Longmuir: SFL has not shown 'favouritism' to Rangers

[pete 2,511]

Scottish Football League chief executive David Longmuir has denied showing favouritism to Rangers - insisting he treats Charles Green just like any other club director.

 

The lower-league administrator is battling to get league reconstruction talks back on track after an SFL meeting last week broke up with its 30 members split over the timescale for change.

 

But Longmuir has been accused by some club chairmen of pandering to Rangers after suggesting the Old Firm could enter colt teams in a new set-up - with his critics claiming the ploy was only dreamt up to ensure the fallen Glasgow giants do not remain in the bottom tier of Scottish football.

 

But Longmuir told those who suggest he has been unduly influenced by Light Blues chief executive Green: "You obviously don't know me. I have been doing this job diligently before Rangers even came into the league.

 

"We were presented with a situation last year where we accommodated Rangers willingly and they have been a great addition.

 

"I deal with chairmen of all description throughout the 30 clubs and I can assure you they are a mixed bunch, all trying to take Scottish football forward.

 

"Some have different views on one thing, some have different views on the other. I have got to get everybody as aligned as possible, all on the basis of what is doing right for the game.

 

"We are getting there. There is some real momentum behind this change agenda. We need to iron out a few things but I don't think they will be insurmountable now and I think it will stand the game in good stead."

 

"The Rangers factor is as big as the factor for Annan, Peterhead, Queen's Park, Livingston, Dundee, Forfar - it is affecting the whole game.

 

"We need to get it sorted but we need to do it properly. Rangers have brought great awareness to the SFL. Their fans have gone round the country in great numbers. But I look after all 30 clubs in the SFL equally and have done since 2007, before Rangers came in.

 

"They are a welcome addition to the SFL but so are all the others. I have got to be mindful that my duty is to 30 clubs."

 

Despite being unable to vote as associate members, Rangers have been outspoken on the reconstruction process.

 

Both Green and manager Ally McCoist have called for the Irn-Bru Third Division champions to be promoted to the 12-team middle division, rather than the 18-club basement league which would replace the current bottom two tiers.

 

But Longmuir said: "At the moment, Rangers are champions of Division Three, Queen of the South are champions of Division Two and there is a bit of a battle at the top of the First.

 

"I have got no mind to change anything in that promotion and relegation scenario."

 

During talks with the Scottish Football Association and Scottish Premier League yesterday, the SFL vowed to hold its reconstruction vote by April 19 if 11 of the top-flight clubs back the changes on April 15.

 

Twenty-two of the SFL clubs need to back the proposals, which would see the top two divisions split into three groups of eight after 22 games.

 

Longmuir revealed the lower-league sides would be sent a resolution tomorrow which outlines matters to be decided upon after 14 of his members called for the changes to be put on hold until after next season.

 

Longmuir added: "We had a positive meeting with the SPL clubs and the SFA and we are going to further progress that due diligence process by putting in some independent scrutiny on contracts and figures. We will then go to a vote on April 19 where the clubs will be able to decide where they want to be and how they want to take it forward.

 

"It is important that we do take time. If doing due diligence is cautionary in its approach, well that is only fair.

 

"This is a 123-year-old organisation that has served Scottish football pretty well over that time. As we move into a brand new organisation, we have got to get it right because we want to make it good for the game for the foreseeable future."

 

And Longmuir urged patience from fans who do not like the proposed league structure - an SFA-commissioned survey this week suggested 87 per cent of supporters want to see a larger top division.

 

Longmuir said: "I listen to fans regularly. They contact me daily. I was quite a key proponent of a larger league - I still am.

 

"But it is not deliverable at the moment. The finances aren't there to make it viable. The wealth in the game is not sufficient to take a number of games out of the annual calendar.

 

"So let's look at this as an opportunity to get the foundations right and then we start looking at how we rebuild it and get fans more involved."

[Zappa 0]

And Longmuir urged patience from fans who do not like the proposed league structure - an SFA-commissioned survey this week suggested 87 per cent of supporters want to see a larger top division.

 

Longmuir said: "I listen to fans regularly. They contact me daily. I was quite a key proponent of a larger league - I still am.

 

"But it is not deliverable at the moment. The finances aren't there to make it viable. The wealth in the game is not sufficient to take a number of games out of the annual calendar.

 

An 18 team top division would provide 34 games for every club, so an 18-24 setup is realistically achievable.

 

If cutting a couple of games off the calendar to go with 18 teams was a problem and more games were required, then a 20 team top division and 22 team 2nd tier would be the obvious and sensible solution.

 

When fans say they want larger leagues they're not talking about a 14 team setup with stupid splits. The majority of fans who want a larger top division want 16, 18 or 20 teams in the league. Since a 16 team setup (which is a very popular idea) has been ruled out due to it cutting so many games off the calendar, then the logical progression is to look at 18-24 or 20-22.

 

Since a 20 team top division would provide a 38 game season, there's no good reason not to look at it as a serious option.

[UCF2008 0]

An 18 team top division would provide 34 games for every club, so an 18-24 setup is realistically achievable.

 

If cutting a couple of games off the calendar to go with 18 teams was a problem and more games were required, then a 20 team top division and 22 team 2nd tier would be the obvious and sensible solution.

 

When fans say they want larger leagues they're not talking about a 14 team setup with stupid splits. The majority of fans who want a larger top division want 16, 18 or 20 teams in the league. Since a 16 team setup (which is a very popular idea) has been ruled out due to it cutting so many games off the calendar, then the logical progression is to look at 18-24 or 20-22.

 

Since a 20 team top division would provide a 38 game season, there's no good reason not to look at it as a serious option.

 

If it's good enough for the bottom... If we weren't currently sitting in Div3 OR the proposals were being put forward with a season's notice, I'd expect the size of the bottom league would be the proposal taking the least flak. Even as things stand I've not seen much in the way of objection or ridicule of a bottom 18.

 

Why's it not good enough for the top then? 'Meaningless' games and a requirement for four OF fixtures seem to be the only reasons put forward.

[GovanAllan 0]

An 18 team top division would provide 34 games for every club, so an 18-24 setup is realistically achievable.

 

If cutting a couple of games off the calendar to go with 18 teams was a problem and more games were required, then a 20 team top division and 22 team 2nd tier would be the obvious and sensible solution.

 

When fans say they want larger leagues they're not talking about a 14 team setup with stupid splits. The majority of fans who want a larger top division want 16, 18 or 20 teams in the league. Since a 16 team setup (which is a very popular idea) has been ruled out due to it cutting so many games off the calendar, then the logical progression is to look at 18-24 or 20-22.

 

Since a 20 team top division would provide a 38 game season, there's no good reason not to look at it as a serious option.

 

Much more movement of teams between leagues is a must as well this 1 up 1 down is nonsense, and a larger league would give you the breathing space a mid table team would get without looking over their shoulder all season.