Footballer left bloodied and needing stitches after being hit by an object thrown by his OWN fans during pitch invasion
Aberdeen star Jack MacKenzie was left bloodied after a nasty incident involving his own fans on Saturday.
MacKenzie, 24, had been an unused substitute during Aberdeen's 2-1 defeat by Dundee United in the Scottish Premiership.
The result saw United pip Aberdeen to fourth place in the table, and after full time, there was a pitch invasion by their fans.
MacKenzie was on the pitch at Tannadice as the pitch invasion unfolded when he was hit by an object thrown by an Aberdeen supporter.
The object, believed to be part of a seat that had been torn out, was hurled from the upper tier of one stand in the stadium.
The 24-year-old was knocked to the ground after being hit and left bloodied, before he later required stitches in what was an extremely unsavoury incident.
There was already a limited number of travelling fans in attendance after trouble at the last meeting between the sides at Tannadice when objects were thrown at United manager Jim Goodwin.
In the aftermath, Aberdeen boss Jimmy Thelin provided an update on MacKenzie.
'(He is) OK but it's quite a bad injury,' Thelin said. 'This is unacceptable and can't happen.
'We have to get all the facts of what actually happened. All we know is Jack got a really bad injury as a player doing his job. This cannot happen in this way.'
Aberdeen subsequently released a statement expressing their disgust at what had gone on.
'The club is dismayed and outraged at the scenes that unfolded following this afternoon's Premiership tie with Dundee United at Tannadice Park,' it read.
'Our player, Jack MacKenzie, has sustained a serious facial injury after being struck by a part of a chair that was thrown towards the pitch. We await further information, but what we know for sure, the chair was thrown from the stand in which the Aberdeen supporters were being housed.
'As such, we are calling on all fans who may have witnessed this event to contact the Club to provide any information that may assist us in our investigations and wider discussions with the relevant authorities.
'When the perpetrator is identified, we will take the strongest possible action available to us.'
Police Scotland later confirmed MacKenzie was set for further medical assessment having been treated on the scene - and they appealed for information from witnesses.
Match Commander, Superintendent Ray Birnie, added: 'This was a mindless act which has seriously injured the player, resulting in him needing medical treatment.
'This type of behaviour will not be tolerated and I'd appeal to all fans to help us trace the person responsible.
'If you were in the Fair Play Stand and witnessed what happened, please do the right thing and come forward. I'd also urge anyone who has mobile phone footage to review it and bring anything of importance to our attention.'
Meanwhile, Goodwin, who spent just under a year in charge of Aberdeen between 2022 and 2023, condemned the incident, labelling it an 'absolute disgrace'
'I deliberately took myself off the pitch as quickly as I could because we've had previous with the Aberdeen supporters,' he said.
'I'm really disappointed to hear young Jack has been hit by an object thrown by his own supporters. He's inside having stitches now, it's an absolute disgrace.
'It's probably taken something as serious as this to happen for the authorities to finally step in and do something about it to identify these idiots who let down a really good club.'
Elsewhere, the SPFL similarly slammed the behaviour of those responsible.
'It's enormously disappointing and frustrating that one of the most exciting games in the season has been marred by such moronic behaviour,' a statement read.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
28 minutes ago
- STV News
Former St Mirren director defamed colleagues over comments on charity build
Two St Mirren directors were defamed when a former colleague accused them of pursuing a 'secret plan' to build a charity centre on the club's land, a judge has concluded. Alan Wardrop claimed that children's charity Kibble – a shareholder in the Premiership side – had applied for a £2.65m grant from the Scottish Government. Mr Wardrop claimed the application was to allow it to finance a 'first of its kind' wellness centre for disadvantaged children on ground belonging to the side. He then claimed the charity had lied about what it was doing. He then made allegations against Jim Gillespie and Mark MacMillan, the chief executive and director of corporate services of the charity, who are also directors of St Mirren. These remarks prompted Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan to launch a legal action against Mr Wardrop, who was a Buddies' director between 2016 and 2022. The two men claimed the remarks made by Mr Wardrop had damaged their reputations. They instructed lawyers to pursue a defamation action at the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court. The remarks were made in May 2023 during his campaign to become elected to the board of the St Mirren Independent Supporters Association – an organisation which owns 51% of shares in the club – and the Herald newspaper. Lawyers for Mr Wardrop told judge Lord Clark that Mr Wardrop's comments were covered by sections six and seven of the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021. Section six covers matters of public interest – that somebody being sued for defamation can defend themselves against the action if they can show that the remarks were made in the public interest. Section seven covers honest opinion – that if a person can show their opinions were formed as a consequence of scrutinising evidence available then this can be a defence to the action. In a written judgement published by the court on Wednesday, Lord Clark concluded that the statements made by Mr Wardrop were defamatory. He said that the evidence showed that the two pursuers and the charity weren't planning to build the facility on land owned by St Mirren. But he did not award the two pursuers any damages. He said this was because lawyers for Mr Wardrop had shown that his remarks were covered by sections six and seven of the 2021 Act. He wrote: 'The central issues in this case are whether the statements were true and, if not, whether the defences under section 6 or section 7 of the 2021 Act succeed. 