RANGERS TURN UP HEAT ON SPFL CHIEF
RANGERS have questioned the impartiality of Murdoch MacLennan in a written reply to the SPFL chairman.
MacLennan wrote to Ibrox counterpart Douglas Park demanding he provide ‘compelling evidence’ to support the club’s call for the suspension of SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster and legal adviser Rod McKenzie pending an independent investigation.
Sportsmail understands Rangers have now responded in a letter which expresses an absence of faith in MacLennan’s judgment amid the increasingly bitter row centred on the vote to end the season. They have reiterated a willingness to co-operate with investigators appointed from outside the league.
The club are thought to have questioned why MacLennan has not publicly clarified his stance on allegations carried in the July 2017 edition of satirical magazine
Private Eye, which claimed he had made derogatory comments about Rangers. The SPFL declined to respond last night.
Former Ibrox chairman Dave King was rebuffed by the league when he sought the suspension of MacLennan in 2018, pending an investigation into links with a business part-owned by Celtic’s major shareholder Dermot Desmond.
Now the ill-feeling is focused on the events of recent days. Interim Ibrox chairman Park issued a statement on Saturday saying the club had been contacted by a ‘whistleblower’ who had cast doubt on the actions of the SPFL during the controversial saga that left Dundee with a casting vote they used in favour of the league resolution last night.
‘The lack of leadership and responsibility from the SPFL as a members’ organisation has shocked me,’ said Park at the weekend.
‘If ever there was a time for complete openness and transparency, it is now. Crucial decisions are being made on the issues of promotion and relegation behind closed doors and without proper time for consideration or debate.
‘The farcical conduct of this affair seems to me to bring the corporate governance and business operations of the SPFL into sharp focus.
‘It is an example of an undemocratic culture, which has existed within the SPFL for far too long.
‘As a member club, we are disturbed by the evidence that has been presented and feel there is no choice but to call for an independent investigation into this entire matter.
‘Each member of the SPFL board has a duty to its members to ensure that such an investigation is instructed without delay.’
MacLennan issued a response the following day as part of a release sent to all 42 member clubs.
‘It is extremely concerning that Rangers have chosen to make a number of very serious allegations against the SPFL, its corporate governance, its culture, its office-bearers and its business operations,’ he said.
‘In the often-heated atmosphere of Scottish football, rumour and misinformation can very quickly reach fever-point.
‘However, allegations of a lack of even-handedness and fair play go to the very integrity of the league and I would expect Rangers interim chairman Douglas Park to present compelling evidence to back up his claims, or to withdraw them.’
As Sportsmail reported yesterday, MacLennan has ordered a probe into the missing Dundee email that plunged Scottish football into chaos.
The Dens Park club retracted their original ‘no’ vote against the resolution to end the season before it landed in the league inbox last Friday evening.
Ahead of finally voting ‘yes’ yesterday, a Dundee statement claimed they only knew their first ballot hadn’t registered when the SPFL released results showing the absence of one crucial Championship vote. Partick Thistle have taken legal opinion that suggests the original Dundee vote should have stood — and therefore defeated the SPFL’s resolution. MacLennan has promised a probe into the email timeline. But
Sportsmail has been told that must involve the use of an independent expert if a potential legal dispute could be looming. ‘You really need to be calling someone else in,’ said Jim Borwick, a digital forensics expert with East Lothian-based KJB Computer Forensics Consultancy.
‘If they do it themselves, they could be accused of a lack of independence. For the safety of both parties, I think they are better to call in an expert who will be considered independent from both parties, by the court.
‘Generally, company IT staff should be able to look at an email header and say when it was sent and received. The path it has taken from sender to recipient.
‘But for someone to speak to evidence in court, that’s when you require an expert from a digital forensics company. That gives the court an independent, definitive opinion.
‘There are many reasons why an email might not be received promptly. For example, there was a big attachment. Or it could end up in a spam folder.
‘The other aspect could be how the recipient receives the email. Do they log on to a website to receive it, or is it on the internal server that punts it straight to their phones or computers immediately? Normally, the analysis of email is relatively straightforward.’