Neil Doncaster’s Comments On A Regulator For Scottish Football Are Backward, Stupid And Dishonest.

This piece is available as a CelticBlog Special podcast, which can be found at the bottom of the piece.

Yesterday was one of those red-letter days that those of us who care about football reform in Scotland will mark in our diaries and then our memories forevermore. Neil Doncaster gave an interview to the media in which he spoke on several subjects, at least two of which I want to discuss over the course of the day. The one I want to start with is when he blithely, casually, and arrogantly dismissed the need for a Scottish football regulator.

I want to present his comments on the regulator in full before I start looking at them in detail. I think it’s important to present them in full so you can understand the complete context of what I’m about to say. I’m sure you can guess what I’m about to say because I’ve already tipped my hand in the above paragraph when I called them blithe, casual, and arrogant. But actually, that doesn’t do justice to how disingenuous and intellectually dishonest his comments actually are.

The questioner asked him whether or not a regulator for Scottish football is something he thinks is necessary, or something he would lend support to. This was his answer:

“In short, no. I think it’s important to recognise what may be appropriate for one league may be entirely inappropriate for another. I’m definitely not going to tell the EPL or the EFL what’s best for them. I would absolutely urge huge caution when it comes to the concept of any independent football regulator, whatever jurisdiction that may be in. I regard the English FA as the regulator for the game in England, just like the SFA is north of the border. And to impose a fresh level of hugely expensive bureaucracy, effectively an additional regulator when finances are already stretched, seems to me to be a very questionable use of resources. And regulators have not always been in the news for good reasons. But the context in England is very different to in Scotland.”

Let’s start from the back and work our way forward.

He claims the context in England is very different from Scotland. He’s right, and he’s wrong. His answer is, as I said, pretty disingenuous. There are differences between England and Scotland, a lot of them to do with money and a lot of them to do with the number of big clubs and professional clubs. But to use that as an argument for why we don’t need a football regulator up here is nothing but arrant nonsense.

I’ll tell you what the contextual difference is between Scotland and England: it was Scotland where a club deliberately withheld crucial registration documents and was essentially allowed to get away with that, in no small part because the guy who signed those documents was the president of the SFA. It was in Scotland where one of the biggest clubs went into administration and then was liquidated, and part of the reason for that was a series of complete failures in corporate governance, for which Neil Doncaster himself had some responsibility.

He talks about expensive bureaucracy.

To be blunt, I think that argument is weak and unconvincing.

I’ll tell you who would be for an independent football regulator: fans would. Fans want an independent football regulator. Fans don’t trust Neil Doncaster, and they don’t trust the SFA. Celtic fans, in particular, don’t have any reason to trust those people.

But in England, the regulator is paid for directly by the clubs; each club pays a levy. There is no reason why an independent regulator for Scottish football cannot be paid for the same way, and on the egalitarian principle that the clubs with the most money pay the most.

Because you know what? At the end of the day, an independent regulator protects those clubs more than it protects the rest because those clubs are the most likely to run into major controversies and difficulties, and they would be the clubs who went to the independent regulator on the most regular basis.

He considers the English FA to be the regulator of English football. So, it’s a nice statement and it’s a nice sentiment, but it doesn’t matter a damn because as soon as the independent regulator begins its work, the English FA will no longer be the highest regulatory authority in their game.

See, this is Doncaster again playing with words; it’s an oblique suggestion that the regulator will poke its nose into areas where it doesn’t belong and this is, of course, rubbish. The independent regulator will not be there to interfere in the general running of football.

It will not touch the general running of football in any way, shape, or form; that will be left to the English FA as it is right now. Nothing will change there. Rules and regulations and everything else will still be run by the English FA. But the regulator will be responsible for scrutinising every aspect of how it does its job, to make sure it is fair, to make sure it is just, to make sure clubs aren’t overspending, and to make sure fans have basic protections.

He’s urging huge caution on the part of the clubs and fan groups who might support this. Again, it’s a nice sentiment. It’s an attempt to sound sensible and reasoned, but in actual fact, he’s speaking out of barely disguised grubby self-interest.

The SPFL and the SFA do not want to cede authority to anyone for anything. They do not want independent scrutiny of what goes on behind the scenes, and that’s all this is about. This is holding onto power with both hands and not being willing to give up as much as a fraction of it, no matter whose interests it is in and no matter who it best serves.

