It's all about the money

The BBC's annual Price of Football survey is always guaranteed to generate plenty of chat.

Chat that normally concludes: "The price of football? It's far too expensive."

Which at many clubs it almost certainly is.

The clubs argue that the survey offers no more than a snapshot, a glib spot of attention seeking that ignore the bigger picture.

Hibs, for example, suggested that the headline figure of £405 for an adult season ticket is offset by special deals like £1 offers for children.

(I, like Whitney Houston, believe children are the future. But unless I can borrow one for matchdays, I can't actually benefit from those deals. A lot of people are in the same position. Football's hidden discrimination against the childless is worthy of investigation.)

Is football value for money? Its fiscal beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

How can you even measure value for money? Cost per home win? (So far this season that's £202.50 for me at Easter Road.) Cost per home goal? (So far £67.50).

If you thought about value for money, you probably wouldn't bother going to games.

Supporting a team doesn't work like that.

What the Price of Football survey actually raises is yet another split between clubs and fans.

Clubs operate as businesses. Fans don't - usually - see themselves as consumers.

The more far sighted clubs will try and bridge that gap. But most still use it in the most dastardly way possible to wring every last drop of cash out of supporters. You'll pay for your loyalty, they'll make sure of it.

And fans tend to let them get on with it if the team is performing. It's the rank rotten football of the last few seasons that has left many fans drifting away from Easter Road, not the cost of watching it.

Maybe fans do have a tipping point though. Just last Saturday a revived Scotland were under supported against Georgia at Ibrox.

You might have put money on the befuddled SFA being the organisation that finally pushed its fans too far.

Because that's the one power fans have: to not turn up.

Unfortunately for many people that option is actually worse than going and paying inflated prices.

It's "our" team. And what else would we do on a Saturday afternoon anyway?

So we let the clubs get away with it.

And so it goes on. Until next year. When the BBC Price of Football 2015 will reveal exactly the same thing again.

The pies have it

One thing that is in my control - a boycott of the catering kiosks at Easter Road.

I give them chance after chance.

Last Saturday I bought a pie. Here are the results of my exclusive survey:

Queuing time: 16 minutes
Cost: £2.30
Taste: 0/10
Enjoyment time: 0 seconds

Never again. And this time I really mean it.

Stewart Regan: A job well paid

Was it really just last week that Stewart Regan was lecturing Scottish football on the financial uncertainties of the ongoing league reconstruction farrago?

He also took time out to tell us that he loved his job.

Well he might, with today's news of an "inflation-busting" pay rise of 13.5 percent.

It's tricky to greet his good fortune without sounding like a Taxpayers' Alliance spokesman screeching to the Daily Mail.

I don't know the details of Regan's contract or what measure is used to gauge his performance. Maybe he gets a bonus for being in stressful situation, but would he not only deserve that if he ever looked at all troubled by what's going on?

It seems hard to believe in this Scottish footballing year that anyone could put two and two together and come up with £33,000 extra for the rabbit-caught-in-the-headlights chief executive.

It's exactly the sort of public relations misstep that makes you wonder what it is the SFA actually see, ensconced in their ivory tower, gazing down on us proles.

While Regan stresses the work he oversees at grassroots level, his most public persona is of a man dithering while football smoulders.

Grassroots work takes time to prove itself to a sceptical public, the idea of a crisis engulfing the game - an idea he has repeatedly endorsed - is more immediate and his contribution to solving that crisis often seems negligible.

It's common in such situations to compare the salary of the high profile fat cat to that of the Prime Minister - and in 2012 Regan's wage was almost double that of David Cameron's.

A cynic might suggest that you could put the two of them together and still not get a leader.

But the leadership of football does seem to be concerning Cameron's government, with sports minister Hugh Robertson apparently ready to introduce legislation to force the pace of change in English football.

Those plans include a licensing system for clubs, a more representative FA board and improved supporter engagement at club level.

Three ideas that would also be worthwhile in Scotland.

It's important to approach with caution the idea of the UK government getting something positive done. And the government's own approach must be cautious, given UEFA's dislike of interference in national associations.

But if there is a way to manage legislation for positive change, could we learn from it?

The Scottish Government's forays into football haven't always gained them universal adulation.

Yet nor does their public silence on certain issues of real concern in the game sit easily with their willingness to share in any possible moment of reflected sporting glory.

I'm not sure I'd trust politicians of any hue to make a better fist of running the game than the present incumbents but I am interested to see where Hugh Robertson's latest act of brinkmanship leads English football.

If a legislative rocket kick starts change, Holyrood would do well to follow the UK lead.

Because while we might not have a footballing Armageddon, the SFA paying Stewart Regan over £280,000 a year is yet another sign of the game disappearing up its own arse.

He's not sexist, but...

Snippets from a day's football news.

In England, semi-professional footballer Daniel Ailey calls the treatment of his deafness "the same as racism."

In Italy, Inter Milan are fined €50,000 after their fans directed racist chants at Mario Balotelli. Balotelli was himself fined €10,000 for gesturing to those same fans.

Elsewhere column inches are still being devoted to Robbie Rogers, the gay footballer who came out and then retired from the game.

Football, the people's game, remains as confused as ever about embracing all of the people.

Meanwhile in Scotland Gordon Parks took to the pages of the Daily Record to rage against the monstrous regiment.

Too much money is going to women and girls who want to play football and it's all because of the politically correct brigade and these daft modern ideas about equality, snarled sexism's unabashed proselytiser.

(Like a retired major from Tunbridge Wells who's cut loose on the G&Ts before heckling Shami Chakrabarti on Question Time, he did actually use the phrase "politically correct brigade.")

It's tempting but churlish to say that even in our discrimination Scottish football lags a decade or so behind more enlightened nations.

Gordon's war on equality might not stretch to people with disabilities, people with different skin colours or people with different sexual preferences. I don't know.

Chivalrously he only targets women. It would be nothing more than speculation to suggest that if you're against opening the game up to one section of society, you're hardly likely to take to the streets and rip down the barriers that football still throws in the way of any of the other sections of society that it sees fit to ignore or exclude.

£1.2 million, argues Gordon, spent by the SFA "and its partners" on women's football is a spectacular waste of money.

A theft actually. Daylight robbery of funds that would be better spent on grassroots football. Grassroots football for boys.

The consequences are plain for all to see. Letting women out of the kitchen and onto the pitch means Scotland will not play in a major men's finals again.

Stone me! So simple.

Never mind that, while £1.2 million would hardly wipe the nose of a mediocre SPL squad, it doesn't leave women's football in Scotland awash with cash.

Nor would £1.2 million put right the wrongs of an approach to the grassroots that has been cackhanded and blighted by short termism for too long.

What that £1.2 million can do, however, is build an ecosystem that attracts more diverse sections of our communities to the game.

It can encourage girls to play the game, build a love for the game that too many people are losing, it can support a senior women's game that can begin to make strides in catching up with countries that have already thrown off the shackles of sexism.

It can create role models that inspire more of our youngsters to get off their arses and do something as simple as chase a ball about a strip of land.

It can help make football a more attractive place for more people. It can help more people share in the fun and frustrations of the game. And it can create some decent players into the bargain.

£1.2 million is nowhere near enough.

We're in danger of becoming a nation that only takes sport seriously when we can moan about how bad a select group of grown men are at playing football.

The future has to lie in widening the audience for the game, putting clubs at the heart of their communities. Football for all.

"A ladies’ version of a game played in men’s shorts," moaned Gordon, choosing not to elaborate on what "men's games" are actually taking place in his own shorts.

Gordon Parks is clearly a dafty.

But we can't hide from the fact that sexism still exists in the game.

The same game where this weekend there was a very public return to chants about religion, where songs about this player or that player being gay roll from the terraces, where racism isn't yet dead, where sex crimes become a cause for gloating, where fans can take a death and turn it into a ditty to attack another team.

I don't know if I get a commission in the politically correct brigade for finding that wrong.

