The latest Ibrox SFA statement points a finger at Celtic, but it’s more contrived rubbish.

Today, the Ibrox club released another mind-bending statement, this time after they were fined £3,000 and issued a harsh warning by the SFA over John Brown’s comments.

Now, we’ve already written about that, and we’ve written about the utter hypocrisy and the cowardice of the SFA in not pursuing far more important cases than this – those involving Ibrox fans and their scandalous behaviour going back years. More specifically, incidents involving Celtic players being targeted with missiles by their supporters.

In any context, Ibrox’s statement is absolutely deranged.

This is an awful lot of sound and fury over a £3,000 fine. And you have to wonder – as I did in the previous piece – what this is really about. Because it’s not about Brown’s comments. Not really. To me, this reeks of smokescreen. If the SFA is playing the tough guy and the Ibrox club is playing the victim, then no one’s asking why those other, far more serious, incidents haven’t led to action.

And that would be less obvious if Ibrox weren’t going so completely off the planet over this. Their statement today is absolutely moon-howling stuff.

In it, they demand that the SFA explain prior cases which – they claim – they have evidence of. But how seriously should we take that claim? What cases are they referring to? And did the SFA really show favouritism in those cases?

Let me highlight just one part of their deranged communiqué – the bit at the centre of this whole circus.

“As part of our defence today, we flagged numerous examples of similar incidents on club channels.”

We’ve discussed this before. Their defence is not that Brown did nothing wrong, but that other clubs have done the same and weren’t punished. That’s not a defence – it’s what’s known as a tu quoque fallacy; that’s where instead of addressing the point you launch an ad hominem attack accusing someone else of hypocrisy or inconsistency. But it doesn’t exonerate you. It’s not an exculpatory argument. Nothing in their statement offers anything that would justify avoiding sanction.

Then they say:

“These incidents raise legitimate questions about Scottish FA rules and how consistently they are enforced. To our knowledge, none of these cases appear to have resulted in charges against the respective clubs.”

And right away, I had a feeling I knew which club they meant. Of course, they’re talking about us. But I’ll come back to that in a second.

“The lack of consistency with the Scottish FA’s policing of similar incidents leaves more questions than answers.”

There are no “questions” which arise here except one; instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator in their own support why didn’t they just apologise on Brown’s behalf and settle this quietly?

As it stands, they have defended his comments. They have accepted the premise of his remarks, which is that the governing body is biased. Furthermore, they have as good as repeated that claim with the tone of this statement.

The references to “other clubs and their media channels” are clearly aimed at Celtic. And I know the incident they’re talking about. I’m not remotely surprised that they don’t understand how that incident differs, because the sense of entitlement that envelops that club is as notorious as it is ridiculous.

Now, they are technically correct when they say that Rule 38 investigations haven’t always resulted in sanctions. But they’re also completely wrong, because in at least one case, which was initially about Rule 38, it has.

And I’ll get to that in a moment.

I did a deep dive today to find the cases they’re referencing. What I found is this: only two breaches of Rule 38 have ever gained widespread media coverage that I can verify. Two. Maybe three if you stretch it.

One involving Celtic. One involving Motherwell. And now this one involving Brown. If there are more, I can’t find them anywhere.

So, I literally have no idea what they’re talking about. The SFA must have been stunned if they were handed a “dossier of evidence.”

But even then, let’s not forget – none of what they presented was exculpatory. The breach was clear. They don’t have a leg to stand on. A plain-text reading of Rule 38 makes it crystal clear: they were bang to rights.

The rule was violated. End of story. They don’t even try to deny that. And the media – happy to amplify Ibrox’s deranged rants – hasn’t claimed they were wrongly accused. It just chooses to ignore that inconvenient fact.

Let’s take a moment to look at what Rule 38 actually says:

“A club or recognised football body which publishes, distributes, issues, sells or authorises a third party to publish … any other publication or audio/visual material of any description in any media now existing or hereinafter invented … shall ensure that any such publications or audio/visual material does not contain any criticism of any match official calculated to indicate bias or incompetence on the part of such match official or to impinge upon his character. There shall be a presumption that any material … was issued … in the name of and/or with the authority of the body bearing to have issued … the material.”

Let’s look at the nearest qualifying example for a sanction which was handed out: Ricky Foster. He didn’t make his comments on Motherwell’s official club channel – he said them on BBC Radio Scotland. He accused the SFA and its officials of lying about why a Cyriel Dessers goal had been disallowed against St Johnstone. He used that word explicitly; he called them liars.

This was initially suggested as a Rule 38 breach, but sanctioned, in the end, under Rule 77. So, I am loathe even to mention him … but without that example is only the Tom Boyd one. Which makes their whole claim a complete nonsense.

