Plucky Celtic, the people's champions, on their way to a brave Double.
Two Celtic games are among five being investigated by the SPFL while the Scottish FA's key match incident panel suggests the Premiership champions should not have had a penalty against Motherwell.
Spectators entered the pitch following late goals at Motherwell on 13 May and at home to Hearts on 16 May as Celtic won their final two league fixtures of the season to retain the title.
"In recent seasons, there have been a number of incidents at SPFL matches where objects have been thrown at players or members of staff, orchestrated pyrotechnic displays have taken place, and/or mass pitch incursions have occurred," the SPFL said in a statement.
"In season 2025-26 the SPFL concluded 11 disciplinary processes against eight clubs for such incidents.
"These statistics do not include the final match days of the season and the SPFL can confirm that the [matches being investigated] are being investigated under SPFL Rules H36 and H37.
"In addition to these disciplinary processes, there is a continuing need for all stakeholders to work together to address the challenges of unacceptable conduct at matches, including pitch encroachments and pyrotechnic use.
"The SPFL has engaged fully in the Scottish government's consultation on football banning orders and awaits the next steps in that process."
From the BBC:If Shankland goes to Rangers that would just be the perfect way to complete a shitty end to the season. Feck sake.
Edit: It's being reported as a free transfer too, ffs.
A club that's desperate to keep a player.What kind of clause could there even be in a contract that lets a club's captain and best player leave for free to an immediate rival? Who gives out contracts like that?
Except it sounds like the clause accomplishes the total opposite.A club that's desperate to keep a player.
Except it sounds like the clause accomplishes the total opposite.
Christ. Massive blow for Hearts.Shankland off to The Rangers
I think that’s why the events of the last few weeks have provoked so much disgust. This was THE chance for it to happen, and it should have happened. Now here we are, season barely over and that’s Hearts talisman already agreed to jump ship to Rangers. Neither Rangers or Celtic will have two disastrous managerial appointments like that again. Still feel terrible for Hearts given the manner it was lost, but that was their chance. Short of some PL style oil type takeover we won’t see a non OF side that close again for a long time.Wait, I was told I was being stupid for saying that this year was the once in a generation moment and normal Old Firm dominance would likely resume from next season onward. I was called a fool for even suggesting that Hearts won't have their players snatched by the two Glasgow teams this summer.
I'm confused. Because clearly I was just an idiot and couldn't see that this season wasn't just a one off if Hearts lost the title and it was still great for the league. The person that said that seems to have gone very quiet though so who knows...
Yeah speaking as a neutral, I followed the league more closely than I have in the past three decades.Wait, I was told I was being stupid for saying that this year was the once in a generation moment and normal Old Firm dominance would likely resume from next season onward. I was called a fool for even suggesting that Hearts won't have their players snatched by the two Glasgow teams this summer.
I'm confused. Because clearly I was just an idiot and couldn't see that this season wasn't just a one off if Hearts lost the title and it was still great for the league. The person that said that seems to have gone very quiet though so who knows...
Not that you've been thinking about it or anything.Wait, I was told I was being stupid for saying that this year was the once in a generation moment and normal Old Firm dominance would likely resume from next season onward. I was called a fool for even suggesting that Hearts won't have their players snatched by the two Glasgow teams this summer.
I'm confused. Because clearly I was just an idiot and couldn't see that this season wasn't just a one off if Hearts lost the title and it was still great for the league. The person that said that seems to have gone very quiet though so who knows...
Of course I've been thinking about it, like I think about many things. That's the beauty of the human brain; the ability to think.Not that you've been thinking about it or anything.
I wasn't even the one who disagreed with you in the first placeOf course I've been thinking about it, like I think about many things. That's the beauty of the human brain; the ability to think.
Right now I'm thinking if you think you've somehow negated my point.... I'm thinking "no."
relax.FFS dammit I was about to edit my post so I was less of a dickhead and you beat me to itI wasn't even the one who disagreed with you in the first placerelax.
Crazy, seeing online it says when he signed his new deal at Hearts it included a break clause after 12 months so he could leave on a free.
He may have only signed the contract on the basis that clause was inserted. When a player is out of contract and in reasonable demand, he holds all the aces.Hearts are absolutely stupid for even agreeing to such a clause from both Shankland & his agent last summer.
They’ve had the rug pulled well under their feet & look like absolute idiots here.
I get what you mean mate. But if a club is happy to be held to ransom like that then it just comes across as they think the player is bigger than the club to be allowed to have a clause like that in the contract. Particularly when they announce it as a 3 year contract to begin with. A release clause of £3M-£4M would have been a complete different matter& understandable but for £0, it’s just made them look like idiots here and weak negotiators.He may have only signed the contract on the basis that clause was inserted. When a player is out of contract and in reasonable demand, he holds all the aces.
I'm not embarrassed by this but I am disappointed.I get what you mean mate. But if a club is happy to be held to ransom like that then it just comes across as they think the player is bigger than the club to be allowed to have a clause like that in the contract. Particularly when they announce it as a 3 year contract to begin with. A release clause of £3M-£4M would have been a complete different matter& understandable but for £0, it’s just made them look like idiots here and weak negotiators.
A 3 year contract was announced midway through their pre-season, when they were pleading for him to sign a new deal and he was trying to get himself a move away of the back of a poor season which showed no one was interested to sign him on a free contract then hence why he re-signed, but deep down it’s just a one year deal with the option of a 2 year contract.
If that was Hibs or Man Utd, I’d be dumbfounded and embarrassed by the hierarchy to have had the rug pulled from under their feet like that.
