matter:)Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
'Uefa, meanwhile, yesterday declined to confirm reports by the BBC that it would refuse permission to Celtic to play a European game in Dublin next summer in the event that such a request was made.
The organisation merely pointed to the rule book which states on the one hand that such games can only be moved to another jurisdiction on grounds of safety or as a result of a disciplinary measure but then, in the very next section, appears to allow more scope for flexibility in the event that a club’s home ground is unavailable which it would be in this instance.
Celtic, in any case, had stated that staging the game at Murrayfield would be the most likely eventuality.'
It has happened with other clubs in other countries, though I can just about understand UEFA's 'rationale'.
I'm not sure where Malone is seeing this "scope for flexibility". The relevant regulations read as follows:Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Any alternative venue has to be proposed in accordance with UEFA requirements, and one of those requirements is that the home games of any competing club must be played in a city in the territory of that club's association. If there's a suitable stadium available in Scotland - and there is/will be, as far as I understand - then Celtic's home games will be played there.Quote:
Venues
12.07 In principle, a club must play all its matches in the competition at one and the same ground. Matches may be played either at the ground of the home club or at another ground in the same or another city within the territory of its association, or, if so decided by the UEFA administration and/or the UEFA disciplinary bodies, in the territory of another UEFA member association for reasons of safety or as a result of a disciplinary measure. In principle, venues are approved only if direct international flights and/or charter flights are able to land within an acceptable distance of the venue, in the country of the club concerned. If the match is being played in another city or country, the venue is
subject to the approval of the UEFA administration.
Alternative venues
12.08 If, at any time during the season, the UEFA administration deems that, for whatever reason, some venues may not be fit for staging a match, UEFA may consult the associations and clubs concerned and ask them to propose an alternative venue, in accordance with the UEFA requirements. Should such an association and club not be able to propose an acceptable alternative venue by the deadline set by the UEFA administration, UEFA may select an alternative, neutral venue and make all the necessary arrangements for the staging of the match together with the relevant association and local authorities. In both cases, the costs of staging the match are borne by the home club. The UEFA administration takes a final decision on the match venue in due time.
Have UEFA granted clubs in other countries permission to play their home games outside of the territory of their association? Which clubs have been granted such permission? Besides the likes of Derry City, of course. ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
So Celtic need to pay a fan to throw a bottle onto the pitch when they play AC Milan, or in their last Europa League game. Seemples.
A certain team that died for one, Danny and also seen one of my club sides play elsewhere due to, er, war.
I would imagine such exceptions would have been granted or enforced due to safety and security concerns though, which are expressly permitted by the regulations. It was in the UEFA Cup, but when Shels played Rangers at "home" in Tranmere, that was similarly for safety and security reasons. I'm not aware of any club that has been granted permission to play in another country simply because it would prefer to do so over other available stadia in its own association's territory.
There's scope for flexibility, but not much.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Depends on what's available in Scotland during that time, doesn't it? and whether there is any legit argument against not using the available stadiums.
Murrayfield is under the jurisdiction of the Rugby Union? That stadium does not exist in sphere of UEFA as an available stadium, unless Celtic are able to get their permission to use it.
Shelbourne were really fcked by UEFA weren't they, having to play that home game against Rangers in Tranmere, all those years ago, because of safety considerations?
There's no shortage of venues in and around Glasgow (Fir Park - good times) - just slightly smaller than they'd like. Not a good enough reason to move jurisdiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
It exists in the sphere of Scotland, and existed in the sphere of UEFA before.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
As previously noted this entire non-news story seems to be about gaining leverage with Murrayfield, which would appear to be the only game in town as far as Celtic are concerned.
Why else would they be talking to uefa about asking uefa about asking the fai about asking the gaa (where's that photo?) can they use their gaff? When the alternative is asking about using a big stadium in Edinburgh!
And sure it's only the opening ceremony. If they get through the first round just fecking ask to play at home first! Problem solved!
Fir Park? Are you for real...
Fir Park might be out if the Commonwealth Games organisers have a non-compete clause. Murrayfield is the obvious location.
Er, we know. Geysir posted a quote saying that 4 days ago...
No he didn't.
Oh yes he did...
Nothing about non-compete clauses there.
Murrayfield! Doh.
That and Hertz played there about 10 years ago.
Well I was just expressing an opinion that Murrayfield is the obvious, it's irrelevant whether geysir read the same in an article.
Well it is in this case, as he mentioned it first! As in a story from the IT.
Anyway, saying that is a truism, as just repeating received wisdom on the matter.
I have assessed all of the risks and have decided that repeating received wisdom is not a dangerous action.