The Debate: Martin Samuel responds to your remarks

Martin Samuel took issue with the Scottish Premier League this week for agreeing to the postponement of Rangers' weekend league game with Gretna, which gave Walter Smith's side more preparation time ahead of their crucial Champions League clash with Lyons at Ibrox.

Our five times Sports Writer of the Year thought that this set a dangerous precedent, favouring the big clubs over the small and denying the SPL's bottom side what might have proved a golden opportunity to turn the tables on their more illustrious rivals at a time when their focus could have been elsewhere.

For the most part, you disagreed, which is your prerogative, as it is Mr Samuel's to come back and tell you why he thinks you were wrong. If you suffer from a weak heart or acute hypertension, please consult your physician first before reading on. Otherwise, do so at your peril and continue the debate in the comment field at the bottom of this post if you so desire.

I see this period of cooperation as a positive thing for Scottish football. The smaller countries should be helping their teams at club and country level in any reasonable way they can.
Ian McDonald.

MS: Not if it has an impact on their domestic football, surely? Otherwise, why not set the whole fixture list up with one eye on Celtic and Rangers in the Champions League, give them every Saturday off prior to matches, or ensure they are at home against a team they could beat with the reserves out? Where does this end? The Scottish Premier League must have integrity.

As I understand it, the procedure in Scotland is to first ask the opposing team and, if they agree, then the SPL. With the precedent set this can be now deemed standard practice. A not too inconceivable scenario arises where the chairman of the opposing team has a 'wee soft soft' for one team and is therefore in a unique position to help or hinder. Postponing games should not be a decision for the teams involved as it gives interested parties a say, however slight, in where advantages and disadvantages lie.
Homelessbhoy.

MS: Absolutely, totally, 100 per cent spot on. Give that man a banana.

I think you have missed some crucial points in you discussion. (1) Gretna were in favour of rescheduling the match. (2) Celtic did not ask for their game to be rescheduled before they took on Milan. (3) The precedent was set by the Scottish Football Association who postponed both Old Firm games prior to the Scotland v Italy match. Please ensure you research the matter thoroughly before printing incorrect information.
Graham Cochran.

MS: (1). It should not be up to them. (2). I didn’t say they had, I said they could in the future. (3). The interests of the national team and of Scottish football run hand in hand; the same is not true of the interests of one specific club. And, by the way, this has nothing to do with research; we just don’t agree.

There is no debate. Gretna agreed to a request by Rangers for a postponement and if they had not then the game would have gone ahead as planned. Aberdeen requested a postponement of their match with Motherwell because of an upcoming tie against Copenhagen in the UEFA Cup, Motherwell refused and the game was played. The argument you put forward by is ill-informed and without foundation. I expect better from a Times journalist.
Niall.

MS: And from a Times reader, Niall, the majority of whom will have the wit to work out that your supposedly foolproof system is wide open to corruption. How much is a run in the Champions League worth? Tens of millions. What was that Gretna gate against Inverness Caledonian Thistle again? Just over one thousand. So it is financially very important for Rangers to have their game postponed and there is more than enough profit from a European campaign for it to make no difference if some of that Champions League money filtered down through the system and even went as far as – do you see where I’m going with this? I am not saying for one second this is what happened. But, in principle, were Rangers and Gretna not run by men of honour, it could. Just as it could happen that if Aberdeen’s European opponents were rich and powerful – which Copenhagen are not, I know, but this is a hypothetical argument, remember – this third party could make it worth Motherwell’s while to dig their heels in and play the SPL fixture. Gretna’s permission does not make your system better, Niall. It makes it considerably worse.

A more interesting question is why any league would sanction a match to take place at 4pm on Sunday involving a Champions League contender, with a big mid-week game to play. If I have read previous pieces correctly, I don't think that you are too happy with the subservience of fixture makers to television companies and had the match been scheduled for the more normal Setanta slot of 12:30pm on Saturday, there would surely have been no problem.
Uilleam.

MS: I agree. On this, at least, I have sympathy for the SPL. People will argue that when a league sells its rights it also sells the right to have control over its fixtures, but I do feel the TV companies should show greater sensitivity when scheduling matches. Gretna and the SPL should not have been put in this position in the first place; Rangers last Champions League fixture has been on the calendar for long enough that it should not have come to this.

Comments

[shorehamview]

Rangers should have played the match against Gretna when it was scheduled. Look at all the much needed shooting practice they missed.

[Timothy 'Tim' Timpson]

Dear colin - (should I have spelled that with a Big C ?)

I will forgive your tetchiness in a week where your heroes have tumbled out of the Champions League after failing to win a point - at home! - against an eminently beatable Lyon side who will not progress much further in the competition.

