Lawwell is a scumbag anyway so what’s surprising about that?
Two days is a long time in football, especially Scottish football.
The world is at a standstill due to the coronavirus pandemic and that has led to strong debate over how to finish the football season.
Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) clubs are still voting on a proposal that could give them closure on the season and release their prize money early as a result, but it has led to infighting and acrimony over the past days with little light at the end of the tunnel.
Here is how it got to this…
What did the resolution propose?
The SPFL member clubs across all four Scottish football divisions were asked on Wednesday to vote for a resolution to terminate the Scottish Championship, League One and League Two seasons with immediate effect.
Under the resolution, the final placings would be decided by points per game rather than current standings, as some teams had played fewer games when the season was suspended. All play-offs would be cancelled.
Under this proposal, Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers would be promoted from the Championship, League One and League Two respectively. Partick Thistle and Stranraer would be relegated from the Championship and League One.
The SPFL also “committed to consulting with clubs over the possibility of league restructuring ahead of the 2020-21 season”. This could include an expansion of leagues in order to limit the administrative chaos and financial devastation when football eventually returns.
The Premiership would remain postponed to afford as much time as possible for the season to be completed. If “the remaining matches cannot be played” — whether that’s because of financial burdens or an extended period of lockdown — then final placings would also be determined by points per game. As a result, Celtic would be crowned champions and Hearts would be relegated.
For the motion to pass, at least 75 per cent of the clubs from each division need to grant their consent. That means at least nine of the 12 Premiership clubs, eight of the 10 Championship clubs and 15 of the 20 clubs from Leagues One and Two (which are grouped together in this arrangement).
Who came up with that idea?
There were several weeks of conference calls between the SPFL board. It is comprised of chief executive Neil Doncaster, chairman Murdoch MacLennan, non-executive director Karyn McCluskey, with clubs officials across all four division: Alan Burrows (Motherwell), Les Gray (Hamilton Academical), Stewart Robertson (Rangers), Ross McArthur (Dunfermline Athletic), Ewen Cameron (Alloa Athletic), Ken Ferguson (Brechin City) and Peter Davidson (Montrose).
A lot has happened since Scottish football was brought to a halt by the coronavirus outbreak on the eve of the Old Firm derby, scheduled to take place on March 15. What has been apparent is the need for prize money and TV money to be distributed as soon as possible with clubs fearing the worst if they are left to wait months before accessing that cash. This is what has shaped most of the discussions in the last few weeks.
Cash flows have dried up without match-day income, which makes up a large proportion of SPFL clubs’ total revenue. The latest updated figures in UEFA’s European Club Footballing Landscape report in 2018 put the Scottish Premiership top when it comes to gate receipts as a proportion of revenue (43 per cent). Switzerland was next with 31 per cent.
It was the warning of “dire financial consequences” from Doncaster, the SPFL chief executive, last month, along with the clear messages from the clubs that they need a financial injection to help them through the next few months, which has led to such a quick proposal being put on the table.
One Premiership club said last month that the game was in a “state of paralysis” and they were looking to the government for help, but it is clear that the furlough scheme used by some clubs — whereby up to 80 per cent of a salary up to £2,500 per month before tax can be claimed back — is as far as that will go. Some clubs, though, feel they were on the outside looking in when it came to discussing plans and proposals.
For most, this vote has been about safeguarding the future of their club and, for that to happen, they need the money due at the end of the season accelerated somehow. While other clubs have suggested alternatives, the message clubs had been receiving was that approving the SPFL’s resolution was the only mechanism by which the money can be released. That is the message that appeared to have become concrete in the last few days, particularly following an SPFL statement on Sunday in which they said end-of-season fee payments could only be distributed once final league placings were confirmed.
But within an hour Rangers disputed that claim. They proposed a counter-resolution on Thursday which was for the SPFL to provide member clubs with loans as an advance on such payments. It was deemed “not competent” by the SPFL on Friday morning but on Sunday Rangers claimed that an email from the SPFL’s legal adviser Rod McKenzie deemed their resolution “unnecessary” on the basis that the SPFL board already has the power to make loans to member clubs at any time.
