BITTER DOSE OF DEJA VU FOR JAGS
Ex-Firhill chief insists SPFL fight echoes his club’s doomed legal bid to avoid drop in 2004
“We felt there was some double-dealing so we decided to go to court”
ACONTROVERSIAL ballot, votes being changed and suspicion over strong-arm tactics. club left enraged by relegation, the rule book under scrutiny and courtroom drama.
A potential synopsis of Scottish football’s angry spring of 2020? It could be, if Rangers, Hearts or Partick Thistle decide to pursue a legal route to further their grievances against how the SPFL moved to end the current season.
We are often told — and rightly so — that these are unprecedented times. But all the chaos described above actually applies to the summer of 2004. And, where Thistle are concerned, some particularly bitter memories.
Sixteen years ago, the Firhill club took the SPL — as it then was — to the Court of Session in their fight to avoid relegation. They lost.
While the debate back then centred on stadium requirements and not the consequences of a global pandemic, the issues and mistrust it stirred up have been echoed and amplified in this year’s infighting.
Former Thistle chairman Tom Hughes sees more than a few parallels, given that voting among clubs lay at the heart of both dramas.
Hughes and his fellow directors were so upset by what unfolded in 2004 that they took the bold and costly step of court action. He certainly wouldn’t be amazed if the current situation ended up taking a similar twist.
SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster appealed for unity after Tuesday’s EGM of all 42 clubs voted firmly against an independent investigation into how last month’s key ballot was handled.
Rangers, though, are considering potential legal options. Hearts could do the same once their relegation is confirmed by the SPFL board. Thistle chief executive Gerry Britton didn’t entirely rule out such a step in his address earlier this week.
Whether any club actually takes the plunge into further acrimony remains to be seen. But Hughes can certainly understand the depth of feeling that exists among the disaffected.
‘To me, it is seriously déjà vu,’ he told ‘Even a few of the characters are still there.
‘Rod McKenzie was the SPL lawyer in 2004. Stewart Robertson was at Motherwell then and Peter Lawwell at Celtic.’
The background to the dispute was obviously different. In 2002, Thistle spent heavily to bring Firhill up to the SPL’s 10,000-seater capacity requirement so they could gain promotion.
Falkirk were denied a place in the top-flight the following year and Partick insisted the rules meant the same should happen to Inverness Caley Thistle in 2004. The Highlanders had a groundshare plan with Aberdeen, but Thistle argued it had missed the relevant deadline for approval.
At the time, the SPL board involved all 12 clubs. Caley required the backing of eight but, after some confusion, secured only seven votes.
Thistle looked to be saved. But then Hearts and Hibs joined forces to request a second ballot, effectively claiming the rules had been misinterpreted. Thistle lost 10-2.
‘Yes, we finished bottom of the league but there were three clubs in administration who were allowed to vote,’ reflected Hughes. ‘They had no penalties.
‘We won the vote at the first meeting. But a second vote was called, which they could have done this year.
‘We tried to get an interim interdict against the second vote taking place but didn’t succeed. That cost us over £100,000. There was no authority against having a second vote even if they had lost the first one.
‘Brown McMaster (vicechairman) had done most of the meetings for us but he refused to go to the second meeting because he said it was a complete carve-up. So I went along to Hampden.
‘It was pretty obvious that we were going to lose that vote. It was announced just as the meeting was starting that we had lost the interdict.
‘For whatever reason, they were determined to get Partick Thistle out of the league — or whoever finished bottom — because the league was becoming a farce. There had been no promotion the year before.
‘They changed the rules, but those rules they used had forced us to build a stand that cost us £2million. So we were struggling to compete financially, quite apart from anything else.
‘I think there was a three-line whip to change the vote for the second meeting and Brown knew that.
‘The one person who told me that was Eddie Thompson of Dundee United. We had been quite close to them at the time.
‘Eddie apologised to me. He said he was really sorry to be doing this and asked if there was any way he could help, but said he had been pressurised to change his vote. I think that must have happened to a couple of others as well.’ Going to court had been a dramatic step but one Hughes still feels was justified. ‘It was seen as not the done thing in football,’ he said. ‘But we felt there was double-dealing going on, so took the view that we would do it. ‘We were actually very close to getting the interdict. I remember Lord Brodie had a real problem with the SPL rules. Every time he thought he understood them, they slipped through his fingers. ‘Because it was an interdict case, you go on the balance of convenience. The SPL had argued there was another forum to decide this, which was an SFA appeal. They were arguing it shouldn’t have been in the court.
‘The worst thing of the lot was when we got to the SFA appeal. The SPL argued that the SFA had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal because it was a vote relegating Thistle and not a decision.
‘In the SPL rules you could only appeal against a decision. It was hard to believe.
‘But the SFA agreed and said they had no jurisdiction. The case was thrown out without even being heard.
‘We had to deal with it but the whole thing sickened me.’
Hughes, a chartered accountant who was instrumental in saving Thistle from financial meltdown in 1997, stepped down as chairman at the end of 2004. Still an avid fan of the club, he has watched this year’s events unfold with dismay.
Dundee’s controversial vote change last month condemned Thistle to relegation to League
One on a points-per-game basis.
‘We had a game in hand (on Queen of the South) and we had also played Dundee United four times,’ argued Hughes.
‘It comes down to the fact you should not be changing rules in a season, which is what they did in 2004.
‘It’s no way to run an organisation whatsoever. For it to happen once in 2004, you would have thought lessons might be learned.
‘The problem for a club like Thistle is that if they took legal action and it was another £100,000 — that’s at least two players out of next season’s budget.
‘It’s difficult, especially if everyone closes ranks. Ironically, given what has gone on this year, the only other club that voted with us at the second meeting in 2004 was Dundee.
‘I’m not sure that this is the end of it, though. Rangers and Hearts might be able to afford to take action in a way that Partick Thistle cannot do.’