I do know that spouting sexist nonsense on the pages of a national paper makes you a whopping great part of the problem.

The only footballing World Cup winner in the Scottish Sports Hall of Fame is a woman.

Rose Reilly had to leave Scotland to achieve that. Gordon Parks - if he's ever heard of her - probably thinks that's exactly what she deserved.

Let's hope he increasingly finds himself in the minority.

Scotland v England: 140 years

"Business in the city being then as usual on Saturday afternoons, was almost entirely suspended in legal offices and commercial houses. There was great demand for locomotion to Partick, and the home of the West of Scotland Cricket Club."

30 November 1872. St Andrew's Day. Glasgow.

The birth of international football.

A 140 year journey that would bring us Pelé, Maradona, Puskás and Kirk Broadfoot.

The West of Scotland Cricket Club was hired for ten pounds. Over 3000 supporters turned out.

Scotland v England.

Challenge matches had been held before but all took place in England with the Scottish side drawn almost exclusively from Scots living in London, with both teams selected by the hosts.

The match in Glasgow was to be different.

With no SFA (such heady, heady days) the task of selecting the Scottish side fell to Bob Gardner, goalkeeper and captain of Queen's Park, the pre-eminent and all conquering team of the time.

Denied the services of a pair of highly rated Anglos, Arthur Kinnaird of The Wanderers and Henry Renny-Tailyour of Royal Engineers, Gardner stuck to what he knew.

The Scotland team was made up exclusively of players from Queen's Park:

"The Scotland team was Mr Gardner at the goal, Mr Ker and Mr Taylor at the back, and Mr Thomson and Mr Smith at half. Forward, Mr Leckie, Mr Rhind, Mr Weir, the other Mr Smith, Mr McKinnon and Mr Wotherspoon."

England, with players representing nine different clubs, didn't have the comfort of familiarity:

"Individual skill was generally on England's side, but the Southrons did not play to each as well as their opponents who seemed to be adept at passing the ball."

Jonathan Wilson writes:

"The spread of passing itself - that 'united action' - can be traced back to one game, football's first international, played between Scotland and England..."

From the Glasgow Herald:

"The Englishmen had all the advantage in respect of weight, their average being about two stones heavier than the Scotchmen, and they also had the advantage in pace. The strong point with the home club was that they played excellently well together."

Other contemporary accounts praise the dribbling exploits of players on both sides. It's likely that Scotland's 2-2-6 formation offered a better blend than England's 1-2-8.

It was Scotland's style that English teams would later attempt to emulate. The Scots, in the blue shirts of Queen's Park and red hoods, played a game that seemed innovative and pioneering.

Where did it all go wrong?

Whatever the tactics, England arrived as favourites but were held to a goalless draw with Scotland coming closest to scoring. A Robert Leckie shot hit the tape (there were no crossbars) in the second half, while a first half attempt was adjudged to have gone over the tape by the umpires.

Having hoped to cover their costs, the large crowd allowed Queen's Park to return a handsome profit.

The idea of international football seemed immediately amenable. It was also a catalyst for greater organisation of the game in Scotland.

In 1873 Queen's Park took the lead in forming an association of Scottish Clubs.

Billy McKinnon, a forward against England, scored the first goal as Queen's Park won the first Challenge Cup final in 1874. The first Scottish Cup final.

Within 18 months of the goalless draw at Hamilton Crescent the game had a structure that is recognisable today.

Clashes between Scotland and England remained on the calendar for over 100 years. It took until 1970 for the two teams to play out another 0-0 draw.

The fixture returns next year to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the English Football Association.

That, largely, is the only status this game can hope to attain in modern football. A historical curiosity, wheeled out on special occasions or when coincidence shines on an international draw.

A nice reminder of when were kings. We might never be again. But amid all the arguments, the bickering and the negativity, it's surely a heritage worth fighting for.

Sources:

• A Scottish Football Hall of Fame by John Cairney
• Day of the Match: A History of Football in 365 Days by Scott Murray and Rowan Walker
• Inverting the Pyramid: The History of Football Tactics: A History of Football Tactics by Jonathan Wilson

Reconstruction: Home and away

European football is once again to be buffeted by the winds of change.

UEFA are considering dropping the Europa League and doubling the Champions League to accommodate 64 teams.

Nothing is final yet but a decision is likely to be made by 2014.

Having been treated by like a second rate tournament by its organisers - and some of its participants - the Europa League hasn't been as fiscally rewarding as the Champions League. Strange that.

And if you don't pay your way, modern football would prefer you to die quickly and with a minimum of fuss.

So the cash cow of the Champions League will become ever more lucratively bloated.

Don't hold your breath for a democratisation of access or wealth. European football will remain tilted towards the big clubs from the big leagues.

The idea of a European league, driven by an orchestrated breakaway led by the European Club Association, will again be shelved.

Even with UEFA's meddlesome involvement, the big clubs can get what they want out of the Champions League and periodic tantrums can be always used to force UEFA's hand on pressing issues.

The European League, a persuasive idea for many in Scotland, remains a concept more powerful in the abstract than reality: a fine stick to threaten UEFA with and a fine carrot to keep the "smaller big" clubs doing exactly what the "big big" clubs want.

But probably not something that the cabal of super clubs have any intention of pursuing in the immediate future.

What does all this mean for Scotland?

Scottish clubs would be competing for space in a 64 team tournament. This season five of our teams competed for places in two tournaments featuring 80 teams. Only one survived qualifying.

Our current strike rate suggests that few of our clubs would be bothering the business end of an expanded Champions League any time soon.

You never know though, losing in the qualifying rounds might become a more lucrative hobby.

In the meantime we have our own restructuring debate to monitor.

How's that going?

The SFL have a draft set of proposals that sees the top flight expanded and the SPL disbanded.

The SPL have a counter set of proposals that sees the SPL gain 12 more teams in an extra division and an extraordinarily daft sounding three way split into three leagues of eight after 22 games.

So the SFL want the SPL to bugger off and the SPL want to not only stick around but expand into two leagues for a bit of the season and three leagues for another bit of the season.

These approaches to reconstruction do not immediately suggest that the SPL and the SFA are singing from the same hymn sheet. Or that they're even in the same church.

That means it's time for the SFA to play a role: cajoling, brokering, soothing, arse kicking.

To this end the governing body's Professional Game Board released a statement yesterday:

"The Scottish FA’s Professional Game Board met at Hampden Park today to hear and discuss proposals on league reconstruction made by the Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football League.

"The PGB is encouraged by the common ground established on many issues in what is an emotive subject.

"The respective league bodies will now hold further discussions with their member clubs, in the hope that this common ground can be expanded upon within each proposal.

"The next meeting of the PGB is scheduled for January 30, 2013. However, it has offered to reconvene earlier to expedite the process once the bodies have held further talks with their members."

Which, from this vantage point, looks like another fine example of the SFA's mealy-mouthed dithering.

Given their headline differences on the big issues it's unclear what common ground the SPL and SFL might have found.

To drag the restructuring debate on until no sane person could reasonably be expected to care? Possibly.

Mutual loathing? Maybe.

A shared desire to make the SFA look as weak as possible. Perhaps.

We're left with two organisations at odds with each other and a governing body with the inspirational leadership qualities of a burst balloon.

If you were looking for a structure that would produce the most directionless governance for your sport, you could do far worse than mimic Hampden's tripartite travesty.

And so the debate drags on, each side trying to promote their vested interests, each saying they'll do the best for the fans while trying to avoid giving the fans any voice in the debate.

In that respect Scottish football's reconstruction shenanigans are pretty much like a low budget version of UEFA's blockbuster.

The difference is likely to be the pace of change.

By the time four or five Scottish clubs are getting emptied from the qualifiers of a 64 team Champions League, the bitter status quo will probably still reign supreme in Scotland.

Scottish football: Reconstruction rivals

"The battle lines were drawn months ago and the main players have been digging the trenches.

"But listen closely and you will hear the first volleys being fired as Scottish football edges closer, yet again, to civil war."