Hearts then entered the fray shortly after on Sunday, supporting Rangers’ claims that this resolution was not “properly addressed”. Chairwoman Ann Budge confirmed that they had submitted an identical proposal to Rangers’ but were told that it too was “not competent”. She claims the only issue the SPFL identified was “the use of the single word ‘instructed’ as opposed to ‘requested’ (that the board of the company be authorised and instructed as follows).
“I am not a lawyer but find it quite incomprehensible that this should hold up the whole process,” she said.
Budge, who claimed the last few days had been an “embarrassment” for Scottish football, confirmed she will be proposing a ‘Temporary Adjustment to the Leagues’.
It will be based on the principle that “no club is financially penalised as a consequence of these exceptional circumstances”, adding that Hearts stand to lose £2.5-3 million if they are relegated.
What about TV money?
The SPFL’s record-breaking exclusive TV deal with Sky Sports, which starts from next season, is worth a reported £150 million over five years and is vital to Scottish clubs. Much of the talk has been around ensuring that next season starts on time in order to honour this contract but there can be no guarantees. Ensuring Sky Sports are happy with any proposals is key but it is understood the broadcasters are aware that they will need to be flexible, as they will be with their other sports rights.
Do European football’s governing body UEFA have a say in this?
UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin also issued a threat to European member associations two weeks ago after Belgium announced that they had terminated the season and awarded Club Brugge the title, suggesting Champions League and Europa League football might be taken away if countries acted “arbitrarily”. It is why the SPFL had two strands to their resolution, maintaining their preference for the Premiership to fulfil its games before the back-up option of termination is used.
The timeline of the SPFL’s vote means a decision will be taken before UEFA’s next executive meeting on April 23. It is possible that UEFA could still take the decision out of the hands of member associations. Indeed, it appears that window may be closing further after UEFA hired virologist and epidemiologist Marc Van Ranst, who has already said that “playing football in the next few months is not an option at all” and hinted at cancelling all leagues in Europe soon.
What did clubs think about the resolution?
Reaction was, predictably, mixed. There was initially outcry from two clubs — Partick Thistle and Stranraer — who under the proposal would be immediately relegated from the Championship and League One respectively. The former issued a statement declaring “that it doesn’t meet the basic principle that no club should be left worse off by this important decision”.
Hearts — who would be relegated if the resolution passes and the Premiership is not able to be completed — also said they would vote against it, arguing the timeframe put forward was unfair and they had communicated with a number of clubs on the subject. On Sunday, they later said that “linking the vote in this way to releasing funds was an attempt to unduly influence the outcome of the vote”.
A concern shared by many clubs, not exclusively those who announced their intention to vote down the proposal, was how little dialogue there was with the SPFL dedicated to league restructuring before the resolution announcement. One lower league club told The Athletic : “A lot of pressure and lobbying has been applied to clubs. It’s absolutely scandalous. Why can we not have two weeks where other clubs are asked to put slightly modified proposals forward?”
Dundee also tabled an alternative proposal that would see the season completed, titles decided and league prize money allocated without relegation or promotion. Such a proposal would see their city rivals, Dundee United, remain in the Championship despite being 14 points clear at the top of the table.
Livingston, St Mirren and Hibs were three clubs that clarified their position and said they would all back the SPFL’s proposal. Celtic’s position throughout has been that their preference is for the season to be completed, but that they would vote for the resolution.
Livingston specified the unlikelihood of the season resuming as their reason for voting the proposal through. The SFA earlier this week updated its guidance to rule out football being played before June 10 and recommended players then train for six weeks before resuming play.
Livingston stressed the importance of fulfilling contractual obligations to broadcasters Sky Sports and Premier Sports, and the urgency of receiving league prize money. They also stated that “we feel that living in this state of limbo is detrimental to next year’s revenue streams and closure is needed”.
Sounds fairly civilised. What happened then?
The resolution descended into chaos on Friday at about 5.30pm after the SPFL revealed that only 39 of 42 member clubs had cast their votes, which were submitted via email. Though the SPFL had initially set a 5pm deadline, a timeframe of just over 48 hours from announcing the proposal, it emerged that clubs actually have 28 days to vote. The 5pm deadline was therefore reliant on professional courtesy rather than being legally binding.
