As we now know, so long as the decision of the Scottish Football League is respected, Rangers FC in their new guise will participate in the Scottish Football League Division 3 next season. They will be playing their local derbies against Queen's Park - something that hasn't happened since 1948 - and will make away trips to such exotic locations as Annan's Galabank and Montrose's Links Park. More bizarrely, they will be playing in a lower tier of the league than my own Albion Rovers who I have followed though the thin and thin since 1994, and my "adopted" team of Greenock Morton.
I believe that the right decision has been made, but probably not for the reasons many think. What I have been far from in agreement with is the way this situation has been handled and the way in which this decision has been arrived at. For example, I cannot see how punishing a club and its fans for the actions of its owners (with secondary effects on the club's many creditors) is in any way responsible - and certainly not the remit of a football league of which Rangers FC was not a member at the times of its alleged offences. I also resent the way in which the debate has focused on how the SFL will decide Rangers future: it isn't the responsibility of the league to make such a decision, but to invite a new club to join the league following a newly created vacancy.
It is probably helpful if I make it very clear I am not a Rangers supporter. I dislike a great deal about what the Old Firm represents, not least the sectarian associations which still refuse to die. I feel that the way in which Rangers and Celtic have dominated Scottish football to a ridiculous degree has not been to the benefit of the game in general. The sense of entitlement and commercial arrogance of the Old Firm clubs have hardly tempted me to think too positively about them. Then again, for someone who spends their Saturdays at Cliftonhill or Cappielow, that's not a surprising thing to say.
What might be more surprising is that, in spite of the fact that I dislike Rangers, I'm not one of these fans of other clubs who has been clamouring for the harshest punishment possible. I don't like to see any club going to the wall, whether it's Clydebank, Airdrie, Gretna or Rangers. These clubs have or had histories, supporters and links with their communities. True, I feel that the situation surrounding Rangers is a huge wake-up call for the Scottish game and it would have been both immoral and setting a dangerous precedent to offer a newco Rangers a place in the SPL - but nonetheless the club's ceasing to exist wouldn't have been a cause to celebrate. And it would have demonstrated how easily any club could find it's future threatened as long as people such as Craig Whyte are allowed to forget their business sense the moment they find themselves in a club boardroom.
What I have found more than mildly irritating is that, during the protracted debate that has followed Rangers' being deducted points a few months ago, it became obvious that as far as the football authorities (and some clubs) are concerned, Rangers were perceived as too big to fail. This itself speaks volumes about the ailing state of Scottish football and the need for revisiting how the game is governed. No club should be "too big", especially not one that had dominated to the detriment of others who now (
in the case of Stenhousemuir at least) seem to have become content to accept the skewed arrangements and feed on the scraps which fell from the rich man's table. When vested interests are cited as a means of parting from precedent, it speaks of an unhealthy dependency and underlines the inescapable reality that Scottish football is far from a meritocracy.
Of course, there are serious issues of justice to be settled. That, for me, is now a matter outwith the football authorities' responsibilities, especially as Craig Whyte's takeover is currently subject to a criminal investigation. I hope that Whyte and the other discredited individuals who brought the club to its knees are, at the very least, prevented from going anywhere near a football club again in their lives.
And then there are the SFA and the SPL, who appeared to be making the rules up as they went along to accommodate Rangers. I can only guess at their motivations, but it appears that the existing structures they are so keen to maintain require a strong Rangers at the centre. What is certain is that the interventions of Neil Doncaster and others only confused the matter and lent themselves to the common perception that there was no-one actually in control.
There has been a great deal written about the internal politics of Scottish football, and I have no wish to add to it. What I want to say, however, is this: the Scottish football authorities simply had to follow precedent and apply it equally to all member clubs.
It was entirely up to the SPL members to decide on whether or not a newco Rangers should be allowed into its ranks. I personally feel the final decision was the right one. After that decision was made, the SPL's responsibility was to identify an alternative club to take Rangers' place (something which, amazingly, didn't seem to feature in their thinking) - not to influence the decisions of other footballing bodies the new club might wish to approach.
As for the SFL, why the lengthy debate and the discussions about Rangers' recent history? Why was its focus solely on the future of the Rangers newco? It's not as if this is a new situation - what normally happens when a vacancy appears (this time created by a member club moving into the SPL) is that indications of interest are invited from non-league clubs. So why, on this occasion, was Rangers the only club under consideration?
Let's take the case of Airdrie. The old club found themselves in a similar predicament to Rangers and dissolved at the end of the 2001-2 season. A newco was formed, with the name of the proposed new club Airdrie United. The SFL were understandably concerned at the prospect of setting a precedent by which heavily indebted clubs could reform and reapply for their own place in the league and instead decided to admit Gretna. Airdrie United, however, bought out struggling Clydebank and with it a place in the second division. The vital point, however, is that the newco had to apply for its place in the SFL and that its application was rejected in favour of another.
When Gretna were relegated from the SPL in 2008, the club was liquidated and accepted into the SFL (on the premise that a new buyer would be found) - but only into the Third Division. Unfortunately for Gretna, being relegated to the bottom tier put off prospective buyers and sponsors and they resigned from the league. The SFL chose to replace them with Annan Athletic from a shortlist including Edinburgh City, Spartans and Cove Rangers.
A similar process occurred in 1994, when Caledonian Thistle and Ross County were elected into the league. Why then, given this apparently tried and tested method of admitting new members, did the SFL not follow its own procedures in this case? Why was there both internal discussion and public debate about which league a newco Rangers should be admitted to? Why were the likes of Alloa Athletic's board compelled to take on board the views of their own fans in their decision making process when historical precedent should have instead done all the talking?
As far as the SFL was concerned, a vacancy had arisen. One high profile new club had expressed an interest. What should have happened is that applications should have been invited and each of them been taken on their respective merits. Admittedly the process is fundamentally flawed in key respects but, until the governance of the game is reformed, it's the only one we have and should be followed for the sake of consistency and fairness. On this occasion the SFL chose against following their own procedures and instead spent inordinate amounts of time debating which division Rangers should start out their new existence. This would surely not have happened if the club in question had been St Mirren, Dunfermline or Inverness Caley Thistle.
What is now likely is a stand-off between the SFL and the SPL, whose attempted interference to influence the outcome of the SFL vote was heavily resented and whose plans for an SPL2 are now in serious jeopardy. The SPL has apparently threatened not to invite either Dundee or Dunfermline to take Rangers' former place in protest at the outcome and thereby may prevent the newco Rangers being admitted into the SFL. How this internal strife will help Scottish football, I can't imagine. What is actually now needed, as Alloa Athletic director Ewen Cameron told
The Sun, is "a unified league of 42 clubs". The game also needs an urgent and overdue injection of integrity. The resignations of Neil Doncaster and Stuart Regan would well be a positive start in that respect, but are about as likely as a Morton victory in the Scottish Cup final.
I can't see the likes of Edinburgh City, Cove Rangers or any other potential applicants for the vacant SFL place able to offer what the newco Rangers clearly do.
In that respect, the outcome is the right one - while the process, the nature of Scottish football's politics and what passes for leadership within the game leave a great deal to be desired.
I hope the SFL's decision is respected and look forward to the Glasgow derby, in which I will naturally be cheering on the Spiders. The main thing is that a newco Rangers have been allowed to survive and move forward. It not only Rangers that I hope will emerge stronger from this, but Scottish football more generally. Admittedly in the short-term there will be economic effects that will be keenly felt, but in the longer-term there lies an opportunity to rebuild the game, its governance and its structures - and to make sure that the financial well-being of member clubs is not inextricably connected to the continued success of two giants.
