Glenn Gibbons: SPL ‘decision makers’ are just too scared to decide

NOBODY should have been surprised by the shameful yellow streak that ran through this week’s convention of those delegates formerly – and now laughably – known as the “decision makers” of the Scottish Premier League.

By retreating from agreeing and implementing legislation that would introduce harsher punitive measures against clubs found guilty of financial irresponsibility on a Rangers-like scale, the present-day “guardians” of the game were merely reflecting the skittishness of their forebears, as if they had been marked by some dynastic curse.

Just as the formation of the SPL itself sprang from a scandalous acquiescence and compliance among the eight non-Old Firm founding fathers who had neither the vision nor the steel to tell Celtic and Rangers to behave themselves, their descendants appear to have developed a black aversion to making a stand. Rather than born leaders, they appear to be suffering from a genetic form of prevarication.

Since their “get-out” decision to postpone making an actual, meaningful decision, it has been suggested that the representatives of the 11 clubs who do not play at Ibrox Park had had wind of the withdrawal of the American Bill Miller from the so-called “battle” for control of Rangers.

It was claimed, with unarguable logic, that Miller’s defection would have a telling impact on the crippled club’s prospects of recovery and, therefore, it would be prudent to delay the vote on the proposed new rules. This may have sounded plausible, but it was nothing other than a Heaven-sent convenience for the faint hearts. And, of course, it had no relevance to the motivations at the core of the various chairmen’s lack of action.

Long before Miller took a walk, some members had rushed to the airwaves and into print to bleat about what a hard job they faced. “It’s a lose-lose situation,” they squealed, adopting the very phraseology used by some misguided – and misleading – media commentators.

This column’s condemnation of their behaviour is not based on their failure to take action against Rangers, but on their obvious, pre-determined dread of having to make a decision that might offend someone.

In the middle of the squawking, the most serious point of all was elbowed out of the debate. It is that the proposals for new legislation were not intended to punish a particular club, in this case Rangers. The SPL were simply alerted to the need for a change in the system by the unprecedented extent of the David Murray-inspired and Craig Whyte-reinforced economic devastation.

The new statutes certainly may have had a wounding effect on Rangers, depending on their situation. But, most significantly, they were supposed to be framed in such a way as to apply to all clubs that overstepped the mark in the future.

Whether or not certain elements of Rangers’ support would construe the regulations as a deliberate attempt to do further harm to their already damaged club would be their problem. The possibility should have played no part in the deliberations. Clearly, however, they did, thereby confirming this column’s long-held conviction that the SPL has been a legitimate object of ridicule since the moment of its birth.