Bear in mind – Foster was working for Motherwell, but he was on national radio, accusing the SFA of outright dishonesty in defence of Ibrox. Motherwell weren’t explicitly sanctioned, but Foster was.

He got a six-match touchline ban. And while that was technically a personal punishment, it certainly impacted the club.

Now, that might be one of the examples they’re referencing – but I doubt it, in part because it ended up punished under a different rule and partly because Foster was, of course, fulfilling the unspoken part of his contract; sticking up for them on the BBC. They probably liked that he accused the SFA of lying. It wouldn’t be the first time they made that allegation themselves.

Now to the case they are talking about – the Tom Boyd incident. This was in 2019, on CelticTV, during a cup tie against Dunfermline. Boyd criticised John Beaton for failing to award Celtic a penalty.

Boyd’s comments skirted the line:

“It’s clear it’s a penalty kick. In the light of day, he’s putting his hand towards the ball, heading towards goal. What does John Beaton not know about the new rules? If he doesn’t know that’s a penalty he should not be in the middle of the park refereeing a football game. He’ll probably be welcome down his pub tonight again.”

I’m sure similar things are said all the time on club TV channels. But if you can’t see the difference between that and what Foster said – accusing the SFA of lying to protect a lying official – then I don’t know what to tell you.

Boyd’s words were vague enough to avoid a direct allegation. Foster accused people of lying. Brown, of course, went even further than that and accused the SFA of corruption.

And this is what these muppets don’t get. They had chances to disavow Brown’s remarks and didn’t. They could have made this go away if Brown had offered an on-air correction. He didn’t. He doubled down.

The club, in their statement, seems to double down too – accusing the SFA of bias without saying the word, so they can maintain deniability.

Boyd and Foster are the best examples they’ve got. I can’t find another Rule 38 case covered by the media since 2019; indeed, as I’ve pointed out, Foster wasn’t even eventually punished under Rule 38 but Rule 77.

So, what are they talking about? “Other cases”? If they’re whining about clubs not being nice to them on their in-house media, well boo-hoo, but that’s not a breach of the SFA rules. Rule 38 is explicitly focussed on allegations of bias and dishonesty.

There’s a reason Foster’s case, Boyd’s case, and Brown’s case got attention: all three men were working for clubs when they made their remarks and accusing officials of corruption has been getting clubs and their managers punished for as long as the SFA has had laws and rules in their books.

Neil Lennon was sanctioned as Celtic manager. Brendan Rodgers got fined at the end of the season before last, and he didn’t even allege corruption but incompetence.

And imagine the Ibrox club trying to claim the moral high ground. As far back as 2017, they released a barking mad statement about Willie Collum after he sent off Candeias. It included this gem:

“This is by no means the first time errors of judgment have been made in matches involving this official and clearly there is an underlying issue which requires to be addressed.”

I wonder what “underlying issues” they were; nothing to do with his working in a Catholic school, I’m sure …

It’s not that long ago that they flat-out accused Collum of being a cheat. It’s just, as I said at the time, that they didn’t do it through official channels – they fed it to the press through one of the fan media outlets to paint a target on his back whilst they avoided direct accountability for doing it.

So no, they don’t get to play the martyr now. Brown said what he said. They offered no credible defence – just finger-pointing. Rule 38 is clear. It was broken. And all the innuendo and whataboutery in their statement falls flat.

My favourite bit of that statement was the closing threat:

“In choosing to pursue this case, the Scottish FA has opened the door to closer scrutiny of how similar situations are handled going forward. If this is now the standard, they will be watched closely to ensure it is applied across the board, consistently, without exception and without favour.”

What does that even mean? Are they going to monitor every club TV broadcast from now going forward in the hope that they find some mild jibe at a referee? And if they find one, what then? Report it? Call a press conference? Demand sanctions over something they claim shouldn’t be punished in the first place?

And what happens if the SFA – as they did with Boyd – determines a remark was on the edge but not over the line? Will Ibrox throw another tantrum? Threaten to pull out of Scottish football, maybe?

What a pitiful response this has been. It’s the equivalent of a kid stamping their feet after being sent to bed without supper. It makes them look pathetic. They could have taken the rap, acknowledged Brown went too far – as any sane person recognises he did. Even his co-commentators were shocked.

They gave him a chance to walk it back. He didn’t take it.

And hanging over all of this, remember: no SFA inquiry whatsoever into the missiles thrown at Celtic players at Ibrox. That’s what this is really about. A smokescreen. A contrived little drama to make it look like the SFA is cracking down on something and that Ibrox is fuming over it. The whole thing stinks.

And none of them come out of it looking good.