'Each side had sound reasons for the positions they took before the court, with evidence giving a fair degree of support. As has been explained, there was sufficient material before the defender which allowed him to reach his understanding about what the pursuers planned to do. 'But, on balance, it has not been shown that his allegations were true. They were defamatory. 'However, the circumstances result in the defence under section 6 applying in relation to the campaign statement and Herald statement, and also the defence under section 7 being made out for the Herald statement. 'As a consequence, the pursuers' claims for damages have not been successful. 'It is not necessary to grant an interdict against the defender from making any such statements again, as sought in the pursuers' first conclusion in the summons. 'The defender will be aware, from the reasoning I have given, that the statements made were defamatory and, but for the defences, would have led to awards of damages. 'There is no right or basis for him to be able to make such statements again and if he were to do so the defences would not apply. 'It would not be in the public interest to make such statements, since the true position has now been determined, and as he now knows the statements were not true he could no longer have an honest opinion.' Lawyers believed the case was the first time that the Scottish defamation law was considered by the courts. The judgement tells of Mr Wardrop's defamatory remarks. Lord Clark wrote that in the supporters association statement, Mr Wardrop said that Mr Gillespie and Mr McMillan 'failed to disclose' to club shareholders, officials and supporters that the charity wanted to build a facility on land owned by the club. Mr Wardrop said that 'together with Renfrewshire Council they applied to the Scottish Government for a £2.65m grant under the name The St Mirren Wellbeing and Regeneration Masterplan.' Mr Wardrop also stated: 'It was not disclosed to other SMISA club board directors and no prior agreement was secured. 'Both Kibble employees did not declare their plans to build on St Mirren owned land to St Mirren SMISA board members but denied any conflict of interest. 'Having discovered the issue under Freedom of Information, I raised it at the club's AGM. I, like many others, no longer have trust and confidence in Kibble's directors serving on the board of St. Mirren FC and I put my SMISA board application forward on the basis I wish to remove them'. The judgement also states that Mr Wardrop told the Herald: 'I have been made out to be a liar by Kibble and the board of St Mirren, now it should be clear to everyone what a huge cover-up this has been, in denying, denying and denying, when they were actually lying, lying and lying.' Lawyers for Mr Wardrop argued that these comments were made on a matter of public interest. They also argued that he made them after scrutinising publically available information and that the legislation covered him in the action. Lord Clark upheld these submissions. He wrote: 'It was apparent from the evidence that the defender actually believed that publication of the campaign statement and the Herald statement were in the public interest. 'There is no suggestion that he knew that the defamatory facts presented were untrue. 'Far from it, his post-publication conduct supports his actual belief and indeed on his evidence in court he remains in the belief that the statements were true. 'He did not unwarrantedly or gratuitously drag into the statements any allegations which do not have a real bearing on the theme of the statements generally.' He also wrote: 'The evidence supports the point that the defender took reasonably extensive steps to verify his belief that it was in the public interest to publish what was said. 'They were reliable sources. The amount of information sought and obtained demonstrates the steps taken to verify the information. 'The status and content of that information, taken together, is reasonably capable of allowing the inferences to be drawn, resulting in his view. 'He carried out the enquiries and checks that were reasonable to expect and open to him, coming across no obviously contradictory evidence.' Lord Clark also said that if the pursuers had been successful, they would have been awarded £40,000 each. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
BBC News
31 minutes ago
- BBC News
Idah insists he can handle 'big pressure' at Celtic
Striker Adam Idah is convinced he can handle the "big pressure" that comes with playing for 24-year-old, who completed a reported £9.5m switch from Norwich to Celtic Park last summer after a successful loan spell, finished the campaign with 20 goals despite making almost half his 53 appearances from the he also suffered testing periods, not least after a video of him apparently vomiting from a taxi circulated on social media, prompting a stern defence from manager Brendan about the pressure, Idah said: "The pressure is a lot and you are expected to deliver. I think with my experience now, you have to put that behind you. You know what you are good at."If you don't score for a couple of games, it is not helpful to listen to an ex-player. I am not really concerned with what he thinks - I am there to do my bit."I had a good run in the last few games, but I know it can turn quick. That is football. There have been plenty of games I have gone without scoring in, you have to stay focused and help the team."There is a lot of pressure at the club to be successful. It is good, I think. Every player wants to play at a big club, but what comes with a big club is the pressure."Rodgers' backing was welcome, but Idah has vowed to continue to live his life despite having to do so in the spotlight at times."At the end of the day I am a human being," he added. "I go out. I don't have to stay inside all the time. It's hard when people are videoing you, it can be quite upsetting, especially when the story is made out to be what it is not."It can be tough, but like I said, I am human and I'm going to carry on with my life."