Ten of 12 Premiership clubs voted in favour of the motion, with Rangers and Hearts (who confirmed their vote had been submitted after the 5pm “deadline”) the exceptions. Sixteen from 20 League One and League Two sides voted in favour, with three against and one not counted at the time of the SPFL’s update on Friday evening.
The deciding count fell in the Scottish Championship, with seven votes in favour and two against — Inverness and Partick Thistle both voted no. That left Dundee with the deciding vote.
Ah yes, Dundee. What happened there then?
Dundee had released a statement on Friday expressing concerns about the proposal without explicitly declaring any intention to vote it down.
“In contrast to so much positivity and support,” the statement said, “the language in the current proposal condemns clubs to be financially worse off than they already are as we sit here today. This has been difficult to accept.
“We believe that any proposal presented should be comprehensive and consider the sporting AND financial implications for the member clubs.”
Inverness chief executive Scot Gardiner then claimed on BBC Radio Scotland that a Dundee official told a WhatsApp group containing Championship officials they had voted “no” before 5pm. The Athletic has also seen what appears to be a voting slip signed and dated by Dundee’s managing director John Nelms on April 10, 2020 and shows a tick in the ‘no’ box.
The document has no timestamp but the statement from SPFL chairman Murdoch MacLennan on Sunday has established the league body’s timeline of events. The SPFL confirmed that Dundee had attempted to submit their voting slip but contend that it did not reach them until later on Friday night. To further complicate matters, in the meantime Dundee had written to the SPFL at 6pm saying “any attempted vote from club should not be considered as cast”. The chronology is key as the SPFL’s interpretation of events has Dundee’s vote arriving after their email asking for any vote to be discounted.
Page 9 of the voting document also contains clause 2 which says “Once you have indicated your agreement with the Ordinary Resolution, you may not revoke your agreement.” It is unclear whether that same rule applies if it is a no vote which is then revoked.
The SPFL’s decision to release the standings has also raised eyebrows as Dundee are now aware they hold the casting vote. Sports law expert David Seligman told The Athletic he thought it had prejudiced the vote but that it may not be actionable.
“It has put pressure on them (Dundee) to respond,” he said. “I think it’s unfair to do it that way. It absolutely prejudiced the vote, but unless the articles say you can’t tell anyone what you voted, you aren’t doing anything wrong as teams are going to vote at different times.
“Clubs could argue that the procedure hasn’t properly been followed or that they’ve prejudiced a minority shareholder then clubs could take it to court and try to appeal it at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.”
Why have Rangers been so unhappy with the SPFL?
Rangers believe the league season should be given every chance to be played to its completion and don’t believe Celtic should be awarded the title if the season is curtailed. That is despite Celtic being 13 points with eight games remaining. Rangers, however, contest that it is a foregone conclusion as they have a game in hand and two derbies with Celtic in which they can potentially claw nine points back.
Rangers also presented an alternative proposal on Thursday which would have seen the SPFL loan money to clubs equivalent to what they would receive at the end of the season in prize money. It would have meant the future of the league season was still in a state of flux but Rangers saw this as a way of ensuring the financial help did not skew the vote on sporting matters.
The resolution was deemed “not competent” by the SPFL and it has led to a public feud between the two, as The Athletic reported on Saturday. Rangers are refusing to hand over evidence they allege to have until an indepdent investigation has been set up, a demand they reiterated on Sunday.
What happens next?
It depends whether Dundee eventually vote in favour of the proposal or against it but either result is likely to be challenged fiercely by numerous clubs with vested interests in the outcome — particularly because of how calamitously, and in full public view, the vote has unfolded.
If Dundee vote in favour of the proposal, clubs who would have been threatened by relegation could challenge the SPFL. Some of those sides, including Hearts, already threatened to do so even before the proposal was announced on Wednesday.
If the resolution is voted down, then it would be back to the drawing board in tabling a resolution amenable to a greater number of clubs that would then see it pass. This would likely comprise of league restructuring that would see the clubs relegated under the current proposal stay in the division they are in now. Rangers’ proposal could be reassessed, as could league reconstruction.
Is a 14-team Premiership realistic then?
Yes, as it would allow two full rounds of fixtures before splitting the league in half, as happens now, to allow the quota of four Old Firm derbies to be reached. It is understood that these four games are stated as an expectation in the Sky deal.