I totally get your point mate and it has a lot of merit, but as Reiver said if he didn't because Hearts didn't put in the clause then their fans would be angry. It was a difficult situation and a classic case of the players holding the aces. That said, as u say, he did have a poor season the year before so maybe the interest, especially on the wages he'd have been looking for, may have been sparse. It was a tricky 1 for Hearts to be honest. They probably felt it was a risk worth taking as there was no guarantee Rangers would come in for him. He performed so well this season though that their interest was guaranteed. Good business for Rangers to get him on a free, to be fair.I get what you mean mate. But if a club is happy to be held to ransom like that then it just comes across as they think the player is bigger than the club to be allowed to have a clause like that in the contract. Particularly when they announce it as a 3 year contract to begin with. A release clause of £3M-£4M would have been a complete different matter& understandable but for £0, it’s just made them look like idiots here and weak negotiators.
A 3 year contract was announced midway through their pre-season, when they were pleading for him to sign a new deal and he was trying to get himself a move away of the back of a poor season which showed no one was interested to sign him on a free contract then hence why he re-signed, but deep down it’s just a one year deal with the option of a 2 year contract.
If that was Hibs or Man Utd, I’d be dumbfounded and embarrassed by the hierarchy to have had the rug pulled from under their feet like that.
The Old Firm's income and ability to pay good wages are far ahead of the rest of the league. In that sense the other SPL clubs are in a far weaker position.I get what you mean mate. But if a club is happy to be held to ransom like that then it just comes across as they think the player is bigger than the club to be allowed to have a clause like that in the contract. Particularly when they announce it as a 3 year contract to begin with. A release clause of £3M-£4M would have been a complete different matter& understandable but for £0, it’s just made them look like idiots here and weak negotiators.
A 3 year contract was announced midway through their pre-season, when they were pleading for him to sign a new deal and he was trying to get himself a move away of the back of a poor season which showed no one was interested to sign him on a free contract then hence why he re-signed, but deep down it’s just a one year deal with the option of a 2 year contract.
If that was Hibs or Man Utd, I’d be dumbfounded and embarrassed by the hierarchy to have had the rug pulled from under their feet like that.
Totally understand where you are coming from. There would have been a fan backlash (well moreso disgruntled fans than a backlash) if you never signed him for an additional season. But it just feels odd that it was announced as a 3 year deal which gives the indication that if he was to have the season he just had, you’d get some sort of money for him. Even like a million quid at worst. I know hindsight is a great thing but at that time if you never offered him those terms and he decided to walk away, then at your AGM informed your shareholderd/fans are informed why you never gave Shankland & his agent what they were wanting inserted into contract then surely your fans would have realised that the guy was primarily ready to f*** yous over at the first given opportunity. Last season he had put on a fair bit of weight & looked massively disinterested. It’s unsurprising no club didn’t take him then.I'm not embarrassed by this but I am disappointed.
The flip side to this is that many would have been angry if he hadn't signed because we refused the clause.
But overall, it's a kick when we're already down.
There was always the Shankland to Rangers story popping up every summer after the first two seasons at Hearts when he was scoring 20+ goals. I was surprised they didn’t sign him in summer 2024 but thought they would get him the next summer on a free but his form massively dipped that season and it didn’t look like a good move at that time. He’d put on a fair bit of weight as well and just looked a completely different player.I totally get your point mate and it has a lot of merit, but as Reiver said if he didn't because Hearts didn't put in the clause then their fans would be angry. It was a difficult situation and a classic case of the players holding the aces. That said, as u say, he did have a poor season the year before so maybe the interest, especially on the wages he'd have been looking for, may have been sparse. It was a tricky 1 for Hearts to be honest. They probably felt it was a risk worth taking as there was no guarantee Rangers would come in for him. He performed so well this season though that their interest was guaranteed. Good business for Rangers to get him on a free, to be fair.
Celtic heavily linked with Kasper Hogh for 10 million from Bodo Glimpt. Scored goals in CL against City and Atletico last season. Be a good signing for us. I'd imagine other clubs will be interested however.
The Old Firm's income and ability to pay good wages are far ahead of the rest of the league. In that sense the other SPL clubs are in a far weaker position.
Edit:
I don't think many fans from England realise quite how far the gap is. I didn't. I dug out some stats from a BBC piece recently.
There is a big gap between the richest and poorest English Premier League clubs, but the amount of money involved in England means even a newly promoted Sunderland could spend ten times the net spend of Rangers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cje144nwejzo
Celtic's annual turnover for the 2025-26 season was £143.6m - nearly six times that of Hearts in the same time period.
Rangers had the second highest revenue last season at £94.2m, putting the gap between the Old Firm and Hearts - as the next highest-valued team - at nearly £70m.
The revenue gap between Celtic and the lowest turnover, Falkirk, is nearly £140m - with the Glasgow club bringing in more than 30 times as much money.
Rangers spent £37.8m in transfer fees this season and Celtic £13.5m. Hearts only spent £4.3m.
The full list of stadium capacities is as follows:
Celtic Park - 60,411
Ibrox (Rangers) - 50,817
Pittodire (Aberdeen) - 20,866
Easter Road (Hibernian) - 20,421
Tynecastle (Heart of Midlothian) - 19,852
Rugby Park (Kilmarnock) - 15,003
Tannadice (Dundee United) - 14,223
Fir Park (Motherwell) - 13,677
Dens Park (Dundee) - 11,775
Almondvale (Livingston) - 8,716
St Mirren Park - 7,937
Falkirk Stadium - 7,937
