Richard Scudamore, chief executive of the Barclays Premier League, last night insisted the campaign for Celtic and Rangers to be allowed to join the English top flight is over, saying: “No means no.”
However, the count tells a different story. The vote yesterday against the Old Firm’s inclusion in an English league is thought to have been 14-6 against. Supporters of a move south by the Glasgow clubs were last night pleasantly surprised by the numbers.
The Old Firm would need 14 clubs to vote in favour of a move for any change to be progressed. But yesterday’s vote represents a substantial step forward from the last vote which was 20-0.
The proposal by the Bolton Wanderers chairman, Phil Gartside, was defeated heavily, but its supporters believe there is now a mandate for it to be resurrected, particularly when interested Coca-Cola Championship clubs throw their weight behind plans to create a two-tier Premier League.
The plans for two divisions survived a vote yesterday and will now be scrutinised by the league’s ongoing strategic review which will publish its recommendations next year. A proposal to look at the distribution of television money will also be put to the review body.
The Bolton chairman had expressed concerns that too much money flows to the top four clubs. Last season, champions Manchester United earned £52.3m in Premier League television money, compared to £31.6m for bottom club West Bromwich Albion.
Scudamore said of the Old Firm proposal: “The clubs discussed this and, as far as Celtic and Rangers are concerned, it’s a non-starter. The clubs constitutionally voted to say we are not going to take this any further. We have made a clear and unequivocal statement. No means no – Celtic and Rangers are not coming in.”
Rangers and Celtic were not surprised by the rejection. A spokesman for Celtic said: “Clearly, this is a matter for the Premier League and an initiative created by members of the EPL. We have always maintained a watching brief on this issue, however at the moment we note the decision and move on.”
A statement from Rangers said: “We note the statement issued by the Premier League earlier today. We were not actively involved in the Phil Gartside proposals presented to the EPL but have watched with interest the development of this issue in recent months.”
Alastair Johnston, the Rangers chairman, was more expansive in an interview with The Herald. He said: “The EPL decision was not surprising. I do not look on that as major news. The winds of change that are blowing through UEFA will be fuelled by a lot of issues, not the least of which is UEFA’s concern about lack of parity in football.
“It is not necessarily issues such as change of league that matter as much as rule changes such as roster sizes etc which would be beneficial to Rangers Football Club in making better players available for our budget.”
Martin Bain, chief executive, said in Rangers’ annual report: “I believe it will be necessary to explore new revenue opportunities in the future, whether it involves discussion with other football clubs in the continent facing similar challenges or with football governing bodies.”
This is an allusion to Bain’s pursual of proposals for an Atlantic League.
A spokesman for the SPL welcomed the English vote, saying: “Rangers and Celtic are massive assets to the SPL and a vital part of the Scottish footballing landscape. Both clubs will continue to make an important contribution to the development of our league.
“We have a new chairman and a new chief executive in position, and with that there is a fresh impetus to build upon the work that has already been done in the SPL to reinvigorate Scottish football.”
Stephen Thompson, chairman of Dundee United, last night expressed hopes that the Old Firm would now give up on the idea of moving from Scotland.
“I am not surprised the English clubs voted against it,” he said. “Now I hope the Old Firm put this behind them and work together with the other SPL clubs to improve the game in Scotland.”
Thomson has challenged Rangers and Celtic over their determination to pursue their futures outside Scotland.
“I admit this matter has caused some friction over the last few months,” he said. “Talk of the Old Firm leaving undermined the SPL and made it more difficult to make progress in areas such as attracting sponsorship.”
He added: “Going forward, we must all look at our own game and accept we all have a responsibility to our game. I have always been of the opinion that the SPL is not as bad as many people make out and we have to sell it better.
“We have a new chairman and chief executive and they deserve to be given a chance and time to settle into their roles. I just think we need to be positive about the SPL.”
However, the issue of the Old Firm’s future has not been laid to rest but invigorated by yesterday’s vote in England. The arithmetic of the roll-call in London means that the Scottish clubs need to convince another eight clubs to support them.
But there is a more substantial groundswell of support in the Coca-Cola Championship. Many traditionally large clubs in England see the Old Firm as a way to break into to a more lucrative television deal.
One Championship chairman, who spoke to The Herald on condition of anonymity, said: “This is an issue that can not be wished away. The vote of the Premier League clubs shows that. Frankly, the Championship holds many ambitious clubs who are dismayed about the disparity in income that has developed in the English game.”
He added: “ An EPL2 has been talked about in specifics. It is part of the agenda though many club chairmen do not want to show their hand too early and risk a premature confrontation with the Football Association.”
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