So spake the BBC's Chris McLaughlin as the latest contributions emerged in the eternal "reconstruction of Scottish football" debate.

The Scottish Football League will announce its plans first: a top league of 16, a 12 team second division and 18 teams in the bottom tier. Celtic and Rangers will be invited to enter "colt" teams. And the SPL will be disbanded, the "big" clubs returning to the SFL fold.

"Haud yer wheesht" say the SPL. They've their own plans and they don't include being disbanded. Rather: a top flight of 16, an SPL2 of 12 teams and a third flight of 12 teams.

Forget our romantic notions of a pyramid structure, of a constructive dialogue involving all stakeholders - including fans.

Where are we after our strange summer, the McLeish Report before that and the hints that the SFA were building up to bang heads together to get things moving forward?

We're nowhere. It seems hot air doesn't fuel the engines of change.

On one side the SPL, as defensive of its territory as ever, on the other a newly emboldened SFL.

And never the twain shall meet.

Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals - The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln is a brilliant study of how Lincoln weaved different points of view into his presidency, to shape the America he wanted to emerge from its most tumultuous period.

From Barack Obama down many have adopted the book as a leadership guide, towering narrative history as self help manual.

Lincoln strengthened his grip on the White House and the country by drawing opponents of different hues into his inner circle.

Now I've no idea of reading habits inside Hampden and it is a churlish habit of football - this blog included - to hurl military descriptions at events on and off the field.

But for the same to happen at Hampden we must rely on the leadership of Campbell Ogilvie and Stewart Regan.

We must rely on those with different views to air them openly, without agendas, and be prepared to sacrifice their own ambition to build a better future for Scottish football.

What we're likely to get is the SFA abdicating responsibility for as long as possible as an increasingly bitter argument between the SPL and the SFA results in either the status quo or a bad fudge, our promised utopia replaced by the worst of both worlds.

A leadership vacuum filled by selfish bickering, the fans ignored, the hope of lasting, positive change ever more forlorn.

It wouldn't take Lincoln and his team of rivals to sort out Scottish football.

Unfortunately Screaming Lord Sutch would be an improvement on the current mob masquerading as "guardians of the game."

Scottish football is not doomed. Too many people care too much.

But nor does constructive change look likely any time soon. And the longer the spectacle remains bald men fighting over a comb, the harder the recovery will be.

Your game needs you

What do Scottish football fans want?

Ask 100 people. Get 99 different answers.

We're not short of opinions. Events this summer showed that there are times when clubs are forced to listen.

Too often though clubs feel able to ignore the paying punter.

Partly that's the arrogance of a game that wants to run itself as a business while ignoring its "customers."

And partly it's because the channels for constructive communication between fans and clubs have simply not existed.

It's too easy for chairmen and chief executives to write off forums and social media sites as a playground for the overly opinionated or the crazily disaffected.

They latch on to the most extreme views, claim the tail is wagging the dog and give themselves an excuse to ignore anything that might be considered constructive. And there is a lot of constructive opinion out there.

And those fans with something constructive to say might be about to find a collective voice with the launch of new initiative from Supporters Direct Scotland.

A 'Fans Parliament' is to be launched across Scotland giving fans of every club a vehicle to air their views - and have those views collected and reported to Scottish football's overly complicated governing bodies and the Scottish Government.

Launched at the Scottish Parliament yesterday the initiative builds on the recommendations made in the McLeish Report that fans were recognised as key stakeholders in the game with a role to play in shaping the future of Scottish football.

The author of that report, Henry McLeish, said:

"It has been a unique year for football fans in Scotland, on a local as well as national basis, with ordinary fans’ voices being heard loud and clear in a way they’ve never been heard, or listened to, before. Now there is a drive and determination to ensure that the momentum that was gained isn’t lost.

"The new 'Fans Parliament' initiative will provide a platform for fans to continue the debate in the knowledge that it will be reported back to the Scottish Government and to the organisations running football in Scotland."

Fans will be encouraged to get involved through a series of roadshows, at matches, using social media and at www.scottishfans.org.

Paul Goodwin, head of Supporters Direct in Scotland, said:

"Fans voices are being listened to more than ever before and we know that in recent months there has been an unprecedented debate about the game in Scotland.

"Through Supporters Direct Scotland fans have a direct route into government and policy makers and we want the new ‘Fans Parliament’ initiative to be the conduit for the debate and discussion between fans across the country and, in effect, be the voice of Scottish football fans.

"As an organisation funded by the Scottish Government we have the ability to present supporters views directly to them as well as to the SPL, SFL and the SFA. Talks have already started at Hampden Park looking at how we formalise this relationship with the governing bodies."

An interesting scheme this. Football fans are not a homogeneous bunch. I've probably got no more in common with the chap who sits next to me at Easter Road than a shared love of Hibs and some subconscious masochism.

Our views on the future of our club probably diverge. Our views on the future of Scottish football almost certainly do.

Football fans don't necessarily do consensus.

So surveying fans, pulling together those opinions and turning those findings into something positive and focused enough to influence the SFA, SPL and SFL is likely to be a mammoth undertaking.

Not an impossible undertaking though. And a very worthwhile one.

I've met with some of the people involved and I can vouch for their enthusiasm in seeing this through.

And given that most of us should agree that a sustainable future for Scottish football is an absolute must, there is common ground to build on.

There's also a simple message for the men stalking the corridors of power at Hampden and ruling clubs like their own private dominions.

140 years of autocracy has got us where we are today.

There has to be a better way.

The first roadshow will be held in Edinburgh on 28th October with Pat Stanton and Gary Mackay in attendance.

Register by email: [email protected] with your name and date of birth.

www.scottishfans.org

Wales v Scotland: It's over

Another day, another Scotland game. Another night spent wailing "why us" into a pint glass.

If two home draws left our dreams of qualifying for the 2014 World Cup in ruins, defeat in Wales left a barren wasteland where those dreams used to be.

But we were unlucky.

Gareth Bale dived and Steven Fletcher's perfectly legitimate goal should have stood and would have knocked the stuffing out of Wales.

Perhaps. But the problem with indulging in a counter factual analysis of a game is that the other side can do the same.

Shaun Maloney has confirmed he touched Bale - "I can only apologise to my team-mates" - and would Fletcher's goal have proved decisive if Wales had already been allowed back in with the penalty that wasn't given against Christophe Berra?

But we're football fans. And football fans can't resist bemoaning that "we'd have been brilliant if it wasn't for the dodgy referee, the cheating millionaire and the blind linesman."

It becomes a problem if the "woe is me" approach becomes a habit though. And we might be at risk of doing that with Scotland.

Because Scotland are woeful. And nobody currently involved with the team seems able to halt the decline.

We couldn't have asked for better set of opening fixtures. In the horse trading involved in deciding the group schedule, Scotland won hands down.

At home against Serbia and Macedonia then a trip down to Wales.

A golden opportunity to get some wins, to build momentum.

We've blown it spectacularly.

Toothless and disjointed at Hampden, last night we edged clear in a tight first half and then, as this Scottish team so often do, retreated into our shells.

It became clearer and clearer as the second half wore on: this was ten men and one Gareth Bale playing against eleven molluscs.

The manager will speak of his disappointment, ruminate on how a bad refereeing call or two and a wonder strike robbed us of having the points to match the mythical progress he sees in his team.

A useful mask for him. A mask that is perhaps even legitimised by fans lining up to feed into the "we were hard done by" narrative.

It's not enough though.

If Levein came out and called Charlie Adam a fat, lazy bastard for his attempt to match Bale's run for the second goal I would respect him more.

If he announced that the cross shy Alan Hutton was only to be referred to as Dracula from now on I would think more of him.

The players would be miffed, the media would be in a frenzy.

But at least the manager would be giving some indication that he's not overseeing a squad where mediocrity is accepted.

Last night's game might be the one that finally does for the Levein era.

It probably shouldn't have lasted this long.

The way he tried to put a gloss on those two opening draws, the way the players cravenly nodded their agreement.