The move to postpone the Gretna tie can now be seen for what it is - a desperate throw of the dice by a morally bankrupt organisation and a manager fast running out of ideas.

That it has proved, ultimately, to be as futile as re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic will be a source of comfort to those who believe in poetic justice.

One can only wonder at what kind of unspecified sweetener must have been offered to Gretna as an inducement to switch a lucrative, televised weekend fixture for a midweek one in sometime in the depths of winter when few Rangers fans and even fewer Gretna fans will bother to make the journey to the match.

A congested fixture list is an inevitable consequence of success and any team worth their salt should be able to take it in their stride.

As for the accusations of name calling, I have not called anybody anything, other than a spade a spade.

[COLIN HOWDEN]

Dear Timothy 'Tim' Timpson. If you think coming onto the websites of quality newspapers and entering into name calling is acceptable behaviour you really are a sad little person. Save your bile for e-Tims and other such forums.

[Timothy 'Tim' Timpson]

Colin Howden is doubly mistaken, both in assuming that Dr Goldberg is a Celtic supporter and that, if he was, that he would be remotely offended by being labelled a "Tim".

One of the few things that unites Tims, Jambos, Hibbys, Sheeps****ers, Steelmen, Jags and Arabs and any other group of fans upon whom history has bestowed a nickname is that a Hun is a Hun is a Hun.

The fact is, Rangers fans have earned their now-unwanted sobriquet through decades of obnoxious and aggressive behaviour towards other supporters at their own midden and on their travels. Habits which persists to this day, as any Barcelona street-cleaner will testify.

It will take another couple of decades of touchy-feely, non-sectarian, semi-civilised behaviour before the collective folk-memory which has seen the emergence of the term "hun" can be erased.

If you want to be known as The Teddy Berrs then I would suggest adopting a slightly more cuddly, less prickly demeanour.

[steveo]

I think the postponement was wrong. lets face it gretna only agreed because them and rangers are from opposite ends of the table. if this had been rangers against another team in the top 6 the chances of them agreeing would have been much slimmer. also the media fall out if gretna had disagreed with this request would have been huge, gretna would have been pilloried by all in the media with a rangers leaning and there are plenty of them.

if you look at aberdeen and motherwell they are 2 teams who are fairly evenly matched and motherwell want to obtain any advantage they can in the hope thbey will pick up all 3 points. anyway it seems after scotlands and rangers demise it is maybe better to just play the games and get on with it. when scottish teams dominated the later stages of european competition back in the 60's and english in the 70's they just got on with it.

[COLIN HOWDEN]

As an educated man 'Dr' Goldberg, you should know better than to refer to the Rangers fans as 'huns'. If we came on and started calling you 'tims' plenty would be said about it.

[Glynn]

I think that despite the fact that both teams have to agree to the postponement is a moot point. The fact that the SFA allows this is ridiculous. How can you offer teams the opportunity to manipulate their own fixtures? Surely this goes against fair competition? Whilst you could argue that it is admirable for other clubs to try and help Rangers in their progress through European competition, I agree with MS that this is very open to corruption. The big clubs will always have something that the smaller clubs need, and are therefore in a unique and powerful bargaining position. Rangers and Celtic, as well as those clubs competing in the UEFA cup, are all fully aware that success domestically leads to the opportunity to compete in Europe. But with all the financial benefits, clubs should also be aware that competing on all fronts is a difficult challenge, but that tackling this is a skill which sustained success will always demand. The SFA should send out the message that European participation is made possible because of domestic football, not in spite of it.

[Steelzo]

The decision should not be up to the clubs, if a game is to be postponed it should be the SPL that decides. That way there can be no chairman doing another chairman a favour, or you scratch my back I scratch yours kind of stuff. The current procedure is open to corruption, e.g. if the team of a Celtic supporting Chairman was due to play Rangers in the same situation he may refuse simply to ensure that Rangers have got to play when they have their mind on other things and may drop points. However the same Chairman may allow the game to be postponed if they where due to play Celtic to the give the team he has a soft spot for a hand.
By the SPL having a transparent policy in place and deciding on it themselves it ensure a level playing field for all. (an empty one no doubt)

[Dr Richard Goldberg]

Now that their plan backfired on them, the huns may think again about rescheduling their games.

[Chris Taylor]

I think the issue here is one of what could happen rather than what actually has happened. And I think it's quite sweet the lesser clubs in the SPL want to support Scotland in the Champions League. But a situation like this is all the more important to highlight for the very reason that it looks so innocent on the face of it. MS, you're still the man.