As to his argument that what is good for one league might not necessarily be good for another, well, that’s quite possibly the only honest thing he says, although it’s an inadvertent honesty. Because that’s Doncaster saying that we do things differently here.

And as far as he is concerned, we will continue to do things differently here.

This is why our fit and proper person test isn’t a test at all, but a bizarre form of self-certification which relies on crooks and charlatans basically admitting that they are crooks and charlatans before they can be admitted to the game.

And if crooks and charlatans decide to lie and don’t want to disclose what their intentions are, well, hell, Scottish football will simply wait until it’s too late to prevent the damage being done before we actually act on it. That’s what he means when he says what’s good for one league might not be good for another. Apparently, he thinks that’s just fine.

Refereeing is another area where we do things a little bit differently. We have our own bizarre little local traditions, like having referees officiate matches involving their favourite clubs. We don’t even ask what those clubs are, far less put an obstacle in the way of that, and that is definitely a unique way of behaving. It’s unique to any association in Europe. And an independent regulator will have its attention drawn to that in two seconds flat.

We don’t have domestic financial sustainability regulations. Doncaster has spoken about this before. He thinks Scottish football is in good nick, but if you look behind the scenes at the books of some of the clubs in our league, a lot of them are being funded by directors’ largesse and loans, and one club in particular has been doing that for more than 10 years. Whose interests are served by failing to put in place one of the most basic protections in football—that clubs can only spend what they earn? Those regulations exist at UEFA, but those regulations also exist at virtually every major national league in Europe, independent of UEFA’s own rules.

As I said above, we are a country which essentially revolves around two clubs.

In Scotland, one of those two clubs is a new club because the club that was there before was allowed to spend its way to the grave.

The shockwaves of that collapse threatened the whole structure of the game here so much so that Doncaster and Regan attempted to shoehorn the new club into the top flight. When that failed, they tried to intimidate Championship clubs into putting the new club there. And when that failed, they talked about civil disorder and other such nonsense—scaremongering, garbage designed to intimidate and bully. One club chairman, Turnbull Hutton, called that corrupt.

An independent regulator would never have permitted that to happen.

An independent regulator would never have permitted the fiasco of EBTs and the Lord Nimmo Smith scandal. An independent regulator might never have allowed Craig Whyte to take over the club in the first place, unless he could prove his financial bona fides.

This is a classic example of the fit and proper person test in Scottish football failing utterly. And that test was still unreformed on the day Dave King, fresh from his 80-plus South African tax convictions, took a seat at Ibrox. And you know what? It’s still unreformed now.

The government website for the independent football regulator in England has three primary objectives listed for what that regulator will do and what its purpose will be, and those three things are as follows:

Club financial soundness – to protect and promote the financial sustainability of individual clubs, ensuring that clubs take sensible financial decisions and consider the long-term when taking risks.

Systemic financial resilience – to protect and promote the financial resilience of English football as a whole, ensuring that systemic risks and structural issues like the distribution of revenue through the pyramid are managed appropriately.

Heritage – to safeguard the traditional features of English football that matter most to the fans and local communities of clubs.

All of that is laudable, and no governing body worth a damn should have any objection to any of that, far less, as Doncaster seems to, find it dangerous. But probably the most laudable of the three objectives is the last one.

What does it mean to safeguard the traditional features that matter most to fans and the local communities of clubs?

Well, let me put it this way: the other half of the statement concerns itself with governance, corporate responsibility, financial planning, and all the rest.

But this part of it talks about football as more than just a game and more than just a business. It talks about clubs as cultural institutions, a central part of the history of their towns, cities, and even their countries.

So let’s look at the “powers” as set out in the Bill, and I’m quoting directly from the site with everything in Italics, with the headings for each section in bold.

Statutory, strengthened owners’ and directors’ tests to make sure a club’s custodians are suitable and protect fans from irresponsible owners.

The tests will consist of 3 key elements: a fitness test (owners and directors), a source of wealth test (owners only), and a requirement for financial plans and resources (owners only). Prospective owners and directors of clubs will have to undertake and pass tests before buying or joining a club. Incumbent owners and directors will not automatically be tested, but the IFR will have powers to test and remove incumbents should they be found to be unsuitable. This allows the IFR to tackle concerns about unsuitable owners and directors responsible for the financial mismanagement of clubs.