The clear message was that this was a collective with no clue about qualifying for a major championship. A manager and a squad that just don't get what's required of them.

Giving it your best shot and failing is one thing. Scotland don't offer that now. They perform poorly and that translates into poor results. When the final whistle blows they shrug their shoulders and say "this isn't over."

That clueless complacency shows on the pitch. And it comes from the coach.

Craig Levein has won three qualifying games in eleven attempts. Three. Two of them narrow wins against Liechtenstein.

Yet still he speaks of progress and prays for some luck to come his way. His players agree with him and his employers stand by him.

It's not bad luck and it's certainly not progress. We're not even standing still. We're in reverse with a group of players that should be more competitive than they ever really look.

Another qualifying campaign slips by. Seven have now passed by since we last played at a major tournament.

The art of qualification, once so ingrained in successive Scottish teams, has disappeared. A generation of players don't know how to get the job done.

They need the guidance of someone who does. Instead they fall into line behind the uninspiring leadership of someone who thinks a 0-0 draw at home is a decent way to launch a World Cup bid.

Not for the first time under this manager Scotland looked like they didn't know how to win the game last night.

Don't know how to win. Don't know how to qualify. It's becoming the Scottish way.

And for every day Levein remains in the post the deeper the culture of mediocrity will seep and the harder the recovery will become.

Scottish football: Destiny delayed?

The time has finally come for Scottish football to greet the future.

What should happen when the Scottish Football League clubs meet at Hampden today?

Problems and issues should be fully discussed. Threats made by other bodies should be retracted. Fears over the sustainability of the current incarnation of the newco Rangers should be allayed.

Any lingering ambiguity on the resolutions laid in front of the clubs should be resolved.

When the votes are counted Rangers newco should be free to start life in Division Three.

That should be an end to it. For better or for worse we'll all need to embrace what that means for the future.

Scottish football will need to be proactive, people in positions of influence will need to overcome the fear that has undermined the game these last few weeks and be brave, inventive and resilient.

That shouldn't be too much to ask. With the power of being a "guardian" of the game comes the responsibility of building a sustainable model for everyone involved in the game.

Plans for reconstruction should be put in place. Those plans should be borne from rational, constructive discussion rather than panic and self-interest.

The SPL experiment - a 14 year exercise in greed, delusion and failure - should be disbanded.

The governance of the game - the governance that allowed cowardice to leave the SFL clubs with this decision and then allowed bullying and threats to try and influence that decision - should be revolutionised.

The new business model, whatever hardships it might bring, must involve all clubs in all divisions. We've tried thinking only about the elite. It's ended in debt, anger on the terraces and a whopping corporate collapse.

The fans who have shown commendable passion - whatever some might think of their motives - should be engaged, not disregarded as an inconvenient revenue stream.

That's what should happen.

It probably won't though.

The last few days have had the feel of a bizarre list of classified results as clubs hailing from what Jonathan Meades called "football pools towns" have declared their voting intentions.

There has been an avalanche of statements favouring the Division Three option. It says much for the unpredictability of recent events that I'm far from convinced the actual votes will be cast quite as decisively as that.

I'm tired and weary of the whole thing now. But am I alone in thinking that today is just another staging post, another day labelled historic that probably won't resolve very much at all?

Whatever happens it's unlikely that the uncertainty, the vitriol, the self-immolation of the last few weeks will end.

Expect the interchangeable malevolent cop-incompetent cop double act of the SPL's Neil Doncaster and the SFA's Stewart Regan to continue.

Expect this grubby chapter in the history of both those organisations to continue.

Expect SPL chairmen, silently hiding behind the contrived integrity of their "no to newco" vote, to continue to exert influence in the search for the outcome they want.

Expect them to pretend these are principled actions, the actions of men who know that the only way to save the game is to save the fans of all clubs from themselves.

Expect their very vocal supporters to champion them as the real heroes, the brave few doing their best to protect football from the wishes of the majority.

Expect them to ignore their own failings and the remarkable failure of the last 14 years, an intolerable status quo that they are determined to preserve even as they try and cover the unmentionables behind a fig leaf of "positive change."

Expect all that and more.

Expect to be enraged over and over again.

Expect this miserable story to run for a few more days or weeks yet, with a little more of what Scottish football should mean to fans dying with every hour.

But don't expect Regan, Doncaster or their organ grinders to meekly accept the outcome of today's meeting at Hampden if it doesn't end with the result they want.

Like this? Like the Scottish Football Blog on Facebook.

Rangers newco: Berwick say Division 3

And yet another statement.

Many clubs have embraced verbosity. Not so Berwick.

Less than 100 words.

The crucial line: "directly into SFL Division Three."

Berwick Rangers Board tonight agreed unanimously that should the new Rangers FC be admitted to the SFL for the new season, that they would support a move directly into SFL Division Three. The Club has also taken on board the feelings of their Supporters Club, Supporters Trust and the countless individual fans who have contacted them directly. There will be no further statement from the club on this matter.

From www.berwickrangersfc.co.uk

STV Sport has the latest on declared voting intentions

Like this? Like the Scottish Football Blog on Facebook.

Rangers newco: Clyde comment

Devoid as we are of international success it might be heartening that Scottish football is now head and shoulders above any other country when it comes to releasing statements.

Today it was the turn of Clyde.

Quite explosive this one. It seems to nail as hollow some of the threats that have been made, it questions the continued silence of most SPL clubs and draws attention once more to the uncertainty that still surrounds the Charles Green owned Rangers newco.

And it also suggests - perhaps more explicitly than any other club statement - that based on the information so far provided to the SFL the Rangers newco should not actually be admitted at any level.

It certainly seems to me that, whatever the outcome on Friday, it is going to be difficult for Scottish football to keep either Neil Doncaster or Stewart Regan in positions of such influence.

The board of Clyde Football Club met last night to consider how it might approach the resolutions (see below) to be voted on at the SFL meeting on Friday 13th July. This update is to inform our owners and supporters and hopefully explain some of the complexities that face the club when carefully and objectively considering how we might vote. We hope that by being as clear as possible about the difficulties surrounding this situation that the people able to support the process act swiftly to do so.

The overwhelming reality is that we are being asked to make one of the most important decisions for Scottish Football in a vacuum devoid of factual information, that vacuum having been filled with unhelpful rhetoric and scaremongering by the chief executives of the SFA and SPL.

We therefore looked at what we were being asked to vote on, how it fitted with the principles of the sport, and what information we might need to inform a logical decision in context of the current reality.

It was clear that the resolutions marked a clear departure from all previous process and custom and practice when considering admitting a team to the SFL, albeit operating within the rules of the SFL. It was in that context which we considered the resolutions. In reality, the customary principles of sport were not at the forefront of the resolutions.

We first concluded that there was limited risk to the SFL from the 'Armageddon' theory, as depicted in the detailed presentation by Neil Doncaster and supported by Stewart Regan, which had prompted fears of cash flow loss to the SFL next season. We have obtained a copy of the Settlement Agreement signed up to by the SPL and the SFL in April 1998 - it is clear that the agreement is not ambiguous in this regard and there is no scope for the SPL to fail to meet the obligations to the SFL except by deliberately breaching the agreement. Neil Doncaster was unequivocal when he said that there would be no payment under the agreement and stressed that it was not the board of the SPL that made big decisions, it was the clubs themselves. We have concluded that it defies credibility that the SPL clubs would instruct the SPL to deliberately breach a legal agreement. To assist the SFL clubs to take decisions in the right manner then the external threat should be removed by the SPL clubs, confirming to the SFL that they have not and will not instruct the SPL to breach the Settlement Agreement.

Consideration was then given to Resolution 1 which we concluded required to be reworded to be explicit that entry was to SFL3. The reason for this is that once entered to the SFL in the manner proposed under Resolution 1, we understand that it is within the power of the Board of the SFL to place a club into any league of their choosing. We believe that, due to the intolerable pressure placed on the SFL board to date by external parties, this resolution should be explicit to avoid the Board coming under pressure from either the SFA or SPL in the event that Resolution 2 is rejected. It is also our opinion that Resolution 1 being explicit sits more appropriately with Resolution 2 which in itself is explicit about where any club might play.

