Early in the 'summer of sporting integrity' one issue dear to the hearts of us teams in the SPL was the voting rights of that body; at the time there was a recognition that, given that there would be a vote against accepting the Newco into the SPL in place of Rangers, there would be an opportunity to change the voting structure in particular the 11-1 vote.
Putting it bluntly, with one half of the dynamic duo gone it would be possible for the rest to win the vote to move away from the Old Firm’s 11-1 virtual veto on all things commercial. Well the Old Firm are no more and there is only one of them left in the SPL so how will the 11-1 vote issue pan out if, of course, anyone can or wants to do anything about it?
First, a quick look at what it’s all about. The SPL articles define three levels of resolutions and percentage of votes required to pass said resolutions. I’ve paraphrased the definitions but these are clearly laid out in 'Articles of Association of The Scottish Premier League Limited', available online.
- 1. Qualified resolutions – (90% i.e. 11 votes required to pass a resolution) covers expulsion, winding up, issue of share capital and everything covered by Section C of 'The Rules of The Scottish Premier League'. The latter being 'Commercial Matters' - the money bit!
- 2. Special Qualified resolutions – (83% i.e. 10 votes required) covering expansion and reduction in league members and allotment of share issue.
- 3. Ordinary resolutions – (66% i.e. 8 votes required) covering the rest!
The key point is that two teams can block any changes to 'Commercial Matters' (the 11-1 vote) and the purpose of this was to give the ex-Old Firm the protection they required to enter this enterprise in the first place.
Of course to change this article would in itself require an 11-1 vote, so protecting it was considered a cast-iron guarantee prior to the old Rangers financial collapse.
As a Dons fan I have to say that it is to the eternal shame of AFC and other pretenders that they all agreed to this in the first place so we need to be clear about this, AFC and the others are not victims here. Of course the ex-Old Firm got their way and consequently called the shots and sucked up the bulk of the money but it’s all been done fully supported by the rest of the SPL.
At best we can say, however, that this enterprise has failed so at least we have a chance to make it better. If there are any doubters in the failure of the SPL set-up to date I refer you to the liquidation of the biggest (probably) team member. It doesn't work and regardless of what form it might take in the future the first thing to do is to get rid of this restrictive veto capability.
C'est La Même Chose
Who won't want to change it and why not? Celtic will want to keep it for the future because they will want to continue the domination of the SPL financially. In common with their old commercial partners they appear to want total domination of the relatively small pot available to the SPL even though that appears to most of us to be bad business in the interdependent world of competitive football.
At the moment they can be out voted on anything without their commercial partner on board but the rest of the teams, dubbed the 'Rebel 10' in March by Peter Lawwell, need to prepare for any future SPL with the ex-Old Firm re-established in all its glory.
It may be that one or more teams go along with Celtic on any opposition to changing the vote but it's hard to see this happening without some form of side deal.
I try to remain neutral in any 'whataboutery' so beloved by the ex-Old Firm but can anyone see an SPL club chairman voting with Celtic as a matter of loyalty or 'tradition' on this? Remember the MSM expectation was that this would happen in the vote on Newco entry into the SPL and, much to the disbelief of the establishment and the MSM, no one voted for them and only one team abstained.
It's not so easy to get these things through on a nod and a handshake these days. Prior to old Rangers liquidation the SPL 'Rebel 10' had planned to push through a vote on this issue and the 'Establishment 2' were pretty vociferous on their condemnation. To be exact it was Celtic who led the PR exercise at that time with Rangers (IA) otherwise distracted; it's worth remembering however the 'Rebel 10' called on Duff & Phelps to back the change! It’s history now but a lot of us thought that getting rid of the 11-1 would be the price Rangers would end up paying to remain in the SPL but that was prior to the CVA failure and liquidation.
Duopoly Bored
Who would want to change it and how can they? The other 11 so that we move the SPL forward more equitably, it’s basically a chance to remove a duopoly veto.
Remember, for example, that the 'Rebel 10' in March this year were talking about changing the voting structure whilst maintaining the gate share, or non share, deal as it stands. At the time this could have been a concession to Celtic but that’s redundant now, because the vote is already 11-1 if needed, except of course that AFC and a few others will want to keep it as is.
The arithmetic shows Hearts, and probably Hibs and AFC also, would about break even on gate sharing IF there were six games a season against the ex-Old Firm. They would probably stick with it given the complications in season tickets, corporate tickets and various membership schemes for cheaper gate prices that could muddy the water.
I can’t really remember who instigated or supported the retention of home gates in Scottish football, it was before the SPL IIRC, but I can remember that AFC were all for it - not that that makes it right, just worth remembering that we reap what we sow.
I believe the ultimate aim should be to get rid of any future duopoly veto and to equal out the share of what the SPL call 'the Net Commercial Revenues'. Currently 48% of this revenue is shared equally and the remaining 52% on a sliding scale based on league position and biased very much towards the top two places - no surprise there. A close to equal share would have a relatively small impact on Celtic, for example, but a major impact on the bottom clubs, good for the game in my opinion.
There are four general SPL meetings planned per year and the process is that resolutions are proposed for discussion and voting if required. In addition any two members can call for a general meeting and propose a resolution. I would expect two teams to do just this sometime prior to year end, to allow for drafting articles, testing and implementation; the stuff that takes a few months.
The first resolution should be to combine Qualified and Special Qualified resolution categories with a 75% or 9 votes required to pass the resolution rather than 90% and 83% as at the moment. I would also expect that the gate share issue would be maintained as is, it would take only one team to join Celtic in preferring to keep their home gates to scupper the “big picture” 75% resolution otherwise.
SPHell Silence
So why has it all gone quiet? To be fair it’s early days, the season has just kicked off and it’s been a bit of a shambles. Two weeks prior to the season start we didn’t even know who would be playing where, the TV deals were in doubt and armageddon was imminent complete with social unrest.
However, whilst we continue to look on in disbelief at the sting that is Charles Green’s punt in Scottish football, the fact that there is only one of the ex-Old Firm left in the SPL and 11 'rebels', so what’s the problem? I would have expected the first rumbles of a voting structure resolution to be in the air and for Celtic to have mobilised the full PR onslaught against it complete with threats to relocate to some other league/country, creative MSM economics showing how we’re all doomed if we poke the giant and an SPL heid bummer telling us how the 'Rebel 11' are turning off potential sponsors.
But not a peep. Have Celtic cut a deal with one or more member clubs in some way? Hard to see how unless it’s either hard cash or other concessions. Is their a side agreement between the member clubs around the recently renegotiated TV deals? Have the SFA/SPL/SFL already agreed a new format that makes any SPL agreements null and void anyway? Do Celtic have a game theory that threatens resignation from the SPL to join the SFL thus challenging the remaining 11 to do their worst? Who knows, if only we had a fall guy who could demand clarity on this. Any ideas anyone?
Oh, and if anyone at AFC is reading, get the ball rolling please.