PRESSURE on the SPFL intensified yesterday when Aberdeen and Hearts both backed Rangers' call for an independent investigation into their handling of a vote on the end of the season.
Dave Cormack, the Pittodrie chairman, and Ann Budge, his Tynecastle counterpart, agreed that an external inquiry was needed to restore public confidence in the besieged governing body.
Douglas Park, the interim Ibrox chairman, last weekend demanded that SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster and legal adviser be suspended pending an investigation.
The resolution to curtail the Ladbrokes Championship, League 1 and League 2 and give the SPFL board the power to make the same call in the Premiership at a later date was passed on Wednesday.
But Cormack and Budge have both been critical of the entire process - which saw a "no" vote by Dundee disappear and then the Dens Park club submit a critical "yes" vote which ensured the controversial proposal was adopted.
Asked on Sportsound on BBC Scotland if she supported Rangers' call for an independent investigation, Budge said: "I do support them on that because there has been so much negativity.
"This has reached such heights that I think without an independent review it's not going to ever really go away and people will be talking about it for a long time to come.
"But I think it would be the right thing to do - have an independent inquiry. I think we have identified that mistakes were made, things perhaps should have been handled in a different manner. I think it would be the right thing to do to agree to that indepedent review.
"I have already heard lot of clubs say it (an internal review) is marking your own homework kind of approach. So I don't think it would carry the same weight.
"I don't believe there is a downside, I think there is only an upside. I do believe there would be a genuine desire to move things on. I think mistakes were made and I can't see any downside."
Asked if she thought Doncaster and McKenzie should be suspended, Budge said: "I think if they go with the independent review it's not needed. I genuinely believe that would be the case.
"You don't need to go down that route if there's an agreement to an independent review. Otherwise there are practical issues. Who is going to run things apart from anything else if this takes any length of time? It's almost as if 'well, these are scapegoats'.
"Rangers have said they have evidence of certain things. If they have evidence that's a different thing entirely. We don't have evidence. I would stop at 'let's have a review, an independent review, and then take decisions thereafter'."
Cormack said: “I’ve said to Neil (Doncaster) ‘if I were in your position - and I wouldn’t want to be - then I would show some contrition for what has happened’. It clearly was a vote that was forced down our throats in many ways, and that’s obvious.
“I could almost repeat what Ann has said. We owe it to ourselves and the fans to right this situation and bring back credibility. We would like to see an independent investigation. Someone independent has to chair it because if we don't I'm not sure anyone will believe it.”
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel