On Thursday afternoon I've visited a former Celtic player who is dealing with serious illness.
I went in the company of a former Rangers player who has known the family concerned since childhood.
The way ordinary folk do when someone they like would appreciate a bit of support and comfort.
No names need to be divulged because the medical issues are nobody’s business other than those family members who are coping with a loved one’s sickness.
Craig Levein might have thought he was doing Hearts’ John Souttar a favour by publicly stating the player had to stay in Scotland, and sign for Rangers as a means of doing so, because a family member was seriously ill.
And I have no doubt the former Tynecastle manager was well intentioned while delivering his revelation on a radio programme.
But, really, has it come to this?
That you’ve got to publicise the most intimate details of a footballer’s private life in the hope of keeping a hostile crowd at bay?
Levein clearly thought introducing a human dimension into a professional matter such as the signing of a pre-contract agreement would have a conciliatory effect on a delicate situation.
He knows better now after Souttar was subjected to prolonged and profane abuse during Hearts’ home win over St Johnstone on Tuesday night.
A result that advanced Hearts’ ambition to play in European competition next season.
The verbal abuse came as no surprise to me because the principal voice from a Hearts podcast had told me on radio five days earlier that Souttar would get “battered” by some in the crowd for having committed his immediate future to Rangers.
To my way of thinking the information Levein had given out in between times amounted to a form of plea bargaining.
It was along the lines of: “If I tell you a sad story about John’s family could you go easy on him because the family is under a lot of pressure.”
I repeat, has it come to this? Illness has to be used as a plea for calm? What next, the production of a medical certificate to substantiate your story?
The disgruntled element among the Tynecastle support believe Souttar has betrayed the club who stood by him during three occasions of serious injury.
Which, I assume, strikes them as allowable grounds for accusing him of treachery and sentencing the player to an unspecified period of hostility.
But is it not the case John put his body on the line for Hearts to his severe injury and the possible endangerment of his future career? Souttar repaid the medical care and attention shown to him by the club by coming back and getting seriously injured time and time again in their service.
That is not betrayal. That’s bravery.
As Hearts’ game against Celtic on Wednesday, and the Edinburgh derby to come, loom into view, I am reminded of something the late Tommy Burns said to me when I was writing his biography.
On the subject of intense rivalry, he said: “One half hate you and the other half think they own you.”
If the Celtic and Hibs fans give Souttar what for, that comes under the heading of partisan behaviour and we can all live with that. But if the Hearts fans turn on him that is a continuation of their contempt for fair-minded behaviour.
Souttar has reserved the right to seek employment at the most favourable terms available to him – like any other worker selling his hire.
The last week has shown football is only elevated to a level of theatre and drama by the presence of large and loudly-heard crowds in their thousands.
In their absence, the brutal truth is the game is not much to write home about.
Supporters have been empowered to think their attendance is invaluable. And it is.
That’s not to say they’ve been weaponised to make someone’s life a misery because he’s agreed to terminate his employment at a
club after helping them achieve their professional goal.
