DONCASTER ON THE DEFENSIVE
SPFL chief hits back at critics as anger intensifies in battle tearing game apart 11
“You assume there will be evidence in the dossier that is damning but it simply wasn’t there”
THE bitter row over the SPFL’s handling of the coronavirus crisis shows no sign of abating. In a wide-ranging interview addressing that Rangers dossier and widespread handling of the way the league have dealt with the climax to the season, SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster speaks to STEPHEN McGOWAN about Scottish football’s civil war.
■ SHOULD CLUBS HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR A £10MILLION LIABILTY BY ENDING THE SEASON EARLY AS RANGERS CLAIM?
‘This whole suggestion is a bit of a red herring. Any liability that any league may face from season 2019-20 arises from not being able to play games.
‘It’s got nothing to do with the resolution. The way in which you draw a line under the season — which is what the resolution was aimed to do — is entirely irrelevant to any claims that you may face from anyone in respect of not being able to play games.
‘That’s caused by Covid-19 and the government order.’
■ SOME CLUBS FEEL THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD ALL THE INFORMATION TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.
‘Playing games is not an option. It’s about how you respond to that. If you can’t play games, that’s what creates any liability. So it is a red herring. Some people may find it a fine distinction but it’s just not.’
■ DID YOU SUGGEST THAT SKY BE GIVEN THE PREMIERSHIP NAMING RIGHTS?
‘I’m not going to be drawn on that and reveal the detail of commercial conversations we had with our broadcasters and sponsors.
‘That isn’t something we can put into the public domain — and it’s disappointing that there has been an attempt to try to put private discussions, and commercially sensitive discussions, into the public domain.
‘That can’t do anything to help the league, and therefore help the 42 member clubs.’
■ DID YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE LIABILITY WOULD BE FOR DECLARING NULL AND VOID?
‘That’s dealt with quite considerably in the paperwork that’s extensively available. It’s commonly recognised that having a null-and-void season would leave us and the clubs open to a wide range of liabilities.
‘So I don’t think null and void was ever a realistic possibility. Therefore, the board needed to suggest a way forward which dealt with the situation whereby we couldn’t play the games but equally we couldn’t declare the season null and void.
‘There are various ways in which that could be done which were talked about in the briefing paper. You could have drawn a line under the season where it was and live with the fact teams had played a different number of games. You could have points per game, as we did.
‘Or you could have tried to extrapolate results from the rest of the season by declaring everything a 1-1 draw.
‘You could have used some computer modelling to try and identify what the most likely set of results would be.
‘All of those are options which could have been considered. But the board felt the fairest way was points per game. It’s interesting that the French — a top league — have done just that.’
■ RANGERS HIGHLIGHTED THE LETTER SENT TO UEFA BY SFA AND SPFL BEFORE THE VOTE WAS EVEN TAKEN. WERE YOU PICKING UP A MOOD WHEN YOU DID THAT?
‘I don’t think it wasn’t so much the mood we were picking up on — it’s what we were being told by clubs.
‘Clubs were telling us they needed clarity and they needed certainty. They needed to take action if the line was going to be drawn under the season.
‘They needed to cauterise the wound, to turn off the tap and stop unnecessary outgoings.
‘They were telling us, in large numbers, they wanted a line drawn under the season.
‘All the letter to UEFA was, from myself and Ian Maxwell, a reflection of what clubs were telling us. We didn’t say all clubs, we said the large majority, and I stand by that view which I held at the time.
‘I think it was the right view and it was reflected in over 80 per cent of clubs in the League agreeing with the resolution.’
■ STEWART ROBERTSON SAYS RANGERS HAVE NEVER ACCUSED ANYONE AT THE SPFL OF BULLYING.
‘I have certainly seen various statements on the Rangers website that refer to bullying and coercion.’
■ IF THE SPFL BOARD WERE TO PURSUE STEWART ROBERTSON OVER BREACHING CONFIDENTIAL DETAILS, WHAT COULD HAPPEN AS A CONSEQUENCE?
‘I don’t want to speculate about that. That’s an issue for another day. And I think, ahead of the EGM, I don’t think that would be particularly helpful. That really isn’t something I feel I can go into on this call.’
■ WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF THE RANGERS DOSSIER?
‘Given the extremely strong allegations made, I was probably as surprised as everyone else when it seemed to be largely around procedure. ‘To me, having been so strong in their criticism of the League and making allegations that were extremely robust and calling for the suspension of me and Rod McKenzie, you assume that there is going to be evidence in the dossier that is very damning — justifying calls for very senior employees to be suspended. And it simply wasn’t there.’
