Stewart Gilmour has sought to clarify his decision to vote against league reconstruction proposals and dismissed insinuations that he was acting at the behest of Rangers as "a conspiracy theory".
The St Mirren chairman threatened to take legal action against any of his fellow club officials who explicitly made such an allegation. The club also clarified in a statement that Gilmour voted against the proposals because he is unconvinced by the 12-12-18 format and wanted more than just reconstruction to be removed from the 11-1 voting veto.
Gilmour has been on the receiving end of passionate criticism from, among others, Stewart Milne, of Aberdeen, and Hearts' David Southern. Having expressed his view that the 11-1 voting veto was the major point of contention, Gilmour explained that he wanted it removed from all but one of the eight Qualified Resolutions it covers – retaining home gate receipts – while at Monday's meeting the only offer was to remove the league reconstruction resolution from the veto.
"During the meeting, a proposal to change one of these [Qualified] Resolutions was brought to the table by two clubs who suggested reducing this to a 75% majority [or] 9-3," said a St Mirren statement. "As this was only part of the Qualified Resolutions, this was not acceptable to St Mirren. This [11-1] democratic set-up in the SPL has been in place since its inception and has proved not to be fit for purpose, hence our objection to it.
"We are being accused of self-interest. Is that the self-interest in consulting with our supporters and staff prior to the board making this decision? If so, we are guilty.
"We are very grateful for all the messages of support we have received, not just from our own fans, but also from supporters of many other clubs who did not wish this proposal to go ahead.
"St Mirren are still intent on change in Scottish football within a system for all 42 clubs. We wish to make it very clear that we have no SPL2 agenda. We believe that that is not the way forward."
Gilmour raised the prospect at last Monday's meeting of discussing the other changes that were part of the proposal, such as a new revenue distribution model and a merged league, along with a different format, but the majority of clubs did not wish to proceed.
Afterwards, Milne accused Gilmour of having an "agenda". This, coupled with the appearance of Charles Green at St Mirren's recent game against Celtic, caused accusations of St Mirren and Rangers working in tandem, with the Ibrox side opposed to the 12-12-18 set-up. This brought a firm response from Gilmour yesterday.
"Any club official who would suggest such a thing, we would look at it legally because it is absolutely slanderous," he said. "The St Mirren board are only interested in what is in the best interests of St Mirren. This is a club that voted Rangers into the third division. Charles Green did attend a game at St Mirren Park but, like any director, chairman or manager from any club, when they make a request for tickets, they are shown the same hospitality as any other representative. During Mr Green's visit, there was no discussion about league reconstruction."
Derek Adams, the Ross County manager, defended the stance taken by his club, too. The former Highland League outfit have risen through the divisions, but are sustainably run and not at the mercy of the revenue that comes from the Sky TV deal.
"There were aspects of the plan that were good for Scottish football," Adams said. "But we didn't feel that splitting into three leagues of eight after 22 games was going to benefit the Scottish game or ourselves. That was going to make it difficult to sell season tickets."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article