IT is a haven to some of Scotland's most voluble football pundits but yesterday a peculiar silence had befallen the gentlemen of the Scottish Football Writers' Association.

At a secret ballot late last Friday night in a mystery Glasgow city centre venue they once again voted to ensure that women will remain unwelcome as guests at their annual black-tie dinner. As one celebrated former member had put it in years gone by: ''There shall be nae burdz.''

Yet, when asked to respond to criticism of their decision by equality campaigners, they showed remarkable speed at removing themselves from the line of fire.

In a nail-biting decision late on Friday night, a meeting of the SFWA's annual meeting voted by 21 votes to 20 against a motion to allow women to be invited to it as guests.

The result has outraged equal rights campaigners and was met with glum resignation by the SFWA's members who have campaigned for the organisation's modernisation. It is believed to be the third time the issue has been voted on.

In 1999, Michelle Evans, a sports commentator for Scottish Television, became the first woman to attend an SFWA annual dinner, after a change in the rules which allowed women to join the association.

There are now five women in the SFWA. But, in a peculiar bureaucratic twist, while all of them can attend, none of them - or any of the men - is allowed to invite a female guest.

The Equal Opportunities Commission Scotland, said the decision was ''out-moded'' and ''ridiculous''.

A spokeswoman said: ''It's an out-moded idea and protects a bastion of masculinity which, in this day and age, seems ridiculous. It keeps a second-class membership in order.''

No-one was prepared to defend the retention of the ban when contacted by The Herald. However, several witnesses corroborated statements made at the meeting.

Ronnie Scott, a sports journalist with the Sunday Post, was said to have spoken in favour of continuing to exclude women because, if they were admitted, it would ''become like a dinner dance''. He could not be reached for comment last night.

Under threat

Thomas Jordan, from the Evening Times, argued that, as the event played host to some of Scotland's leading footballers, allowing women in would result in it being attended by ''groupies''.

One of the female members of the association, who did not want to be named, said she had considered resigning, but believed that ''change will come'' eventually.

She said: ''A big part of (the decision) is fear that wives and girlfriends might become aware of what some of their men-folk are doing. You can sense that there's something very secret under threat; something that they've held true for a long time is under threat and I think a lot of their anger is that it will be changed. It's inevitable that it's going to come.''

Another female member, who also did not want to be named, said: ''The reason some people don't want the rule changed is because (the SWFA) is a group of guys who get pissed and get loud.''

Ian Paul, president of the SFWA, refused to comment as ''the SFWA is not a public company and it would be remiss of me to comment on a private agm''.

However, a statement from Graeme Bryce, the SFWA's secretary, expressed regret that a private meeting had been leaked to the press. Last Friday speakers on both sides of the argument aired their views, honestly, vigorously and openly, believing they were expressing them in a private meeting.

''The SFWA is therefore disappointed to learn that some members' private opinions should be leaked, by a source who did so anonymously.

''We feel we can do no more than give our members a platform to air their views, then hold a free and democratic vote on matters which are important to them.

''Quite frankly we cannot see how a democratic organisation can operate in any other fashion - no matter how disappointing that may be to certain individuals.''

One ex-member of the SFWA called the lack of comment ''incredible hypocrisy'', adding: ''Their life's vocation is to reprint and write about tittle tattle in print, to bring into the public what is said in private.

''It's incredible hypocrisy. The real reason they don't want women allowed is that they want a right good piss up, to go out on the prowl without their wives and girlfriends coming along. I wouldn't say the evening is misogynist but it is definitely bottom of the barrel and old-fashioned.''