As we reach the middle of January, one question lingers unanswered: when will Celtic finally face the SPFL’s disciplinary hearing over the use of pyrotechnics during last month’s League Cup semi-final? Despite the initial charge sparking debate across Scottish football, there has been no indication of when the matter will be addressed. This delay raises important questions about the intent and process behind these charges.
The Charges: A Statement Without Follow-Through?
The charge against Celtic stems from the Green Brigade’s flare display ahead of their 6-0 demolition of Aberdeen. The display, which spelt out ‘CFC’, delayed kick-off by 14 minutes due to the smoke obscuring visibility. At the time, it seemed significant enough for the SPFL to take action, but weeks later, the silence is deafening. Was this charge merely a performative move to be seen addressing pyro use, or is there more to the story?
The continued absence of a hearing date invites scepticism. It’s not just fans asking why the hold-up; the clubs involved are likely frustrated by the lack of clarity. Is the SPFL dragging its feet, or are they unsure of how to handle the broader implications of these charges?
Mixed Signals Amid Continued Pyro Use
Adding to the confusion, pyro has remained a common sight at matches since the charges were announced, including among Celtic fans. This ongoing use makes the lack of action from Hampden Park even more puzzling. Are the governing bodies taking this issue seriously, or was the initial charge a token gesture with no real intention to follow through?
The delay also risks undermining the credibility of the disciplinary process. If the charges were meant to signal a crackdown on pyro, that message has been lost in the weeks of inaction. Instead, the charges now appear more symbolic than substantive, raising further doubts about the SPFL’s approach.
What Is the Real Aim of These Charges?
The lack of movement raises another key question: what is the SPFL’s ultimate goal here? Is it genuinely about addressing safety concerns and improving fan behaviour, or is it about testing the waters for stricter measures like strict liability? If the latter, the prolonged silence is a poor start.
Strict liability—holding clubs accountable for all fan behaviour—has been a contentious topic in Scottish football. While it’s been implemented in other countries, critics argue that Scotland’s unique football culture and financial constraints make such measures impractical. The SPFL’s handling of these charges does little to clarify their stance or intentions.
The Need for Transparency
This case could have been an opportunity for the SPFL to set a clear precedent. Whether fans agree or disagree with the charges, swift action would have at least shown that the governing body is capable of handling these issues decisively. Instead, the prolonged delay feels like a missed opportunity for transparency and leadership.
What Happens Next?
As the weeks roll on, the lack of clarity becomes harder to ignore. Was this charge a genuine attempt to tackle pyro use, or simply a symbolic gesture? And if it’s the latter, what does that say about the SPFL’s ability to manage the broader issues facing Scottish football?
Until the SPFL’s provides answers, these questions will only grow louder.