In terms of Resolution 1, whether reworded or not, it seemed inconceivable to the Board of Clyde that absolutely no information whatsoever has been provided to support the resolution. This is clearly a matter of haste and again driven by an external agenda, perhaps because Sevco have not lodged an application to join the SFL then they have not submitted any information. Whilst we have accepted that this is being treated as a special case and we are willing to run with this, it simply was not possible to conclude that we could make any decision at this time. The matter is made worse because of the extent of uncertainty which hangs over Sevco. There is no need to prepare an exhaustive list of the issues as they are well publicised, however the extent of outstanding sanctions that may or may not be levied against a club which has yet to obtain SFA membership, together with the increasing number of possible commercial and legal challenges to the transactions to date simply presents a significant risk to the ability of the club to fulfil its fixtures in any league. Given that some of these matters are in the hands of the governing bodies it seems inexplicable that they are left hanging. We are clear that for the good of the game that we would want a swift and positive conclusion that would see Rangers Football Club taking part in the game again and we would wish to be able to support a Resolution that saw them entered to SFL3. However, until we receive enough information to inform such a decision then we are being pushed into a corner which would actually leave any club making a logical decision arrive at the conclusion that Resolution 1 should not be supported. The SFA could assist the process by transferring the SFA membership to Sevco prior to the Friday meeting if they have satisfied themselves of fit and proper tests and have carried out their own diligence on the viability of the club and the various legal challenges.

Resolution 2 suffers from the same issues as Resolution 1, in that no information of any sort about Sevco, not even whether it will obtain SFA membership, leaves no possibility of making a decision about entry to the SFL based on facts or logic. Clearly it is incumbent on all the governing bodies to make available all factual information they have available if they truly want this process to have any chance of being recovered from the current chaos. At the very least the business plan for Sevco and any other information that led the SPL clubs to arrive at a decision should be made available to the SFL clubs, and not with inappropriately short notice, although that point has as good as passed. Resolution 2 was where the challenge to sporting integrity arose. It was impossible to engage with this concept without continually bearing in mind that the SFA had already undermined the prospects for any integrity to be maintained by making it clear that failure to deal with the admission of a newco to SFL3 would be a dereliction of duty. In effect posting notice that no matter what decision is taken by the SFL clubs to administer their league, the SFA would not tolerate anything other than SFL 1, an equivalent point having been made by Neil Doncaster on behalf of the SPL clubs. The stated position of the SFA and SPL chief executives means that, whilst this club can have faith in David Longmuir to do all in his power to deliver a new combined structure that meets the objectives of Resolution 2, we have no faith in the parties that the new arrangements would be negotiated with. Their behaviour to date is evidence enough for us. We should not be disingenuous on our own position in terms of the question of trading sporting integrity for transformational change to the way the game is governed that is posed by Resolution 2. We have said previously that there would be no winners and that compromise would be required at some point. With this in mind, had we worked through this process and seen positive collaborative behaviour from the leaders of the SFA and SPL and we were challenged with backing Resolution 2 in exchange for revolutionary change that would truly benefit the game as a whole, then we would have engaged with that. As it stands, we have no information on the proposals other than that distributed in advance of the meeting last week and no confidence in the parties that will control the process outside of the SFL. As such we would vote no to Resolution 2.

Resolution 3, as many have pointed out this resolution seems presumptuous as no invitation has been issued from the SPL to either club. Again, this arises because of the external pressures, the haste and the failure of other bodies to complete their own processes. As things stand, whilst Sevco/Newco was not voted into the SPL, it seems that the SPL still has 12 members based on the reported voting at the SPL meeting last week, albeit one of whom is in liquidation. It seems to make more sense that the SPL complete their processes and make the appropriate invitation for a club to join the SPL. We would seek to support whichever of our member clubs are invited to join the SPL to make that move, however, at the moment there is no certainty that Sevco will be entered into the SFL and the SFL should not risk leaving itself short of a team.

In summary, the complete absence of information on Sevco Scotland Ltd renders it impossible to vote with any logic in favour of any of the Resolutions. The default in these circumstances would unfortunately be to vote against. We hope and trust that this unacceptable situation will be resolved swiftly and will allow Clyde Football Club to support Resolution 1 from an informed position and will see Rangers Football Club playing in SFL3. We see Resolution 2 as a matter of trust and it would take a change of personnel and attitude for us to be confident that David Longmuir would be entering discussions with a group of people committed to a collaborative process in a spirit of genuine partnership. In the current circumstances our only decision could be to vote against Resolution 2. Subject to a satisfactory outcome on Resolution 1 we would support Resolution 3.

The three resolutions presented to the club are as follows:-

(i) That the Scottish Football League Members agree to admit Sevco Scotland Limited as an Associate Member and agrees to permit Rangers F.C. to play in the League during Season 2012/13.

(ii) That the Scottish Football League Members direct the Board of Management of The Scottish Football League (the “Board”) to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the Third Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13 unless the Board shall have to its satisfaction negotiated and reached agreement with The Scottish Premier League and The Scottish Football Association on a series of measures which the Board shall consider to be in the best interests of the game, how it is structured, how it is governed and how it is financed, whereupon the Board shall be authorised to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the First Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13.

(iii) That the Scottish Football League Members in terms of Rule 12 approve the resignation of either Dundee F.C. or Dunfermline Athletic F.C., whichever shall be admitted to join the Scottish Premier League for Season 2012/13, such resignation to take effect as at the date of admission of such club to the Scottish Premier League, notwithstanding that the requisite notice under Rule 12 shall not have been given.Details of the series of measures referred to at (ii) above shall be made available to the Members in advance of the meeting and an opportunity for full discussion of those measures will be given prior to the proposals being put to the meeting.

From www.clydefc.co.uk

Like this? Like the Scottish Football Blog on Facebook.

Rangers newco: Hamilton hit back

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.

Rangers newco: The wrath of Raith

In a football story jammed with villains, Raith Rovers have offered up one of the few men to be hailed as a heroe.

Director Turnbull Hutton has consistently called out the SFA and the SPL on their bullying and their half truths.

It was Hutton spoke of "corruption" on the steps of Hampden, the parish councillor taking the fight to the doors of Westminster.

On Friday evening Raith released a statement regarding next week's SFL vote.

It should make the SPL and the SFA - and anyone who does actually care about Scottish football - uncomfortable.

Note the focus on the question of Rangers' ownership. As far as I'm aware this is the first time any other club has expressed concern about the medium term viability of the Duff and Phelps/Charles Green carve up of the oldco's assets.

Perhaps nothing more than conjecture. But as I mentioned last week Stewart Regan and Neil Doncaster are taking an even bigger risk in so heavily pushing for the First Division compromise if they are not absolutely certain of the sustainability of the new Rangers ownership.
Attention is also brought - as it should be by each and everyone of us - to the essential cowardice of the SPL voting "no" and then shutting up shop, refusing to disown their own chief executives tactics and offering no support to the SFL clubs.

The Raith statement in full:

The club has this evening received the notice of resolutions to be voted on next Friday and we are told to expect an information pack at some time next week. We hope that this pack will present a more balanced report to SFL member clubs than they have so far received.

At last Tuesday’s meeting, financial information provided by Neil Doncaster showed an unrealistic worst case scenario. It showed the impact of potential total loss of 3 TV contracts, all of which had been inexplicably agreed on the basis that the broadcaster could walk away if either Rangers or Celtic were not in the SPL. His information did not, however, set out the potentially positive impact of negotiating replacement contracts with other broadcasters or alternatively the much mentioned possibility of launching SPL TV (which we understand could have been launched within a matter of months).