Enhanced financial regulation to improve the financial resilience of clubs across the football pyramid, ensuring that clubs take sensible financial decisions and risks are mitigated so they do not jeopardise the club’s future.

The Bill will give the IFR powers to oversee financial plans and step in where it has concerns. Clubs will be required to demonstrate sound basic financial practices; have appropriate financial resources to enable the club to meet cash flows, including in the event of a financial shock; and protect the core assets and value of the club – such as the stadium. This will prevent clubs facing cliff-edge situations. If there is a concerning level of financial risk, either at club or systemic level, the IFR will be able to place bespoke conditions on clubs to mitigate it.

Placing fan engagement requirements on clubs and requiring clubs to comply with heritage protections.

This will require clubs to have a framework in place to regularly meet a representative group of fans to discuss key strategic matters at the club, and other issues of interest to supporters (including club heritage). Most clubs have a strong relationship with their fans, consciously engaging them in decisions about the club’s heritage. However there have been some notable exceptions. Regulated clubs will be required to establish that the majority of their fanbase in England and Wales are in support of any proposed material changes to club crests and home shirt colours, as well as seeking the approval of the FA if they wish to change the club’s name. This will ensure rules introduced by the FA which are already in place for clubs in the top 5 leagues are maintained and adhered to.

Require clubs to seek approval if they propose a sale or relocation of their home ground.

The stadium a club plays in not only has significant value to fans but is often a club’s most valuable asset. The recent administration at Derby County highlighted the issues caused by the decision to sell the club’s stadium to a separate company owned by the club’s owner. Approval of a stadium sale will be determined on the basis of financial considerations, whilst any relocation must also not significantly undermine the heritage of a club.

Prevent English clubs from joining breakaway or unlicensed leagues.

Fans will no longer face the prospect of their clubs signing up to damaging breakaway competitions such as the European Super League, which several Premier League clubs tried to join in 2021. The proposals for the new competition were not meritocratic, did not have the support of the fans, and threatened the heritage and financial stability of English football.

Introduce a backstop power to intervene in the distribution of broadcast revenue where necessary (subject to certain thresholds being met).

All parties accept the current distribution of revenue across the top 5 divisions is not sufficient, contributing to problems of financial unsustainability and having a destabilising effect on English football. The government’s strong preference is for an industry-led solution that works for all of football. However, given the importance of distributions to financial sustainability, the IFR will have targeted powers to intervene if football fails to reach an agreement, subject to certain thresholds being met.

Establish a ‘Football Club Corporate Governance Code’.

Clubs will be required to report on corporate governance, setting out how they are applying the code.

You tell me where in there is something for football to feel threatened by?

You tell me where in there is something that justifies Doncaster and his organizations complete opposition to this idea in any of its forms?

As I said earlier, this is about nothing other than self-interest. His self-interest. Their self-interest. This is Scottish football’s ruling class covering their own backsides for the sake of a handful of people and a handful of clubs, and that’s not good enough.

Based on everything that we know and on some of the stuff that I’ve set out in this article – Hell, based on some stuff that I haven’t even had time to set out in this article or any inclination to go over again and again and again – I can’t think of as an association anywhere in European football more in need of an independent regulator.

Even on something so simple as a minimum away fan ticket guarantee, these people are not up to the job.

They can’t even find a way to do get that through the clubs, and they don’t want to make it an issue for the executive, which they could easily do. They’ve taken from the clubs decision making powers much more important stuff than that.

Yes, an independent regulator will take over elements of governance and it will, to an extent, strip these people of some of their powers. But what exactly do they do with those powers at the moment anyway?

We have governing bodies which don’t want to govern. We have gutless yellow bellies running Scottish football. These people don’t want to take decisions. These people don’t want to get their hands dirty. These people don’t want to assume controversial positions or go against powerful interests,

So why not let someone else do that? Why not give those responsibilities to people who will take them seriously and actually assume them?

This isn’t just narrow mindedness; this is utter selfishness.

Small men with no vision and no guts, and even less imagination, hanging on with their fingernails to what they can keep whilst football in Scotland rots.

Well, that’s not tenable.

And this fight isn’t over just because Neil Doncaster doesn’t agree that we need this.

He shows himself up in that interview, and this game is clearly not going to get any better whilst this pipsqueak, this poser, this pitiful little pygmy has power in it.