The Battle for Control of Scottish Football


Ian began writing Twohundredpercent in May 2006. He lives in Brighton. He has also written for, amongst others, Pitch Invasion, FC Business Magazine, The Score, When Saturday Comes, Stand Against Modern Football and The Football Supporter. Ian was the first winner of the Socrates Award For Not Being Dead Yet at the 2010 NOPA awards for football bloggers.

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. Mark Murphy says:

    A fine read which, to the relief of probably EVERYone, cuts down on my next Rangers piece by about 1500 words.

    One question that nags me is the precise legal status of the SPL threat to withhold the “settlement” payment. Does the agreement have a ‘termination clause’ and, if so, does it reference the SPL’s ability to pay, which the SPL appears to suggest is dependent on RFC being in SFL1?

  2. good article however you forgot the statement made by spl chairman that 41 clubs should not suffer by one clubs misdeeds this i find hard to believe spl refused rangers entry not because of sporting integrity but because sky tv said their tv deal would stand for one year only hence the bullying tactics employed by the spl they want rangers in div 1 so that if rangers gain promotion they wont lose any money and the deal will stand for the next four seasons this amounts to greed on their part and not sporting integrity as they keep promoting i would also like to point out that it has taken the demise of rangers for any chaiman to speak of progress and restructure this should have been sorted out ten years ago instead greed for money took over spl sfa and sfl should come together as one body for the good of the game and the rule book should also be looked at furthermore i would like to say rangers did not cheat on the park or off it they were run by incompetents look at the big four down south for instance they are millions in debt but can still pay over 20 million pounds for players i don’t see anybody calling them cheats for living outwith their means
    a true blue forever more

  3. Alan Bristol says:

    A well researched and interesting article. Just a thought, is there a danger of the SPL changing their minds about refusing a share to the newco Rangers if they are not placed in the SFL 1st division at Fridays’ meeting? The delay in naming Club 12 doesn’t seem to make sense otherwise.

  4. b says:

    Shouldn’t there be three teams not allowed to vote due to a conflict of interest?
    As there would be three moving up a division if Rangers go into SFL3.

  5. Gavin says:

    Mark – Clyde have released another excellent statement yesterday, which includes the following on the Settlement Agreement.

    “We first concluded that there was limited risk to the SFL from the ‘Armageddon’ theory, as depicted in the detailed presentation by Neil Doncaster and supported by Stewart Regan, which had prompted fears of cash flow loss to the SFL next season. We have obtained a copy of the Settlement Agreement signed up to by the SPL and the SFL in April 1998 – it is clear that the agreement is not ambiguous in this regard and there is no scope for the SPL to fail to meet the obligations to the SFL except by deliberately breaching the agreement.”

    (The full statement is well worth reading at )

  6. taliesin says:

    all that as maybe but at the end of the day it should be fairly obvious to everyone – SKY will withdraw without Rangers gauranteed to return to the SPL in one season – the gaurantee is impossible so they will have a rider terminating the contract should rangers not gain promotion and if the embargo is in place they obviously won’t gain promotion – relegation would be more likely – that plus the absence of rangers support will lose each SPL club circa 1 mill – fact – so how could the SPL clubs sustain that – the plain answer is they could,nt- there is little pressure on the SFL clubs as far as i can see as they would be able to sustain the relatively small loss from the SPL – Its the SPL clubs that need to worry big style as they probably assumed, probably were told that ‘its okay lads it will be manufactured for rangers to return in a year and sky have bought into that”- if that doesnt happen they are doomed to a level the same as the current SFL after the majority having gone to the wall and deservedly so — all because the SPL succumed to the sort of misguided pressure idiots like joey whimster of aberdeen and roary rover fame brought to bear

  7. Frank Heaven says:

    Gavin – one of the refreshing aspects of this sorry saga has been the show of supporter power at clubs outside the Old Firm.
    I wondered if there is any sort of fans federation for supporters of these clubs, who obviously have a different outlook on how Scottish football should be run, that it should not be dominated by the OF. (Though some OF fans may recognise that things need to change in that respect.)
    Such a federation would bring a collective voice to those fans who have lobbied their clubs so forcefully over the Rangers issue these past few months. It could even publish a fans manifesto for change, including details about how TV income should be split, sharing of gate receipts with away teams, etc – a roadmap for a more competitive and healthy domestic football scene in Scotland.
    If such a federation exists then apologies, but I couldn’t see anything after a quick Google search.

  8. fasda says:

    Taliesin; you still don’t get it do you?
    Business is business and sport is sport. There is no problem at all if sevco and a few other teams play in a league that is fixed for sevco or Sky, some of us won’t be bothered to watch any more than we’d go to a wrestling night. All the threats of obliteration and armageddon don’t matter, if you win and the game’s sold out then pat yourself on the back and get on with it.

    Remember not to let any of the dosh filter out to the wee diddy’s though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>