The reaction to the SPFL post-split fixtures has quickly turned into a familiar argument, with Celtic once again placed at the centre of the noise despite having no role in setting the schedule. Ally McCoist has led that frustration, claiming the champions are benefiting, but the wider response tells a different story.
The fixture release confirmed that Celtic will host Hearts on the final day, a detail that immediately drew attention from across the title race.
McCoist responded by stating that Celtic are running Scottish football in a bitter rant, pointing to their home advantage and raising concerns about how the run-in could unfold.
But former Scotland striker Kevin Gallacher was simply having none of it.
Your first thought when you see the fixtures…
How many points will we pick up?
Celtic fixture claims from McCoist do not stand up to scrutiny
The argument centres on the idea that Celtic have been handed an advantage, yet the structure of the split ensures all sides finish with the same number of home and away matches.
The schedule is dictated by what has already been played, meaning any perceived imbalance is the result of fixture sequencing rather than favouring any one team.
The focus then shifted to the final-day meeting with Hearts, where some have suggested the fixture favours Celtic in their bid to defend the title.
Kevin Gallacher’s Celtic response exposes the flaw in McCoist’s argument
Kevin Gallacher dismissed the idea that any side would approach a decisive fixture without full commitment, stressing the reality of professional football.
Writing about the situation, he said: “You know there is still plenty of juice left in your season when the SPFL’s publication of the post-split fixture list causes such a furore.
“We had Rangers fans and their former manager Ally McCoist claiming Celtic were running the game because they have three home games out of the five, including the visit of rivals Hearts on the last weekend.
“Then there were Hearts supporters up in arms because the tradition of handing the top side going into the split home advantage had been ignored this time round.
“Some Rangers followers were also unhappy about that choice of final-day fixture for fear that, if Celtic were out of the title running by then, they would roll over to Hearts to prevent their Old Firm rivals becoming champions.
“The last one struck a real chord with me because it reminds me so much of all the chat we heard at Blackburn Rovers when we were battling with Manchester United for the title in 1994-95.
“We led the league for most of the season but United stayed with us and, going into the last game, we needed to avoid a three-point swing to be champions.
“The fixture list sent us to Liverpool for that one and everyone and his dog was telling us that because their hero Kenny Dalglish was our manager there was no way they would trip us up.
“And, of course, they beat us at Anfield 2-1. The good news was that West Ham held Manchester United 1-1, so we won the league.
“That is a perfect example of what you should expect in these situations.
“Players might enjoy a good footballing conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but when they are on the park there is professional pride at stake.
“In fact, the more comments there are about the likelihood of them letting another side beat them on purpose, the more likely they are to go out determined to make a nonsense of the claims through.”
The Blackburn example shows clearly that assumptions about teams easing off do not hold up when real matches are played.
It reinforces the point that players compete to win, regardless of narratives built around fixtures or rivalries.
What began as frustration over scheduling ultimately reflects something else entirely, with the debate around Celtic driven more by paranoid perception than by anything grounded in how football actually works.
Receive a digest of our best Celtic content each week direct to your mailbox
