In the interests of Fairness , Hamilton,s Les Gray states why he says yes

[rbr 1,247]

YES - Les Gray, Hamilton Academical

 

I HAVE spent the past ten years, first with Clyde and now at Hamilton, attempting to bring about fundamental change to Scottish football. I believe we have never been as close to bringing this about as we are now. Yet, I would not dare second-guess how the vote on the 42-club solution will go at Hampden on Wednesday. People have become entrenched and, though I have the greatest respect for such as Henry McClelland at Annan, some Second and Third Division clubs seem to have closed their minds to the proposals.

 

I think it would be a great pity if the resolutions weren’t passed and the 42 senior clubs could not go forward together as one. Surely being together, being united, is what we all want. It certainly seemed that way the other month when we had 27 clubs of the 29 eligible to vote in favour of what was on the table. Of course, that then went to 14-14, then 16-13, before a meeting of the Second and Third Division clubs last week seemed to suggest nine clubs remain against – two more than the seven threshold that would allow the resolutions to pass.

 

I believe, when people take a step back, they can surely see that one body, more equitable distribution of revenues, play-offs between the top and second tiers and a pyramid structure is unquestionably good for the senior game. And the reality is that a merger between the £20m-turnover SPL and the £2m-turnover SFL brings economies of scale more akin to Marks & Spencer co-opting the local corner shop than anything else.

 

We all have to recognise our place in the game and deal with the realities that requires us to face. At Hamilton, we know we are not one of the big boys. We have 1,500 hardcore fans in the First Division and we are not wealth generators. Celtic, Rangers, and maybe the Edinburgh clubs and Aberdeen are the only teams that probably come into that bracket. They cannot be dictated to by clubs like ours, or teams three levels below attracting a couple of hundred spectators.

 

One of the gripes of the “no” camp is the composition of the new board should the Scottish Professional Football League come into being. Yet, what is forgotten is that SFL chief executive David Longmuir himself proposed the 3-2-1 format, which effectively would see five places taken up by the full-time clubs. This split reflects the financial differentials involved. Some of the smaller clubs need to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

I offer this up as no threat, but if we cannot reach agreement on the 42-club solution on Wednesday, the next day we will push forward with a 22-club solution. All of us in the First Division have made our intentions plain to the other SFL members. That is why we lodged letters of intent, following the vote being split 14-14. I think this did refocus minds among the Second and Third Division clubs to consider the consequences of this revamp failing and I would hope those minds would be refocused once again this week. As far as we clubs in the First Division are concerned, we have full-time football teams to run and the current set-up and structures must be changed this summer so that we can strengthen the second tier and, in turn, strengthen Scottish football at the highest level.

 

My worry, should those of us in the First Division be forced to seek membership of the SPL, is the clubs left in the SFL drifting away. There are different interpretations of how the settlement agreement would be divided up but I must caution the SFL clubs that they won’t be in line for 20/30ths, as they appear to think.

 

Now, I know the dissolution of the SFL after 123 years is an emotive subject, this being the first and pivotal resolution we will vote on in three days’ time – the other four being technical legal points contingent in the dissolution being passed. However, I don’t think the fact that the SFL has always been around is a good reason for keeping it. It was created in the 19th century. We are now in the 21st century. It is not the be-all-and-end-all. The SPL is not the be-all-and-end-all. Having a joint say can give a place to all members of each, however.

 

Those with objections to approving the resolutions often refer to a lack of trust between the two organisations. I have often been posed the question as to why we in the SFL should trust those in the SPL. I would ask, why not? If we consider the recent past then, have there been any more attempts by the SPL to mislead us or manipulate us than there have been by any other officials in the other football organisations in this country? I would ask those who vote on Wednesday to think seriously about that. I think the due diligence concerns are now being dealt with but it is in the interests of the SPL to make the 42-club solution work. We might disagree but I think we all want to do what we feel is best for the game.

 

Henry and I may believe doing our best requires contrasting votes on Wednesday’s resolutions. If democracy and the decision-making process determines that a 42-club solution is not carried, we will get on with our lives and running our football businesses and pursue change. After Wednesday, Scottish senior football won’t be the same. Right now, the issue is what form the remodelling will take.

 

• As told to Andrew Smith

[SteveC 150]

this is jaw dropping:

 

" I offer this up as no threat, but if we cannot reach agreement on the 42-club solution on Wednesday, the next day we will push forward with a 22-club solution."

 

What would a threat sound like, then? I suggest it would sound like this: "if we cannot reach agreement on the 42-club solution on Wednesday, the next day we will push forward with a 22-club solution."

[The Real PapaBear 0]

this is jaw dropping:

 

" I offer this up as no threat, but if we cannot reach agreement on the 42-club solution on Wednesday, the next day we will push forward with a 22-club solution."

 

What would a threat sound like, then? I suggest it would sound like this: "if we cannot reach agreement on the 42-club solution on Wednesday, the next day we will push forward with a 22-club solution."

 

I think you're misreading what he says, mate -it's clearly not a threat.

 

it's blackmail.

[biggordy 0]

Anything which has Stuart "Clusterfuck" Regan and Neil "Pants on Fire" Doncaster involved in it, should clearly be given a wide berth.

[Guest Nevergreen]

Remember to leave the SFL these clubs have to give Two years notice.

 

SPL2 which he seems to be threatening with if they don't comply, would have its own problems

[Thinker 867]

Remember to leave the SFL these clubs have to give Two years notice.

 

SPL2 which he seems to be threatening with if they don't comply, would have its own problems

 

Isn't there some caveat which gets around this if the clubs join the SPL? Don't know how "SPL2" comes into that but I'm sure that would be the clause they try to invoke.

 

Regardless, there's also the question of the £1.8 million / year that the SPL pay the SFL. Without a complete merger, surely that would have to continue. The figures don't add up.

[craig 5,199]

Celtic, Rangers, and maybe the Edinburgh clubs and Aberdeen are the only teams that probably come into that bracket. They cannot be dictated to by clubs like ours, or teams three levels below attracting a couple of hundred spectators"

 

Strange that.... that is EXACTLY what happened to Rangers last summer. CHOOB !

[craig 5,199]

"I offer this up as no threat, but if we cannot reach agreement on the 42-club solution on Wednesday, the next day we will push forward with a 22-club solution. All of us in the First Division have made our intentions plain to the other SFL members."

 

Fcking liar. Of course it is a threat.

 

There are so many holes in Gray's statement that I am sure he is made of Swiss cheese.

[bluebear54 0]

Isn't there some caveat which gets around this if the clubs join the SPL? Don't know how "SPL2" comes into that but I'm sure that would be the clause they try to invoke.

 

Regardless, there's also the question of the £1.8 million / year that the SPL pay the SFL. Without a complete merger, surely that would have to continue. The figures don't add up.

 

In the short term it probably doesn't matter. If it goes to Court, it may take quite a while for some Clubs to be playing football.

Gray is essentially threatening the lower leagues with a devaluation of any potential sponsorship.

[calscot 0]

it's a joke that this is about the up and coming season - no-one knows what they played for last season and they still don't know what the format will be next season. If this was about a change to happen in two years time it would be more understandable.