SPFL tells King to get facts straight and stop using the media

The Scottish Professional Football League has again dismissed calls from Dave King to suspend chairman Murdoch Maclennan, insisting the Rangers owner has provided no evidence of a “business relationship” with Celtic shareholders Dermot Desmond and Denis O’brien.

The SPFL says Maclennan “behaved impeccably” during the process which saw him become a non-executive chairman of Irish media group INM – partly owned by Desmond and O’brien – earlier this year.

King has issued two statements questioning Maclennan’s role at INM this week but the SPFL has rejected his interpretation and says it has yet to receive any formal communication on the issue from Rangers. A spokesman for the SPFL said: “Rather than attempt to communicate through the media, it is far more appropriate that any substantive issues are presented to the SPFL board for careful and detailed consideration, based on a sound legal analysis of the facts.

“To date, there has been no such representations to the SPFL board and it notes Mr King’s statement of 30 May.

“In its statement of 29 May, Rangers FC claimed “a business relationship” existed between the SPFL chairman and minority shareholders in a SPFL club, despite no evidence of such a relationship being presented.

“There is no mention of the previously claimed “business relationship” in the 30 May statement.

“In the 30 May statement the central allegation has now become that “there was non-disclosure of the conflict that immediately arose when the SPFL chairman accepted” his appointment as a non-executive director of International News & Media PLC (“IN&M plc”). As with the 29 May statement, no detail was provided to support this allegation.

“Within the space of about 24 hours, two different and very public allegations have been made against the

SPFL chairman without, in either case, an approach being made to the SPFL with concerns or seeking clarification.

“The existence of a conflict of interest and the steps to be taken where it arises in a company context are set out in the Companies Act 2006. There has been no attempt to explain the factual basis of the claim that a conflict of interest, or circumstances which might reasonably have been regarded as likely to give rise to a conflict of interest, had arisen.

“The facts are that minority shareholders in IN&M plc also hold minority shareholdings in Celtic plc, which in turn holds just over two per cent of the shares in the SPFL.

“The chairman of the SPFL holding a non-executive position on the board of IN&M plc, does not constitute the basis for the existence of a conflict of interest or of circumstances which might reasonably have been regarded as likely to give rise to a conflict of interest, on the part of the SPFL chairman.

“The provisions relating to the criteria for appointment of a chairman of the SPFL and for an appointed chairman of the SPFL to be entitled to continue in office are set out in the Articles of Association of SPFL Limited. The chairman fulfilled those criteria on appointment and continues so to do.

“As the above analysis shows, the SPFL chairman has behaved impeccably in this matter and in keeping with good corporate governance.”