Another day, another statement.
Hamilton this time, again capturing the anger that SFL feel about the position they've been put in. And still no response from the SPL "no to newco" majority that could help allay these fears.
Coupled with the earlier statement from Raith might we be moving to a position where the SFL clubs refuse to take any vote on admitting the Rangers newco? That would certainly heap the pressure back on the SPL and SFA.
The full statement:
As you all know I attended the SFL meeting earlier this week to discuss the various proposals put to us by the SFA/SFL/SPL. We have subsequently had a board meeting to discuss the consequences of each of these scenarios. It is also now apparent that Rangers Newco will not play in the SPL next season.
As you are aware the proposal being favoured by the governing bodies is that Rangers Newco are parachuted into the Irn Bru SFL Division 1, contrary to Scottish Football League rules. If our Governing bodies ever get round to tabling any firm proposal to vote on it is unlikely in our opinion that this proposal, in isolation, would be acceptable to the members.
We believe that a complete overhaul of the game is required for the good of Scottish Football. League Reconstruction, play-offs, a fairer financial distribution model and a more effective Corporate Governance are some of the major issues which require to be addressed. The current circumstances we find ourselves in have created an opportunity for these changes to be implemented.
We believe the problems facing the game are not of the SFL’s making and as such would strongly suggest that the SFA, our governing body, take immediate ownership of the current situation in tandem with the two League bodies, and table a set of proposals at next week’s meeting providing a solution for the way forward in the best interests of Scottish Football.
In the meantime the situation changes daily and it is our view that HAFC and the other SFL clubs should not be put in the position to vote on something which may destroy Scottish Football.
Thank you for your support in these most challenging of times.
Les Gray
Chairman HAFC
From www.acciesfc.co.uk
Like this? Like the Scottish Football Blog on Facebook.
I agree completely with Les Gray. However there is a detectable underlying "Pffft" when naming the SFA, SFL and SPL which is fast becoming the key issue in resolving this situation. The Scottish clubs are at the edge of a dark and scary "unknown" being led by a triumvirate of odious, scaremongering individuals who do not carry the respect of anyone concerned with Scottish football. With these guys in charge we are never going to get a satisfactory conclusion to this sorry episode. Expect a cobbled together fudge in the week before the season starts...
ReplyDeleteAgree to an extent with your "Pffft" but a lot politicking going on here: this - and the Raith - statement set the ground for a refusal to vote, with the blame for that laid at feet of SFA/SPL.
ReplyDeleteThey need to be sure a lot of clubs will back them if they are considering that as an option.
I think there's a lot of having your cake and eating it here; a few points
ReplyDelete1) The SPL and SFL have been setup so that the member clubs "decide" things such as league entry etc, NOT the SFA. So it isn't the case that the SFA have abdicated responsibility for this to the SFL - it has always been down to the member clubs. It would be nice to be able to pick and choose, but there are always Ups and Downs to having responsibility ,you cant have it both ways.
2) The SFA have mapped out to member clubs what the consequences could potentially be. You can't expect them to have more of input than that at this stage.
3) If it doesn't get past the SFL clubs (they have the right of refusal ). If the SFA can restructure the Leagues so as to be bring in an extra £16million/yr (estimate loss of Rangers) into Scottish Football they should do so. Forget for a minute that this at the moment is about Rangers, if it was about "X" (a 14 team SPL or North/South league system) and Scottish clubs across the board benefited financially, it would be wrong for them not to restructure the leagues accordingly, that is their remit.
GSW wrote:
ReplyDeleteI think there's a lot of having your cake and eating it here; a few points
1) The SPL and SFL have been setup so that the member clubs "decide" things such as league entry etc, NOT the SFA. So it isn't the case that the SFA have abdicated responsibility for this to the SFL - it has always been down to the member clubs. It would be nice to be able to pick and choose, but there are always Ups and Downs to having responsibility ,you cant have it both ways.
2) The SFA have mapped out to member clubs what the consequences could potentially be. You can't expect them to have more of input than that at this stage.
