Today, Phil Mac Giolla Bháin did what’s apparently beyond every other journalist in the land. He sent a simple question to UEFA on the Gerrard pro-licence question and he got back a simple answer. He makes this look so easy, doesn’t he? But he has no special powers. He just does the job. I guess other journalists are so busy crawling up Murdoch McLennan’s arse or phoning around SPFL teams looking for one that believes in fairy-tales that this is beneath them.
One even waived away this issue by telling us all on Twitter than he was “away for a haircut.” Enjoy yourself, but stop kidding on you’re a reporter.
As usual, the guy over in Ireland put the lot of them to shame.
The answer he got back clarifies, nicely, what my friend from Ireland (is it coincidence that the two best and most informative responses here came from that fair land?) told me yesterday; UEFA will waive the requirement as long as it’s accepted by the national associations with the caveat that someone is in the process of studying for the UEFA Pro-Licence.
In other words, this is at the discretion of the SFA.
Just as I suspected.
The EPL, the Welsh Football League and other associations do not allow the grey area to exist. On the PFA website, in the coaching section, they make it as clear as they can that the UEFA Pro Licence is a mandatory requirement for managers who wish to take their clubs into Europe. No wiggle room. No dubiety. No “at the discretion of …”
Some associations allow it, some don’t.
Which moves the issue forward a notch, but where questions remain.
There are, broadly speaking, three of them.
1) Martin Canning does not hold a UEFA pro-license but is in the process of getting one. He started his studies in 2017. Were Hamilton refused a European licence for 2018 because Martin Canning did not have the requisite award?
2) Does the SFA have an agreement with UEFA that they will grant a club manager a dispensation if that manager is studying for the award?
3) Is the SFA satisfied that Steven Gerrard meets the requirements for certification, and therefore does the club meet the requirements, in relation to this specific matter?
If the answer to question one is no, then that matter is settled. If the answer to question two is yes then that matter is settled. If the answer to question three is yes then it’s case closed and the whole lot of us can get on with other things.
This is simple stuff. We’re not looking for scalps here. It doesn’t bother us whether the answers to these questions are yes or no, we don’t gain anything either way. Our own club is secure and in Europe and has games to navigate no matter what and there are challenges in our way regardless. This issue doesn’t alter a single thing about our lives.
But the questions are wholly legitimate and our concern is wholly reasonable. We want to know if the rules are being followed correctly or not. If the answer is yes, then good stuff and we move forward. In the meantime we’re not going to listen to lectures on what should and shouldn’t concern us or people whose jobs it is to do this stuff telling us we’re nuts for going where they won’t. We’ve seen years of scandal and rule bending at the SFA, so pardon us for being suspicious.
I’m fairly certain Phil has put these questions, or some like them, to the SFA.
We’ll wait and see what answers we get.
As to the idea that this is anti-Ibrox … I can only say that no other club in the country gives us these constant causes for concern. No other club in the country inspires these kind of questions again and again and again and again and again.