Under these circumstances, Hearts would be saved from relegation with Dundee United and Inverness promoted. Dundee would not go up, though, so it would likely leave them and Rangers as the two unhappy parties. Any suggestion of a 16-team league seems unlikely to be viable.
One thing’s for sure: any proposal at all — irrespective of how diplomatic and generous it might be — will possibly be greeted with further suspicion and much lobbying on all sides as Scottish football tries to navigate the coronavirus pandemic in the most public and dramatic fashion.
(Photo: Mark Runnacles/Getty Images)
Gavin Strachan apparently replacing Duff as first team coach.
Our CL preliminary round ties will be one off matches rather than two legged games due to COVID-19. Draw will decide who’s at home. Think it applies for first few rounds but final round will be two legs.
Great thread.
Seems a bit of a bizarre appointment.
A great day for Albanian Celts.
The country’s president Ilir Meta is launching the Celtic Supporters Club Albania with Rudi Vata.
Liam “Chippy” Brady signed Rudi Vata after he played for Albania v Eire in 1994 World Cup qualifiers
The new home kit actually looks very smart without the sponsor.
That’s a lovely jersey. Adidas are the best kit manufacturer by a distance I think
Belter
It’s green and white hoops mate.
Not exactly The Shard.
That’s a terrific top.
This is concerning: Griffiths isn’t travelling to France because of issues with his “conditioning.”
Overweight Leigh Griffiths has been told he won’t be travelling with the Celtic squad to France on Monday.
Instead the Scotland striker must stay at home to work on his conditioning after piling on the pounds during lockdown. It is understood Griffiths reported back for training last month out of condition and over his optimum playing weight.
Neil Lennon’s men are due to fly out tomorrow to play three games in five days against Nice, Lyon and PSG in the Veolia Trophy.
But Griffiths has been deemed not fit enough to take part and was not with the squad last week at Loughborough University.
He has been ordered to work on his own training scheme at Lennoxtown ahead of the Hoops’ new season opener on August 2.
The Celtic players returned to staggered training sessions last month when lockdown restrictions were eased.
It’s believed that Griffiths had failed to meet his specific conditioning targets. He may now face an uphill battle to get physically fit enough to retain his first-team place.
A Celtic spokesman confirmed: “Leigh is undertaking his own fitness programme along with some other players at Lennoxtown and will team up with the squad when they return from France.”
As the Parkhead side gear up for a push towards a historic 10-in-a-row, Lennon had hoped Griff would have been capable of sustaining the form he had showed towards the end of last campaign.
The striker, who has struggled with depression in the past, had played a prominent part in Celtic’s run-in towards the title.
The 29-year-old scored eight goals in 13 games from the turn of the year until the football freeze
as a result of Covid-19.The Parkhead side open their season in less than three weeks with a game against Hamilton Accies.
Would be surprised to see Bolingoli playing for Celtic again.
CELTIC Football Club unreservedly condemns and apologises for the behaviour of the player Boli Bolingoli in travelling to Spain without informing the club and in failing to observe quarantine restrictions.
It is difficult to imagine a more irresponsible action in current circumstances and we find it beyond explanation. The Club will take immediate action through our own disciplinary procedures.
Celtic are in touch with every SPFL club today, and with all relevant authorities, to apologise for the fact that one of our employees has created so much additional difficulty through his actions.
All of our playing and backroom staff have been tested twice for Covid-19 since this incident and all, including the player in question, have tested negative. While this comes as a relief to all concerned, it in no way diminishes the seriousness or stupidity of the player’s actions.
Since the Covid -19 crisis began, we have had a safe and healthy squad of players, recording not one positive test. As a club, we have worked tirelessly to ensure a sustained, safe environment for all.
We have led the way in working with the football authorities and Scottish Government to establish the most rigorous, effective protocols and working practices, which ultimately led to the resumption of football. We could have done no more in this area.
It is a matter of the deepest regret to us that the behaviour of one individual has jeopardised that reputation and reflected discredit on football more generally.
Looks like Celtic’s next couple of games will be called off.
Everyone in Scotland appears to be going stone mad about this. Not about the games being called off, but the player breaching protocols.