Mr Doncaster warned SFL members that if these contracts were indeed lost, this would mean the annual payment to the SFL under the Settlement Agreement would either be greatly reduced or not paid at all. Raith Rovers FC believes this not to be the case, and that the SPL would remain both contractually obliged and able to pay the £1.9m - £2m annual sum, even in that worst case scenario. We call upon the SFL Board to clarify its view on this vital point urgently, before club boards finalise their positions on these important votes.

We are also concerned that there has not as yet been an opportunity for clubs to receive legal advice from the SFL and/or debate the potential consequences on the smooth running of our league in the event that the Courts are asked to annull/strike down any of the corporate transactions that have led to the current position of Sevco Scotland Ltd as owners of certain assets of the Rangers oldco. Indeed, the position as regards the potential sanctions to be applied by the Scottish FA via its Appellate Tribunal has also still to be bottomed out. In summary, we remain concerned that the SPL clubs have overwhelmingly voted to pass on this potential time bomb, which may yet explode once passed to the SFL’s jurisdiction, and we are being asked to accept this new company into membership, worse still in our top division.

Without all of this information, and the opportunity for clubs to further discuss these issues on a fully informed basis amongst themselves before the formal SGM, in a similar format to last Tuesday’s meeting, we are concerned that the fairness and transparency of the process itself is at risk of being compromised.

Raith Rovers FC will consider its stance with regard to attendance at this meeting once we receive the information from the SFL.

From www.raithrovers.net 

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.

Rangers newco: A cowardly compromise

Scottish football has had a sickly pallor for some time. An anaemic game, given to petty squabbles and entrenched self preservation.

A game that at times looked determined to throttle itself to a slow, painful death.

A game with only one real talent: an unerring ability to make a bad situation worse.

This propensity for own goals, for punching itself repeatedly in the face, for encouraging ridicule surfaced again yesterday.

The Rangers saga had appeared to be drawing to something of a conclusion.

A conclusion that was never going to satisfy everyone but a conclusion nonetheless.

Against what might have been their better financial judgement the SPL clubs were gradually declaring their voting intentions.

If sporting integrity was becoming an increasingly weary phrase, the intent was at least clear: Rangers had erred on a grand scale, the Rangers newco could not be readmitted to the SPL and other clubs appreciated that they had to vote not for TV contracts or sponsors but for their own fans.

With the SPL route cut off Rangers would have to apply to join the SFL.

Most of us expected that application to be accepted. Rangers would join the third tier and work their way up. Much like we'd expect any club to do if they'd been so warped by greed, hubris and misguided ambition that they'd spent themselves into oblivion.

And then something changed.

Suddenly the SFL clubs wouldn't be asked to vote on the new Rangers entering the bottom division.

Now they'd be asked to OK Rangers entering the First Division. The SPL would give the SFL a million quid for TV rights, bring in play-offs after next season and the two organisations would be merged.

If the SFL clubs refused to agree to this fait accompli then there were dark hints of a breakaway SPL2 lifting the drawbridge on promotion and relegation.

Comply or die.

Let us cling to the positives if we can.

Are there any? Perhaps. Many of us have long agitated for some kind of league reconstruction, we've argued for a merger of the failed SPL and the SFL.

But we wanted these things to help shape the long term future of the game.

We didn't want them because Rangers had died. We didn't want them rushed in just four weeks before the league gets underway. We didn't want them to shaft every club in the Second Division and every club in the Third Division.

Who's behind all this?

The SFA's Stewart Regan and the SPL's Neil Doncaster?

Some SPL clubs are already trying to distance themselves. If it is indeed the case that Doncaster has gone off message, waging a guerilla war then there is a simple solution: when the newco vote is taken next week the meeting can end with a request for his resignation and with an apology issued to the SFL clubs.

Don't hold your breath.

The tragedy - one of the tragedies, this whole affair is now an avalanche of tragedy - is that nobody has stopped to ask what they're trying to preserve.

They want to keep Rangers because that will sustain and protect the current SPL business model.

But that they're going to such lengths is because Rangers failed - a failure that surely condemns that business model to history.

We need to reinvent the wheel. Instead Doncaster, Regan and whoever else - and there are undoubtedly SPL clubs up to their necks in this ridiculous salvage operation - are rummaging in their sheds to find bits of string to tie it back together again.

They're also putting a hell of a lot of faith in Charles Green, current owner of the newco Rangers. More faith than a - belatedly - suspicious Rangers support seem keen to invest.

They're going to be in trouble if it turns out they've prostituted themselves and gerrymandered the Scottish game for another purveyor of bullshit.

And the sheer cack handedeness of it. The document circulated to the SFL clubs is flimsy on detail, big on unsubstantiated claims and quite stunning in its naivety.

It's most telling line might just be this perceived benefit of the plan, an opportunity, say the authors, to:

Allow fans to engage in the bigger picture

The author of that line doesn't just fail to understand Scottish football, they're a very real danger to Scottish football.

Where does this end up?

With Rangers in the First Division I suspect. Or an SPL2 - a concept that was basically rubbish when Rangers weren't liquidated and remains rubbish today.

A miserable compromise that seems to please almost nobody aside from a few men in power. A bullying fiddle dreamt up by cowards and charlatans.

When did we get to this stage?

When did we wake up one day and realise that the idiots we despised at school were somehow running the game we love?

How have we let that happen?

Is it our fault for not doing enough to hound these folk, not doing enough to get the game we wanted rather than the game that some marketing confidence trickster who was crap at Norwich and has been even crapper up here wanted?

Maybe it is.

So why not just get on with it Neil? Take it away Stewart.

Get Rangers into the First Division. Enjoy the benefits of your preserved TV deal and accept the congratulations of your sponsors the next time you meet them at a hospitality lunch.

When Rangers get promoted back to the SPL next season allow yourself some satisfaction and think: "I did that."

But when our stadiums empty, when clubs that have acquiesced in a culture that defines them as bottom feeders lose sponsors, when players refuse to sign for teams that not only didn't object to a duopoly but actually craved that domination, when people laugh at Scottish football, chuckle at this backward game that only felt safe in the embrace of a bankrupt club, when every Scottish child asks for an EPL replica shirt from Santa.

Then you can think: "Yeah, I did that as well."

STV is the place to be for coverage of this unmitigated disaster

Wings over Scotland demolishes the SFL document

Rangers: Newco or no go?

A liquidated Rangers start life again as a newco. The Rangers Football Club.

Rangers are no more.

Not quite, of course. The football team - its home and its training facilities if not its players - has a new owner in a new corporate structure.

For now ownership lies with a consortium led by Charles Green. Tomorrow, next week, next month it might be a consortium led by Walter Smith.

Even after liquidation Rangers are haunted by uncertainty and tussled over by businessmen to the bewilderment of the ordinary fan.

But a new Rangers have indeed risen from the liquidated shell of the old company.

Where do they go now?

The decision that most SPL chairmen didn't want to make now lies with them.

Yes to the Rangers newco?

No to the Rangers newco?

It makes me worry about the business acumen available to Scottish football if it is indeed true that representatives of the other 11 clubs sat round a table and allowed themselves to be persuaded that Rangers didn't face the prospect of liquidation.

I suspect, however, it's far easier to convince an audience if they already want to believe what you're saying.

And how the SPL chairmen must have hoped that they didn’t have to make this choice.

Vote "yes" to a newco and stick with the comfort of familiarity.

Maybe the odd sanction to give an impression of resoluteness - or hope that the SFA do that for you - and then carry on as before.

Or vote "no" and take a step into the unknown.

When Rangers first went into administration I wrote that what is a simple moral decision for fans wouldn't necessarily be reflected by directors facing more complex debates about what their choice would mean for their own clubs.

That remains the case.

Fans have been vocal and overwhelming in their opposition to Rangers being allowed entry to the league.

Supporters are often out of step with their chairmen and directors. No SPL club is yet run as a democracy, these are not elected officials and more often than not what they feel is best for us and our clubs doesn't chime with the wishes of large sections of their "customer base."

But the strength of opinion here is perhaps unprecedented across the clubs. Can the men who will ultimately make the decision afford to ignore that?