3) If it doesn't get past the SFL clubs (they have the right of refusal ). If the SFA can restructure the Leagues so as to be bring in an extra £16million/yr (estimate loss of Rangers) into Scottish Football they should do so. Forget for a minute that this at the moment is about Rangers, if it was about "X" (a 14 team SPL or North/South league system) and Scottish clubs across the board benefited financially, it would be wrong for them not to restructure the leagues accordingly, that is their remit.
Thanks for the comment:
ReplyDelete1) The SFA have only left it to the SFL after making the threat that they wouldn't stop the SPL from creating SPL2 if the SFL didn't back the option the SFA favoured. That's not ideal governance of the game for all and it's clearly trying to intefere with what the member clubs consider to be the rules of the SFL. Remember also the SFA seem to only want power in specific cirumstance - hence Regan only saying that the SFA would prevent Rangers entry into the SPL when he was all but assured of the outcome of the SPL vote.
2) They've mapped out - with what the SFL clubs clearly consider to a lack of clarity - a very specific set of circumstances. Clearly the SFA/SPL have had further discussions, discussed other options yet they seem unwilling to share them with the SFL. Thus the SFL are being asked to vote without full knowledge of the circumstances. The SFL clubs clearly feel that the SFA's governance now extends only to doing the bidding of the SPL clubs - with minimal benefits for the lower divisions.
3) So the SFL have the responsibility but if they don't do what the SFA want then the SFA should step in and override the SFL decision to get the outcome that they want? So what power are the SFL trying to dodge if the result of any vote is ripped up at the whim of what the SFA - influenced by the SPL clubs - believe is best for the game? Surely that's having your cake and eating it.
And thank you for your response Tom.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what other options have been discussed between the SFA and SPL, an SPL2 has been suggested as a possible solution by the SFA, but none of the SPL clubs have commented on this directly I think(?).
The question is, other than as a provider of information/guidance, when is appropriate and how should the SFA act?
1. The current situation is firstly an SPL issue, it is correct that the "problem" is first presented to them for resolution. (admission, sanctions, league viability etc). As we know their "resolution" is a league demotion for Rangers in the hope that an accomodation can be found in the lower leagues that satisfies both a "Sporting Integrity" requirement and the commercial viability of the current Scottish Leagues as a whole.
2. It is secondly presented to the SFL for resolution/accomodation. A scenario (Rangers in SFL1) is possible that would minimise the financial fallout for all concerned. It is only right that the SFL has the opportunity to vote on this and find a quick resolution before the start of the season. The situation may seem "forced" upon them, but there is no doubt that the SFA&SPL are hoping that the problem can be resolved locally without ripping apart the current league structure.
3. When should the SFA act? If after the SPL(1), and SFL(2) have had their say and assuming a resolution has not been found that a least gives some hope of future financial security for Scottish Football then the SFA, as a matter of necessity, ACT. So complaining the SFA should take control whilst there is still a possibility of the member clubs resolving this is unfair. The SFA should only act if all else fails, for the good of the game in Scotland.
GSW wrote:
ReplyDeleteAnd thank you for your response Tom.
I don't know what other options have been discussed between the SFA and SPL, an SPL2 has been suggested as a possible solution by the SFA, but none of the SPL clubs have commented on this directly I think(?).
The question is, other than as a provider of information/guidance, when is appropriate and how should the SFA act?
1. The current situation is firstly an SPL issue, it is correct that the "problem" is first presented to them for resolution. (admission, sanctions, league viability etc). As we know their "resolution" is a league demotion for Rangers in the hope that an accomodation can be found in the lower leagues that satisfies both a "Sporting Integrity" requirement and the commercial viability of the current Scottish Leagues as a whole.
2. It is secondly presented to the SFL for resolution/accomodation. A scenario (Rangers in SFL1) is possible that would minimise the financial fallout for all concerned. It is only right that the SFL has the opportunity to vote on this and find a quick resolution before the start of the season. The situation may seem "forced" upon them, but there is no doubt that the SFA&SPL are hoping that the problem can be resolved locally without ripping apart the current league structure.
3. When should the SFA act? If after the SPL(1), and SFL(2) have had their say and assuming a resolution has not been found that a least gives some hope of future financial security for Scottish Football then the SFA, as a matter of necessity, ACT. So complaining the SFA should take control whilst there is still a possibility of the member clubs resolving this is unfair. The SFA should only act if all else fails, for the good of the game in Scotland.