Glasgow Times
35 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
St Mirren directors accused of 'secret plan' were defamed, judge rules
Alan Wardrop claimed that children's charity Kibble - a shareholder in the Premiership side - had applied for a £2.65 million grant from the Scottish Government. Mr Wardrop claimed the application was to allow it to finance a 'first of its kind' wellness centre for disadvantaged children on ground belonging to the side. He then claimed the charity had lied about what it was doing. He then made allegations against Jim Gillespie and Mark MacMillan, the chief executive and director of corporate services of the charity, who also directors of St Mirren. These remarks prompted Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan to launch a legal action against Mr Wardrop, who was a Buddies' director between 2016 and 2022. The two men claimed the remarks made by Mr Wardrop had damaged their reputations. They instructed lawyers to pursue a defamation action at the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court. The remarks were made in May 2023 during his campaign to become elected to the board of the St Mirren Independent Supporters Association - an organisation which owns 51 per cent of shares in the club - and the Herald newspaper. Lawyers for Mr Wardrop told judge Lord Clark that Mr Wardrop's comments were covered by sections six and seven of the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021. Section six covers matters of public interest - that somebody being sued for defamation can defend themselves against the action if they can show that the remarks were made in the public interest. Section seven covers honest opinion - that if a person can show their opinions were formed as a consequence of scrutinising evidence available then this can be a defence to the action. In a written judgement published by the court on Wednesday, Lord Clark concluded that the statements made by Mr Wardrop were defamatory. He said that the evidence showed that the two pursuers and the charity weren't planning to build the facility on land owned by St Mirren. But he did not award the two pursuers any damages. He said this was because lawyers for Mr Wardrop had shown that his remarks were covered by sections six and seven of the 2021 Act. READ MORE: 'Sickened': Police officer faces sack after 'shocking' racist jibe He wrote: 'The central issues in this case are whether the statements were true and, if not, whether the defences under section 6 or section 7 of the 2021 Act succeed. 'Each side had sound reasons for the positions they took before the court, with evidence giving a fair degree of support. As has been explained, there was sufficient material before the defender which allowed him to reach his understanding about what the pursuers planned to do. 'But, on balance, it has not been shown that his allegations were true. They were defamatory. 'However, the circumstances result in the defence under section 6 applying in relation to the campaign statement and Herald statement, and also the defence under section 7 being made out for the Herald statement. 'As a consequence, the pursuers' claims for damages have not been successful. 'It is not necessary to grant an interdict against the defender from making any such statements again, as sought in the pursuers' first conclusion in the summons. 'The defender will be aware, from the reasoning I have given, that the statements made were defamatory and, but for the defences, would have led to awards of damages. 'There is no right or basis for him to be able to make such statements again and if he were to do so the defences would not apply. 'It would not be in the public interest to make such statements, since the true position has now been determined, and as he now knows the statements were not true he could no longer have an honest opinion.' Lawyers believed the case was the first time that the Scottish defamation law was considered by the courts. The judgement tells of Mr Wardrop's defamatory remarks. Lord Clark wrote that in the supporters association statement, Mr Wardrop said that Mr Gillespie and Mr McMillan 'failed to disclose' to club shareholders, officials and supporters that the charity wanted to build a facility on land owned by the club. Mr Wardrop said that 'together with Renfrewshire Council they applied to the Scottish Government for a £2.65 million grant under the name The St. Mirren Wellbeing and Regeneration Masterplan.' READ MORE: Man made £442k in ill-gotten gains during time as drug dealer Mr Wardrop also stated: 'It was not disclosed to other SMISA club board directors and no prior agreement was secured. 'Both Kibble employees did not declare their plans to build on St. Mirren owned land to St Mirren SMISA board members but denied any conflict of interest. 'Having discovered the issue under Freedom of Information, I raised it at the club's AGM. I, like many others, no longer have trust and confidence in Kibble's directors serving on the board of St. Mirren FC and I put my SMISA board application forward on the basis I wish to remove them'. The judgement also states that Mr Wardrop told the Herald: 'I have been made out to be a liar by Kibble and the board of St Mirren, now it should be clear to everyone what a huge cover-up this has been, in denying, denying and denying, when they were actually lying, lying and lying.' Lawyers for Mr Wardrop argued that these comments were made on a matter of public interest. They also argued that he made them after scrutinising publicly available information and that the legislation covered him in the action. Lord Clark upheld these submissions. He wrote: 'It was apparent from the evidence that the defender actually believed that publication of the campaign statement and the Herald statement were in the public interest. 'There is no suggestion that he knew that the defamatory facts presented were untrue. 'Far from it, his post-publication conduct supports his actual belief and indeed on his evidence in court he remains in the belief that the statements were true. 'He did not unwarrantedly or gratuitously drag into the statements any allegations which do not have a real bearing on the theme of the statements generally.' He also wrote: 'The evidence supports the point that the defender took reasonably extensive steps to verify his belief that it was in the public interest to publish what was said. 'They were reliable sources. The amount of information sought and obtained demonstrates the steps taken to verify the information. 'The status and content of that information, taken together, is reasonably capable of allowing the inferences to be drawn, resulting in his view. 'He carried out the enquiries and checks that were reasonable to expect and open to him, coming across no obviously contradictory evidence.' Lord Clark also said that if the pursuers had been successful, they would have been awarded £40,000 each.