■ IF RANGERS LOSE THE VOTE ON TUESDAY, SHOULD THEY ACCEPT THE OUTCOME?
‘I think it’s important that everyone accepts the result of the vote which will be taken on Tuesday and that includes us.
‘The 42 clubs will have a say and if the resolution is passed, we will absolutely adhere to the will of the clubs. I would hope everyone else would do the same.’
■ DOES THE SEASON REALLY NEED TO BE RESOLVED BY MAY 25?
‘That’s exactly the date that
UEFA have asked for leagues to let them know if they are going to try play their remaining games of season 2019-20 or whether they cannot.
‘They need to plan for their own competitions as their prime interest, and they need to know which clubs are going to be in the European places.’
■ WHEN DO YOU EXPECT THE PREMIERSHIP TO BE CALLED?
‘The chairman has indicated there would be consultation with the Premiership clubs. There was a Premiership club call on that on Friday, so we are awaiting detailed feedback from that call.
‘The SPFL board will want to take account of what the clubs have been saying.’
■ DO YOU ANTICIPATE A DECISION BEING MADE THIS WEEK?
‘I’m not going to predict when a decision might be made. That’s ultimately something the board has said it will consult the Premiership clubs over. So let’s see what detailed notes emerge from their meeting last Friday.’
■ WERE PARTICK THISTLE JUSTIFIED IN DESCRIBING AS ‘A DISGRACE’ THE FACT THEY WERE INFORMED OF LEAGUE RECONSTRUCTION TALKS COLLAPSING THROUGH THE MEDIA?
‘Bear in mind that wasn’t a meeting of the SPFL on Friday — it was a meeting of the Premiership clubs and we were not part of that.
‘I was hearing second hand what apparently had been discussed on that call, just as everyone else was. It was not within the SPFL’s power to make an announcement because we didn’t know.
‘It appears as though info from that meeting has been leaked. But that is not something within the gift of the SPFL.’
■ PARTICK’S JACQUI LOW WROTE TO THE SPFL CHAIRMAN (MURDOCH MacLENNAN) SAYING THAT THE TONE OF HIS COMMUNICATIONS WAS JEOPARDISING LEAGUE RECONSTRUCTION.
‘No I don’t think so. The tone of the conversations generally have been extremely robust.
‘You will have seen all the
“It’s disappointing to see commercially sensitive discussions in the public domain”
allegations made — bullying and coercion being chief amongst them.
‘The language used by others has been extremely robust and, of necessity, it has been required that the League should respond in a robust way.
‘It’s not of the League’s making. We understand that passions run high and that clubs are going to be concerned about the new season and when football might recommence.
‘But the communications from the League have always tried to be as factual as possible and unfortunately they have had to be robust as well.’
■ A FEW CLUBS HAVE BEEN UNHAPPY WITH THE TONE OF SPFL COMMUNICATIONS. WHAT’S YOUR REACTION TO THAT?
‘I think you can always improve on communications. Those of you who have worked with me and Iain Blair over the years know just how helpful we try to be to our member clubs. That is our modus operandi.
‘We are here to serve the clubs, so it is regrettable if people feel they haven’t had the respect they are entitled to as members.
‘Of course, you can look at things you might have done better. But I believe we try to extend appropriate courtesy to every one of our members and everyone else as well.’
■ HOW MANY CLUBS DO YOU BELIEVE THINK THE SET-UP OF THE SPFL NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT?
‘It is indicative to look at the SPFL board. Of the SPFL board, you have got six directors and one alternate director, who are appointed by the clubs themselves, not by anyone else.
‘You have also got three independents, which is me, Karyn (McCluskey) and Murdoch (MacLennan), and six club representatives, then a further alternate.
‘It’s only one of those who seems to have concerns, all the other club representatives that signed that letter are very clear about the professionalism and sifting through hours and hours of detailed opinion and evidence and making a recommendation to clubs that they believe to be in the best interests of all 42 clubs overall.
‘I find questions about the integrity and professionalism of really serious people, who are committed to their clubs and have very serious professional backgrounds in all sorts of disciplines — financial services, law — these are people elected by their peers on to the SPFL board precisely because they are the sort of professional people who are needed to do the job to hold the executive to account and to ensure that the policies of the league are in the interests of all 42 clubs.’
■ HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THE INVERNESS CALEY THISTLE STATEMENT ACCUSING THE SPFL OF BEING A ‘DISINGENUOUS, INCOMPETENT SHAMBLES?’
‘I don’t think there is anything I can say about that which would be helpful.’