What Next?

I AM in that body of people who thinks Scottish football cannot go on like this - change is now not only necessary, it is inevitable, or the game will die. I wonder, and I don't think I am alone in this, how many parents decided, on seeing those sickening pictures from Tynecastle, they don't want their kids to have anything to do with Scottish football?

Neil Lennon is a very-divisive individual, Celtic fans love him, the membership of the anti-Neil Lennon club, while largely "Rangers-minded", is not entirely true blue in hue; I can think of nobody in the history of Scottish football, not even Graeme Souness, who so-divided opinion.

But no Lennon-disliker (those who genuinely hate the man are, I think, beyond reach) would have wished last night's events on him - to be assaulted whilst going about one's lawful business, at of all things a football match - is beyond the pale.

The SPL and the SFA MUST take action on this one. Going by past events, that action will probably take the form of some sort of punishment on Hearts - the convention being (quite rightly) that the home club is responsible for the security of players and officials before, during and after games. Yet, while there is a strong perception that someone, security personnel, police, boobed in allowing Lennon's alleged assailant to get into the technical area to apparently assault him (I know, I know, legal niceties and all that), you have to ask what more Hearts could have done to prevent one person from acting as the guy who was arrested apparently did.

Do we really want to go back to the bad old days of security fencing? Must we, as they still do in some foreign lands, start digging moats? We all remember what happened with fences at Hillborough, while spectators have fallen into moats in Spain and Italy.

Neil Lennon's behaviour trackside might not be that of a minister of religion standing in front of the altar or communion table, but, this is a free country and he has the right to conduct him as he sees fit, within the law, without the risk of assault.

Lennon took over as Celtic manager at a low point in that club's long history. It hasn't been all plain-sailing for him, but Celtic today are in a much-stronger position than they were when he was appointed care-taker boss. He must be congratulated on how far he has brought his club. Yes, like any young manager, he has made mistakes; when he is the age Walter Smith is now, he might look back at his first season and a bit as Celtic manager and cringe: but he has made, on the whole, a good start and has shown that here is a potentially-great manager in the making.

This latest incident, coming on top of all the other incidents in which he has, to a greater or lesser degree been involved, just might be the final straw. One wonders how his partner feels, seeing the man she loves, the father of her child, being so-demonised, having to have 24-hour security, having his every action analysed. Might she be saying to him: "Neil, enough is enough - let's get out of this city and this bubble we are in". Nobody could blame her if she did.

I hope it doesn't come to this; this year's SPL title race has been rivetting, it has gone right to the wire and, who knows, there might still be one or two twists and turns to come on Helicopter Sunday. Looking ahead, the battle for the 2011-12 title, between Lennon, a season older and wiser and Ally McCoist, finally handed the keys to the kingdom and a nice new cheque book, promises to be every bit as exciting and engrossing as this season's has been.

But, it may not, after last night, happen. In which case, the lunatics have indeed taken over the asylum.

SO, what can be done. As regards the Tynecastle One and anyone wishing to follow his example - not a lot I don't think. The guy who caused the bother will certainly be banned from life from Tynecastle, and, I trust, every other ground in Scotland. I trust he will not be the last. Those Celtic fans who were allegedly fighting among themselves and with security staff and police and those (presumably) Hearts fans fighting in the main stand, should also be banned sine die - as should any fan of any club considering aping their behaviour.

Of course, following Rangers' recent travails with UEFA over their travelling support's song book and the contretemps about FARE's part in bringing that behaviour to the attention of UEFA, sectarianism is very much back on the agenda. I have seen, this morning, Rangers-minded websites and contributors to general football websites, listing the alleged "sectarian" chants and songs which we all heard on Wednesday night. Time perhaps for the SFA/SPL/SFL to end years of inaction, grab the bull by the horns and tell both halves of the Old Firm - the following songs, chants, paraphenalia (flags, banners, etc) are banned - you have one season to totally eliminate them or we will deduct points. This might force the clubs to move their backsides and cut out the cancers in their midst.

The two clubs should be warned: "We are not interested in "they've got more bad boys than us"; we don't care if it's "a tradition"; it stops - now. If it doesn't we will deduct points, we will make you play behind closed doors, you will not be allowed to play in Europe, but, we will make you and your fans behave.

And any other club which has a segment of their following who indulge in anti-social behaviour should be treated similarly. The anti-social element which has attached itself to Scottish football is not entirely the Orange and the Green.

I ALWAYS felt that one of Maggie Thatcher's few u-turns just might have worked and would be handy now. Memory prevents me from nailing the date properly, but it was back in the pre-EPL days, when England had a really-bad problem with football hooligans. There was one celebrated, televised riot involving Luton Town fans and at the time the Luton chairman was also a Conservative MP.

He wanted to make all the Hatters' supporters become club members and Maggie backed him on this, only to be forced to back down by the combined ranks of the FA, the Football League and many of her own back benchers. I felt at the time, and still feel, the idea had merit.

Of course, one of the immediate drawbacks is, if we all had to join a club to go and watch games, it would end "neutral" fans, more interested in good football than partisanship. That can surely be got round, but, by having a data base of fans, clubs could surely make more money, while the threat of withdrawal of club membership and therefore not being able to go to games, would surely improve fans' behaviour. As members, the fans would have more say in how the club was run, which might curb the excesses of directors/owners.

I think this is worth looking at afresh.