IT IS a rare, perhaps even unique, piece of independent arbitration that allows both sides in a dispute to claim victory. This is, however, apparently what occurred in the vexing case of SPL2. The SFA commission inquiring into the affair judged that the formation of a second tier in this country's top league would not breach the Settlement Agreement that exists between the Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football League.
As a consequence, executives of the respective bodies – Lex Gold of the former and Brown McMaster of the latter – were moved to issue virtually identical statements, each effectively declaring that the tribunal had decided in their favour. How this i
s possible has yet to unfold, but, until it does, there is one deeply intriguing question to be examined.
It concerns the matter of the SPL's motives. An organisation whose every move since its inception in 1998 has been governed by the urge to improve its revenue suddenly decided two-and-a-half years ago that adding ten members to the existing 12 would be a good thing. So sound an idea, in fact, that they have pursued it zealously through all that time, culminating in Thursday's judgment.
This seems unfathomable, because it is impossible to see what SPL2 can bring to the table, apart from another ten mouths to feed. Gold insists that the principal reason for the re-structuring is to create a league that contains only full-time clubs, creating an environment in which the product will be improved, as the best young players are concentrated in a 22-club league, leaving the SFL as a collection of part-timers. Here is a sense of altruism that does not square with the SPL's "previous".
The key to the mystery may be found in the Settlement Agreement, or, to give it its colloquial name, "The Bribe". This is the legally-binding contract by which the SPL were obliged to pay, in perpetuity, an annual, index-linked sum to the SFL, to increase their original ten members to 12 by the year 2000, to allow promotion and relegation and to make a "parachute" payment to the demoted club. It was agreed because it was the only way the secessionists back in 1998 could effect their immediate departure, thereby circumventing the two-year period of notice to quit demanded by the SFL's articles.
Unsurprisingly, the breakaway league soon decided that the annuity was excessive and tried, in vain, to have it reduced. It is impossible not to infer that, in the event of poaching another ten members from the SFL, the big guns will try again, on the basis that the size of the payment was designed to cater for 30 clubs, a number that will have shrunk by a third.
Of course, the SFL could simply admit a new intake to restore its full complement, but that would be messy and would further erode its credibility. More probably, the SPL will simply starve them out, cutting off their main source of income by withdrawing from the League Cup and waiting for them to die at the age of about 120.
Divine sight eludes refREFEREES probably suffer more than most from the tortuous truth of Burns's plea to a divine power for the gift "to see oursels as others see us". As an example, Calum Murray, right, who handled last Sunday's abysmal Old Firm match at Celtic Park, could be cited at seminars.
The Edinburgh man followed his generally unsteady performance with the "confession" the next day that the only error of judgment he made in the match was not to allow more than two minutes of stoppage time.
The irony of this was that, having made a fairly lengthy series of injudicious decisions through a pretty ragged 90-odd minutes, the only one to which he owned up was not a mistake at all. It was a mercy.
SFA proposal full of senseTHE only drawback to an eminently sensible proposal from the Scottish Football Association to the International Football Association Board is that it is merely up for discussion, rather than adoption. The IFAB, guardians of the Law of the Game, convene in Northern Ireland a week from today and will debate a suggested change in the regulation which demands the removal from the field a player who had received treatment for an injury.
The SFA hopes to garner enough support to have its motion to scrap the obligatory departure to the sidelines in the event of a player making a full recovery on the pitch. "There are all kinds of ways for players to get hurt," said the chief executive, Gordon Smith, "and, of course, varying degrees of seriousness of injuries.
"For example, you could have an accidental collision which leaves two players grounded, but who are able to recover after attention on the field. It seems wasteful to insist that they leave, only to be beckoned back on by the referee when play re-starts. There can also be an element of injustice about the rule, which we'd like to eradicate."
In this respect, Smith is alluding to this column's view – formed at the very inception of what has always appeared to be an example of bureaucracy for its own sake – that a victim of a delinquent tackle should not be penalised by having to leave the field, thereby causing his team the disadvantage of being reduced to ten men.
As is often the case with legislation, those who drafted the regulation – in this case, with the intention of minimising stoppage time and interference with the flow and rhythm of a match – failed to see the loopholes that would offer the potential for abuse and injustice. The quicker the statute is rescinded, the better.
The full article contains 972 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
