ONE of the more perceptive responses to the latest league reconstruction debacle was the suggestion that when St Mirren play Aberdeen on May 11 the cameras concentrate on the boardroom instead of the pitch.
It takes quite a fall-out for a couple of chairmen to openly go for each other but the debate over 12-12-18, and its collapse, has crystallised into a public rammy between Stewart Gilmour and Stewart Milne. They have been eyeing each other like a pair of hair-trigger aggro merchants. Maybe they will not speak at all when their clubs meet at St Mirren Park next month. Ice won't be required for the boardroom G&Ts that day, room temperature will be cold enough.
St Mirren and Ross County, the clubs who prevented the necessary 11-1 vote for Scottish Premier League approval, don't live in a different world from everyone else. They carry the same financial burdens and worries as the others. When the current rancour ebbs away they will be accepted back in the fold. Voting pacts and alliances come and go in the endless circus of Scottish league reconstruction. The next time a vote is held they might be in the majority supporting it, while others who raise their hands in opposition are seen as saboteurs.
There are no actual villains here. No-one has acted to "do in" anyone else, even if the sores are open and raw. It is hard to criticise anyone for voting against 12-12-18 because it was always a complicated and ugly construct, unlovable and ridiculed by many supporters. But those who wanted it were so poor at promoting its benefits that the public relations war was lost before it began. If Milne, Peter Lawwell and others had said far more, far sooner, it might have had a chance of going down better with fans in Paisley, Dingwall and elsewhere.
They should have hammered home one central theme: yes, we know this isn't perfect but it can unlock other major benefits and that means it's a step in the right direction. They could have stressed that voting 'yes' now would deliver more television money because broadcasters told them it would. They could have said it would deliver a fairer distribution model, a single league body, play-offs and a pyramid structure, and if splitting into three leagues of eight after 22 games turned out to be a mess that could be reviewed and abandoned in two or three seasons. The "good bits" would continue. Instead one version of a 12-team top flight which would have brought major new benefits has been rejected and the status quo, another variation of a 12-team top flight which satisfies no-one, limps on.
Ten out of the 12 SPL teams, over 83%, were prepared to give 12-12-18 a try. Around 14 Scottish Football League clubs accepted it, too, while most of the rest liked it in principle but wanted time to work through the details. That's a lot of clubs seeing it as something worth doing: not because of splitting into 8-8-8 but because of the other benefits.
If there is an underlying acknowledgement that St Mirren and Ross County "listened to their fans" it is still hard for the others to swallow because it meant that their initial support for the principle of 12-12-18 now seems like lip service that wasted everyone's time. The 10 are convinced that St Mirren and County never intended to vote for it in the first place, but wouldn't come out and admit that they want a 14-team division, rather than 12, because it gives a comfort zone to lessen their risk of being relegated.
Gilmour, Milne and others exchanging insults makes news for a few days but the real issue is this: what happens next? Now we're told the first division clubs will meet on Monday and inevitably that was interpreted as the catalyst of SPL 2. Don't hold your breath. The first division clubs will be up for it but there is nothing in it for the top-flight clubs. They were prepared to accept a more even spread of money because, with the three-leagues-of-eight model, they were convinced there would be more income coming in. Without that new money there is no incentive to create a new distribution model nor open themselves up to the first division.
Creating SPL 2 and going to two top divisions of 12 and 10, or 12 and 12, or 10 and 12, would not create any new relegation places because, if they stick to their positions, St Mirren and Ross County would vote against that too. It's hard to see how SPL 2 could be stitched on. An extra play-off place? Everyone likes the idea but unless it generated more television money – and the SPL insist it wouldn't – clubs aren't going to introduce it and increase their own risk of going down.
Despite the whispering campaign about the broadcasters having get-out clauses the SPL are privately adamant that the Sky deal is binding regardless of the viewing figures. "Even if not a single person watches it the deal is watertight," one SPL source said yesterday. As for the search for a new sponsor, it would be a pubic relations problem, rather than a major financial one, if no backer is found to replace Clydesdale Bank. The bigger clubs are prepared to absorb the hit of going without a sponsor next term rather than accepting any old offer for the sake of it. Still, it's all more money bleeding out of the game.
Where does this leave things? With a status quo not a single club nor supporter in the country seems to like. Fans enjoyed Monday's "no" vote but it did absolutely nothing to deliver the bigger top flight they want. 12-12-18 was an ugly duckling but if it had been portrayed as a start rather than an end it might have had a chance. Instead it looks like a necessary evil, poorly promoted before its abortion.
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