DISBELIEF was the dominant emotion among the embattled half-dozen lower-division clubs who stoically held their line at Hampden yesterday.
While Tadek Kopszywa, the East Stirlingshire secretary, articulated the sentiment of many when he said Scottish Football League clubs had "effectively committed suicide" in order to gain a solitary play-off place, Henry McClelland, the Annan Athletic chairman, protested at the bad faith displayed by the SPL during the negotiating process and painted a picture of how fear over a breakaway SPL2 had been allowed to override all other rational thought. The SFL will be wound up in a matter of weeks and it isn't just the organisation's office staff who face an uncertain future.
"Some of the guys in there spoke about the five principles," said McClelland, who has emerged as one of the most articulate opponents of the merger. "Were they happy with the way the merger had gone? No. Were they happy with the voting and governance? No. Were they happy with the distribution? No. Were they happy with the pyramid proposal and the detail they have got so far? No. Were they happy with the play-off proposals and how they were structured? No. But, despite all that, they were voting yes."
McClelland, for one, feels the proposed Scottish Professional Football League is less a merger of equals, more a hostile takeover. The new entity will retain the SPL's current company number, the top flight will retain 81% of the revenue, with 12% to the second tier. "It is so wrong the way the pressure has been applied," he said. "Thirty-six hours before our final decision was taken we were still missing key information about the relevant finances. That is the way it has been all along."
East Stirlingshire, a club with a history of finishing last in the SFL, were actually in favour of the pyramid structure but Kopszywa is another who feels that fear won the day. "We firmly believed the game would have been far better served with the maintenance of the status quo," he said. "But we support a pyramid system and if we are the club to fall through that trap door then that is something we are ready to accept."
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