CRAIG Levein has hit back at Scott Brown's claims he got him booked against Kilmarnock – by hinting the Celtic skipper deliberately got cautioned so he would not miss next month's Old Firm showdown.
Brown took aim at the Hearts manager over the weekend after Levein claimed players need more protection from the Celtic midfielder, after youngster Harry Cochrane was injured in a clash at Parkhead.
Speaking after picking up a yellow card at Rugby Park – which rules him out of this month's visit of St Johnstone to Celtic Park – the Scotland captain said: "He has done his job, hasn't he?
"I was booked with my first foul and I think that is exactly what Craig was looking to do."
But Levein – who has also recently found himself embroiled in a spat with Hibernian manager Neil Lennon – ratcheted up his latest war of words with his response, suggesting Brown got himself booked against Killie to ensure he would be free to face Rangers at Ibrox on March 11.
Speaking at his pre-match press conference ahead of Hearts' William Hill Scottish Cup clash with St Johnstone on Saturday, he said: "I'm not trying to irritate anybody. I'm just pointing stuff out.
"On that front actually, Scott Brown mentioned last week that he got booked because of me bringing attention to his proclivity to foul people.
"I disagree with that completely. If Scott didn't get booked against Kilmarnock last week and got booked against St Johnstone (on February 18) then he would have missed the Rangers game.
"I'll leave that to you to deduce.
"I'm just pointing out things that are obvious. I'm just pointing out as a retort to his statement last week that it was me who got him booked [against Killie].
"I think you'll find that his intentions were always to get himself booked in that game so he didn't miss the Rangers game.
"That sort of things happens all the time. Anybody who is sensible would look at the situation if there is a particular game they want to play in and know they need to get booked to miss a game prior to that. I did it myself when I was playing, so it happens.
"I don't know Scott's intentions but I'm just pointing out the fact. That's all."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here