Ramifications for the TV deal and other potential losses of income will influence their decision. The clubs themselves should be better acquainted with the consequences of refusing entry than anyone else.

And yes, protecting revenue streams is important. But the sheer scale of the financial folly at Rangers means that being seen to capitulate to a newco might have even graver consequences.

The idea of "sporting integrity" risks being cheapened by over use in recent weeks.

But if the other clubs are prepared to let Rangers back simply so they can chug along in the shadow of two dominant clubs, unable to stand on their own two feet, then the SPL can make no pretence at being a sporting entity anyway.

We've seen what greed and bad management can do to football clubs. Now should be a time to readjust.

I suspect that the scale of Rangers' wrongdoing, the lack of humility in the face of that wrongdoing, the "you'll die without us" attitude and the weight of public opinion is beginning to tip the balance against a newco.

I've also got a feeling that clubs struggling with their own finances won't buy the line that Rangers have been punished enough with a European ban, a ten point deduction and a period of emotional turmoil.

Fans of Rangers and fans of other clubs will always be at loggerheads on these issues but "we've been punished enough" is a bad argument to make.

It focuses attention on the litany of misdemeanours and leads the listener to the conclusion that contrition is unlikely to follow.

Rangers cocked-a-snook at corporate governance, stiffed their creditors and were gobbled up for pennies by a man who didn't see any problem in discussing transfer targets even as football debtors went unpaid.

It sends out a very dangerous message for the future of football governance in this country if a place is set for them and they are warmly welcomed back to the top table.

That is really not punishment enough.

The issue of football governance also means that the inquiry into alleged impropriety in player's contracts must be allowed to run its course.

The outcome of that investigation will tell us much about the health of the game in this country.

If a vote on the newco is taken before any findings are delivered then that vote will be compromised, a decision made without full possession of the facts.

Like everything else in this sorry saga the timescales are rushed, the details murky, the outcomes uncertain.

Should new Rangers be allowed into the SPL?

No.

Will new Rangers be allowed into the SPL?

Possibly.

A month ago I would have said they almost certainly would be. I think they still probably will be but it's no longer such a certainty.

The next few weeks are going to be messy, divisive and nasty.

Whatever the decision, for better or for worse, I suspect Scottish football will never be the same again.

The history issue

Does a newco retain the history of the oldco?

The findings of the current SPL investigation notwithstanding I find it unlikely that any directive is going to be issued from Hampden denying "new" Rangers the list of trophies won by "old" Rangers.

That won't stop fans of other clubs trying to deny fans of Rangers that history.

And it won't stop Rangers fans trying to deny fans of other clubs the right to deny them of that history.

A difficult one to be sure.

If you've watched Rangers at Ibrox for 20 years and plan to watch them at Ibrox for another 20 years I find it unlikely that you're going to consider 2012 a dividing line separating the achievements of the old and the new.

History in this case is surely subjective. Fans will bicker over this forever and a day but they'll only be bickering over a perception of whether this is "Year Zero" or not.

Your own perception might depend if you love Rangers or if you hate them. If you're stuck in the middle you'll probably just hear "blah, blah, blah."

I'm not sure the next time Hibs host Rangers I'll be thinking "Well, this is jolly nice, this is the first time we've met these boys in blue at Easter Road, I do hope we go on to forge a superior record to them in our head-to-head clashes."

I don't really think it works like that. Rivalry understandably inspires glee that Rangers' history will be wiped out. But it doesn't give anyone "control" of that history or someone else's interpretation of history.

(If the SFA were to offer guidance on this - and what could possibly go wrong if that august body starts wrestling with the philosophical issues involved in taking ownership of history - might I also suggest they bring in some governance on the issue of stars above badges which has, frankly, given over to anarchy in recent seasons.)

My own view?

If you ask me when Hibs were formed I'll say "6th August 1875."

I won't mention the period in the early 1890s when the club was forced into what we might call abeyance.

The timeline goes back to the beginning, skipping over the break.

The history of football clubs is a powerful thing and it has always been about more than decisions made in committee rooms, law courts or tax offices.

Like this? Like the Scottish Football Blog on Facebook.

Rangers and the SPL: Looking for leaders

Another week slips by and the saga of Rangers drags on.

It seems the capacity this story has for delivering farce is almost limitless.

Where are we this week?

Hard to know exactly:

• Charles Green and his largely unknown consortium still want to take control of Rangers, delivering them from evil either through a CVA or the unknown delights of a newco
• "Take control" rather than buy: it seems Green - and his still conditional offer - will involve him and his mates spending cash that Rangers will then need to pay back, with interest, over the next eight years
• A CVA offer has gone out - showing that debts have risen since the scale of Rangers' financial dunderheidedness was first revealed - but outstanding tax cases and outstanding legal challenges make a proper appraisal of that CVA offer look all but impossible
• Duff and Phelps are under increasing scrutiny regarding their relationship with Craig Whyte - a scrutiny they dismiss as the muckraking of the tittle tattle brigade - but seem to be pretty sure of their own multi million pound payday whatever happens
• Rangers took the SFA to court and won over the transfer embargo, the SFA being told that they'd need to consider a punishment within the specific sanctions laid out in their own guidelines
• The SFA are preparing another appeals panel in light of that court ruling while FIFA - for whom clubs taking such matters to national courts is about as appealing as a transparent trial of goalline technology - consider how they're going to deal with what is no longer Scotland's little local difficulty
• To the sound of hoofs rumbling through an unlocked door the SPL agreed to bring in a selection of financial fair play rules but decided that decisions on newcos getting into their exclusive club would be decided on a case-by-case basis by all the clubs
• Oddly Charles Green - who currently owns about as much of Rangers as any taxpayer - was allowed to play a part in that SPL meeting, the lunatic invited out for tea before taking over the asylum
• Rangers have finally delivered, three months after being asked, the documentation the SPL requested as part of their dual contact deliberations, with the SPL board set to receive an update on the progress of the league's investigation on 18th June
• After the BBC's Mark Daly raised the ceiling on ridiculousness with cameos in this story for Joanna Lumley, Prince Albert of Monaco and a "Cockney football fixer," this week we had the SPL's Neil Doncaster suggesting that Gandhi - while possibly a damn fine football chairman - might struggle to pass a fit and proper person test

What next?

The SFA must react to the slap in the face delivered by the Court of Session and, to avoid an international conflagration, do so in a way that doesn't further antagonise FIFA.

Chief executive Stewart Regan has confirmed tonight that the they won't risk the wrath of FIFA by indulging in a tit-for-tat court appeal (one appeal judge backed the embargo, one appeal judge dismissed the sanction, who knows where a best of three contest could end up?)

So now the SFA's appeal panel must refer back to the other sanctions available and bar Rangers from the Scottish Cup or suspend or terminate their SFA membership.

They'll also probably have to make yet more adjustments to their disciplinary procedures come this summer's AGM. One step forwards, two steps back.

Rangers can also expect an additional punishment for taking this matter to the Court of Session in the first place. FIFA will be watching out for that one.

This might still be a most Pyrrhic of victories.

For those of us who have argued that the outrage and uproar over the transfer embargo was a well orchestrated diversion by some at Ibrox might now look at the CVA offer - I speak only as a cheated taxpayer not a direct creditor - and see a deal that looks as measly as Duff and Phelps look weaselly.

Non-acceptance of that offer would send us back to the delectable prospect of internecine warfare as Scottish football decides on a home for Rangers 2012.

Meanwhile, of course, the issue of dual contracts won't go away.

I'm sure Neil Doncaster wishes it would go away but it won't. Every room he walks into, there it is, a big, well paid elephant lounging on the couch.

Without closure on that, one way or the other, it's difficult to see how the rancour and distrust will ever clear.

And that's a big problem.

Things have dragged on too long without resolution.

I've seen too many people connected with Rangers not only predict that letting Rangers die would be nothing more than a mass suicide pact for Scottish football or, worse, taking gleeful delight in the idea that if they're drowning, they'll drag the rest of us down with them to really care now if they don't survive in the SPL. Or even survive at all.

