SFL reject 42-club league reconstruction plans

SFL vote rejected 42-club unified league proposal. Picture: SNS

The annual general meeting of the Scottish Football League held an indicative vote on the Scottish Premier League proposal, also backed unanimously by the ten clubs who would form the First Division next season, for a new Scottish Professional Football League to commence at the start of next season.

In a secret ballot, 16 of the 30 SFL clubs voted in favour of the package with 13 against. Under SFL rules, it requires the support of 22 of the 29 clubs currently eligible to vote. Third Division champions Rangers, as associate members of the SFL, do not have a vote.

The SFL have now called an extraordinary general meeting of all clubs on 10 June when the resolution will be put to a formal vote.

But that was last night described as an “irrelevance” by Hamilton Accies chairman Les Gray, leader of the ten rebel clubs, who indicated their intention to break away from the SFL and apply for membership of the SPL.

It is understood that the SPL clubs have already agreed in principle to accepting the ten clubs into a new 12-10 league body in the event agreement among SFL clubs is not reached. Improved financial distribution for the First Division clubs and an additional promotion place through play-offs would be part of the deal.

The tactics of those trying to force through change for the start of the new season were condemned by Annan Athletic chairman Henry McClelland who described it as “an aggressive takeover” bid rather than a properly governed merger.

SFL chief executive David Longmuir now faces an increasingly difficult task to preserve the prospect of a 42-club solution which protects the interests of all of the clubs currently in his organisation. He insists no change should take place without due diligence being undertaken. “You don’t wind up an organisation like the SFL without doing some proper analysis and a financial healthcheck  of both ourselves and the SPL,” said Longmuir.

“We are hoping for co-operation from the SPL to do that. If the will of the game is to change, then we must do it properly. Every club has a right to discuss their future in groups of clubs if they wish to do so. My duty is to 30 clubs and I’ll continue to do discharge that duty to the best of my ability.

“Clubs have to balance their individual needs and objectives within the game. I’m hoping they will all come to consensus, that there will be no them and us. I’m going to do everything in my power to help those clubs make a decision that is as informed as  possible.

“We are moving to an egm on 10 June, because that is the appropriate legal lead time to hold a meeting where one of the resolutions will be the winding up of this organisation. It gives clubs time to contemplate due diligence before they vote. That is the proper thing to do.”

But it is clear that the rebel clubs believe they have lost the battle for hearts and minds of their Second and Third Division counterparts, who remain deeply concerned about certain aspects of the SPL proposal.

“The whole group are very disappointed with the outcome today,” said Gray after the First Division clubs had held their own private meeting following the two-hour long agm.

“Everyone has worked incredibly hard to get this over the line. It hasn’t been enough and nearly half of the SFL clubs have decided it’s not for them. That is really unfortunate.

“The SFL have called an egm for a vote on the proposal but we see that as an irrelevance. It has been voted down today, so it has failed in our eyes. The 42-club solution is not going to happen now. We will look for the alternatives open to us. You know what they are.

“I won’t use the word ‘breakaway’ but we will do what is right for our clubs. The vote may well go ahead on 10 June but we will be doing what we are doing in the interim period.”

Gray’s group of clubs could face a legal challenge if they attempt to resign from the SFL immediately. It would centre on the SFL rules, one of which states that two years’ notice must be given and another which was created to allow for the immediate extension of the SPL from 10 to 12 clubs back in 2001 and which the rebels believe they could now exploit.

Among the issues of concern which prompted 13 clubs to reject the SPL proposal is the retention of the controversial 11-1 voting structure which would enable just two top-flight clubs to block any subsequent major changes in the first instance.

“It is important to get it into the public domain that we could be in a situation where 40 clubs could vote for a resolution, two clubs could object and that resolution would not be carried,” said Annan chairman McClelland. “That is the model they are proposing we accept. That is not fair and equitable. Okay, there have to be protected matters, like the television money. We know Celtic and Rangers bring the money into Scottish football, that’s why Sky are involved.

“But there is something inherently and fundamentally wrong with this. It flies in the face of the principles of merger. It doesn’t feel like a merger, the way that stuff comes back from the SPL.

“I won’t say it’s hostile but it is an aggressive takeover. It isn’t in the spirit of two bodies trying to merge for the good of the game. We are being dictated to, in terms of the tone and language being used. There has to be mutual respect and I don’t feel that is being shown. It is such a shame that there are so many really positive aspects to this but, at the same time, there is this distaste. I believe every single club in Scottish football wants a 42-club model and resolution. But there is still a big gap there.

“Governance is definitely one of our major concerns. It is paramount to us. For the Second and Third Division clubs, the financial distribution model argument is really minor. We are delighted the First Division clubs will get a bigger slice of the cake, along with play-offs between the SPL and the First Division. That’s great, that’s progress.

“What’s on offer just now really isn’t balanced. We have to see what the next couple of weeks bring but, as things stand, there certainly isn’t enough support to push this through. I think the facts are quite clear. I don’t know whether the SPL have a sponsor or what else they may or may not have. It’s due diligence which would determine that.

“We need the comfort of a proper due diligence exercise to tell us exactly where we stand with the body we’re dealing with. The SPL are currently paying £3.375million that is broken down by £2m re the settlement agreement, £1m per annum over three years for the Rangers broadcast rights, £250,000 to the club relegated from the SPL in year one and £125,000 the following season. At the moment every single SFL club has a vote and every vote is equal. As an association we control our own destiny and it’s quite straightforward in that any resolutions require 75 per cent in favour for them to be passed.

“With the merged body, there are various proposed rules in place and, in terms of governance, the voting structure is simply unacceptable. There have been attempts to pass our concerns about this back up the way but they never get returned in the manner you would associate with a merger.”