Friday, July 06, 2012

Rangers newco: Understanding "no"

This post isn't aimed at any one club.

It's not aimed at any one director, chief executive or chairman.

It's written more in bemusement and sadness than in anger.

If there is an overarching theme it won't be a profound one. It will more likely be "what the hell is happening to our game."

Rangers won't get into the SPL.

We know that. We know it emphatically because 10 out of 12 SPL votes made it so.

Kilmarnock, for reasons that their explanation didn't quite explain, abstained.

Charles Green, owner of the new Rangers but dispatched to Hampden as a proxy vote for the old Rangers, voted yes. The Rangers fans might not trust him but at least he voted for the right side.

So I'm confused.

The SPL clubs overwhelmingly thought they could survive without the newco Rangers.

But Neil Doncaster, the SPL's missionary among our footballing natives, and Stewart Regan, chief executive of the neutral Scottish Football Association, are arguing that not just the SPL but Scottish football itself "WILL DIE" unless Rangers get back to the SPL in just one year.

Rangers need to be admitted to the SFL and pushed straight into the First Division.

Anything else would be madness, a living death or a painful suicide.

I'm still confused.

To get Rangers into the First Division the SPL and the SFA - still a neutral governing body until they declare themselves not to be - will try and persuade the clubs that make up the Scottish Football League.

By persuade they mean bully and threat.

And if they blow and they blow and they blow and they still don't blow the SFL house down?

Then they'll build their own house. With a moat. And a drawbridge.

And they'll raise that drawbridge. And they'll never, ever let the peasants in. Even if they're starving to death.

Let them eat cake.

So I'm still confused.

What does "no" mean in Scottish football?

When ten SPL chairmen say "no" to Rangers in the SPL what do they mean?

Do they just mean "no?"

Or do they mean "no, obviously that's no to the top flight but yes, yes, yes to getting them back in to the First Division. Or failing that the newly created SPL2?"

Do they mean "no, 'cause that's the best thing to do for football. As long as we can still whore ourselves to the corporate sponsors who like us to be trapped in a duopoly?"

Do they mean "no, just like our fans wanted to hear, so we can sell season tickets even though we meant yes to the SFL1 and cunningly side stepped that issue with our oh, so clever linguistic mastery?"

It would be nice to know more about "no."

Because right now it looks like people are taking the piss.

Until somebody defines "no" Kilmarnock's vote looks a totem of principle simply because it didn't hide behind a false righteousness.

It makes me doubt everyone.

What does a First Division chairman mean when he says "no?"

Does he mean "no is no but we'll agree to join the SPL2 if the diddy teams vote no as well?"

Confusion extends my befuddlement beyond the complexities of a simple "no."

What is a governing body?

Is the SFA supposed to govern every level of the game in Scotland and build the foundations for our national team to thrive?

Or are they supposed to send their chief executive out into the lower leagues with a suitcase full of used notes in one hand and a gun in the other?

Is that how the SFA dispenses justice "without fear or favour?"

What is a league competition if it can't survive without one of it's participants?

What would happen to competition in next season's First Division if Rangers didn't win it?

Would the SFA step in, without fear or favour, and promote them anyway? For the good of the game?

It's all very confusing.

It doesn't have to be.

The SPL chairmen who said "no" could sack Neil Doncaster today.

They could announce plans for a vote of no confidence in Stewart Regan.

They could disown the tactics of the men who have led us here, who have dragged the game to this stage.

They won't though. And that stinks.

It's wrong when a club says "we're being bullied but we have to say "yes" or we'll go out of business."

It's even worse when so many people hear that cry for help and say "screw you, spineless bastards" instead of condemning the bullies.

A sell out SPL Saturday?

That's a sell out.

Don't let them get away with it.

Shout and scream at your club. Write, email, phone and petition the SFA.

Don't give up until they stop this madness and apologise for the bullying, for the threats, for sheltering under the myth that they're doing what the fans want.

Demand they apologise to each and everyone of us for their complete lack of imagination when it comes to rebuilding this exasperating game of ours.

Until they do, there's only really one option:

Just say "no."

Like this? Like the Scottish Football Blog on Facebook.

1 comment:

  1. So true. It is despicable what is happening and the behavior of those who are meant to be in charge of Scottish football is absolutely staggering. The structure of Scottish football does need an overhaul and the best way to start would be with the dismissal of Regan and Doncaster. Perhaps then we could move on and consider what is best for the game overall. When that is taken into consideration then maybe, just maybe, one day in the future Scotland will once again have a national team that will make us proud.