A tragedy for the decent Rangers fan of course. But there it is.

Duff and Phelps, the Keystone Cops of administrators, and Charles Green, a man who looks perpetually lost without his black cloak and scythe, still seem to be the only people standing between Rangers and further disaster. They're hardly the Fantastic Four.

But what's the plan for Scottish football?

Forget about Rangers.

Financial fair play rules are all well and good. But we're entering the summer without a clear idea of the teams that will make up our top flight, we've got a TV deal that looks no closer to being signed, a headline sponsor winding down with no sign of a replacement.

Somebody's got to take control of the situation and plot a course to safety.

If life without Rangers is going to be as petrifying as some tell us then start planning for the worst. If Rangers somehow pull their listing ship through just about intact then that will be a bonus.

It should also be a lesson to all that living beyond our footballing means is no longer option.

In the meantime there's thousands of people like me who have already made an investment in next season.

Who's fighting our corner? Rangers' mess is their mess. Isolate it and find a way to fill the gap.

We deserve more than a whole game paralysed in the face of someone else's greed, mendacity and disregard for the sport we love.

We're not looking for a Gandhi. But I'm not sure we're looking for a Neil Doncaster either.

Like this? Like the Scottish Football Blog on Facebook.

Rangers: Transfer embargo stands

Another day and another twist in the ongoing Rangers saga.

Or perhaps not a twist, more a rare outbreak of consistency in an unwieldy drama.

The SFA's appellate tribunal has dismissed Rangers' appeal against the year long transfer embargo imposed by the original judicial panel.

In short, Rangers will not be allowed to sign players over the course of the next two transfer windows.

Surprise?

Perhaps. There was a lingering suggestion that the SFA might feel a certain pressure to reduce the punishment in the face of a backlash from inside the club and from Rangers fans.

But the likelihood of that happening seemed to diminish with the release of the original panel's report last Friday.

That was an exhaustive and ultimately damning study of a total breakdown in corporate governance. It took account of the huge role played by Craig Whyte - still, as far as we know, owner of the club and its assets - but also pointed to the failings of others.

It is companies that tend to be held accountable when there is such a complete failure of management.

The summary of today's findings suggests that the original panel were correct to decide that Rangers' failings called for a more stringent punishment than the £100,000 fine, that it was right to discuss but then decide against expulsion from the SFA and that the embargo does not represent the cataclysmic end for the club that some have predicted.

It also reiterated how seriously the SFA looks on non-payment of taxes, a hardline stance that could well be tested again depending on the eventual outcome of the "big tax case."

Rangers were represented by Richard Keen QC. We can expect he gave a strong account of the club's position, concerns and challenges regarding the original ruling.

His arguments met only with a complete rebuttal from a panel chaired by Lord Carloway, a judge who specialises in appellate hearings. A serious man with serious expertise presiding over a serious decision.

And the decision was that a competent judicial panel had decided on severe - but not the severest - punishments for instances of wrongdoing. Corporate liability meant the club would pay the price.

What next?

Rangers almost immediately issued the following statement:

An SFA independent appeals panel has this evening upheld a decision to impose a 12-month transfer embargo on the club.

Duff and Phelps, administrators of Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement tonight.

Paul Clark, joint administrator, said:

"The decision by the appellate tribunal to uphold the sanction, namely the suspension of registration of players for one year, is not competent in the view of the club and its legal advisers.

"Such a sanction was not available to the tribunal and should not have been imposed and it is the intention of the club to challenge the determination.

"The club will consider seeking review of this most disappointing decision and it is a matter of regret that the certainty and finality Rangers sought on this matter has not been achieved.

"Everyone at Rangers is bitterly disappointed and dismayed at this outcome."

Charles Green, who leads a consortium purchasing Rangers, said:

"Our group went into the purchase of the club with this sanction in place but we hoped the decision would at least be commuted.

"We fully support the club as it considers an appeal against this latest decision."

Sandy Jardine, spokesman for the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund, added:

"Rangers supporters will be shocked and bitterly disappointed by this decision and will find it hard to take that the club has been so heavily punished for the actions of individuals."

So it goes on.

Which is hardly surprising. The angst with which the club greeted the original decision suggested that the verdict of the appeal panel would be accepted only if it resulted in a complete climbdown. It's done pretty much the opposite.

The next step would seem to be to take the appeal above the SFA - a process that offers neither a speedy nor a guaranteed resolution.

Paul Clark's reading of the SFA rules is different from mine - and Lord Carloway's - if he considers that an embargo was simply not an option. By stopping short of expulsion, the maximum punishment, the panel saw fit to impose an embargo in addition to a fine. That's something that the SFA's own guidelines, ratified by all clubs last summer, allowed them to do.

Rangers search for a "certainty and finality" that suits Duff and Phelps will likely now go to either the Scottish courts or - more naturally but not definitely - FIFA or the Court for Arbitration for Sport.

Protracted, costly, uncertain. A triple whammy Rangers don't need. You'd guess that this farrago is not playing out well in the corridors of European football power. I'd also suspect that, in this case, UEFA will be frowning more on Rangers than an oddly steadfast SFA.

Certainly moving the argument into the Scottish courts will likely push all the wrong buttons at UEFA. It's for Duff and Phelps to decide how much of a gamble they want to take.

Maybe cooler heads will prevail, a decision will be made that swallowing this bitterest of pills is a quicker way of reaching the certainty needed for the club to finally begin to move forward. But don't bet on it.

Acceptance here might also leave Rangers better placed to face challenges to come, be that an unfavourable decision from the tax tribunal or further scandal from the SPL's second contracts investigation.

Again, however, I'd put no money on it. Bringing calm and order to the club has proved beyond whatever talents the administrators have. The result is a Rangers swinging wildly at every opponent, real or imagined. The danger is they'll be exhausted and yet more vulnerable as ever heavier hitters enter the ring.

From this mess, allowing still for hidden dangers lurking around dimly lit corners, Charles Green - or AN Other - must try to piece together a survival strategy.

It's not a task I envy.

He - or whoever - might end up being thankful that the appellate tribunal have at least given them a steer in the direction of the 40 or so players the club could still have at its disposal come the start of next season.

Summary of the Appellate Tribunal's verdict

The Appellate Tribunal will give its full reasons in writing in early course. However, in summary, it considers that:

1. It was competent for Disciplinary Tribunal to impose the additional sanction of prohibiting registrations of any new players of 18 years or older for a period of 12 months.

2. The Disciplinary Tribunal was correct to determine that the conduct involved - especially the deliberate non-payment of very large sums, estimated in excess of £13m of tax in the form of PAYE, NIC and VAT - was attributable to the club as a member of the Scottish FA.

3. The Disciplinary Tribunal was correct also in holding that the maximum fine available for this breach was £100,000, and on its own was inadequate as a punishment for this misconduct. It was therefore correct to select an additional sanction.

4. The sanctions available included expulsion from participation in the game and termination or suspension of membership of the Scottish FA, which would have had a similar effect. The Appellate Tribunal observes that serious consideration was given by the disciplinary tribunal to imposing one of these sanctions, which would have had obvious consequences for the survival of the club. The Disciplinary Tribunal rejected these as too severe and this Appellate Tribunal agrees with that conclusion.

5. Although the Appellate Tribunal has listened carefully to the representations from Rangers FC about the practical effects of the additional sanction, it has concluded that this sanction was proportionate to the breach, dissuasive to others and effective in the context of serious misconduct, bringing the game into disrepute. In particular, the Appellate Tribunal recognises that the Disciplinary Tribunal decision does not affect Rangers’ ability to extend the contracts of existing professional players, including those whose contracts will expire at the end of this season and including also those currently on loan to other clubs. The Appellate Tribunal observes that Rangers FC have over 40 professional players in this category.

Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal affirms the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal.

Like this? Like the Scottish Football Blog on Facebook.