Douglas Park on the offensive as Rangers’ rift with the SPFL board deepens

Rangers chairman Douglas Park and SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster

Douglas Park last night went back on the offensive as he pledged Rangers would foot the bill for an independent investigation into SPFL’s governance of the game.

In what was his first major interview since taking over as chairman, he said the Ibrox club were ready to take their fight far beyond Tuesday’s EGM.

Reporting substantial backing from the members for their vote on an inquiry, he insisted there was still time for the League to recognise their failings and accept the need for an investigation.

And, in what was an expansive Q&A, he rebuked SPFL claims he had made a threat to League chief Neil Doncaster.

It’s been a tumultuous few weeks in Scottish football. After everything that’s happened, what are your overriding thoughts and emotions?

I have to say I am currently feeling a range of emotions – pride, sadness, frustration.

Pride at being the chairman of Rangers Football Club.

Sadness because I’ve been around Scottish football as a fan, sponsor, shareholder and investor for over 50 years, and it’s really disappointing to see what’s being allowed to happen to the game in Scotland.

Lastly, frustration because I unequivocally feel what we are doing is right and important for the health of the game and all the clubs in Scotland.

On Friday, you were accused by the SPFL of making a very serious allegation and threat to act in a particular way towards Neil Doncaster that was defamatory. Do you stand by this allegation and, if so, why was the substance of it not contained in Rangers’ dossier?

I started my own business in 1971, and it’s the first time I can recall having been accused of making a threat. It’s offensive, crass and downright wrong.

Anyone who knows me will know it’s a fabrication. I have made no secret of the fact that I tried to raise some serious concerns with Neil Doncaster and was given short shrift.

Following that, it’s well documented there were repeated demands for us to withdraw our concerns by Rod McKenzie. I find that odd.

Subsequently, both Murdoch McLennan and Neil Doncaster have publicly stated anyone with concerns should raise them with Mr McLennan.

Why didn’t Neil Doncaster suggest that when I called him? Why did Neil Doncaster follow a completely different route to the one he has publicly suggested was the appropriate one?

Our report prepared for the other clubs provides clarity on a number of issues that should be a concern for all stakeholders.

I also find it extremely odd that Murdoch McLennan wrote to me the next day, regarding my statement on the Rangers website, and raised the fact I had made allegations in that and then referenced the call to Neil Doncaster.

It’s clear from his letter that his response is in relation to Rangers releasing a statement, rather than my attempts to raise concerns with Neil Doncaster. He certainly didn’t mention a threat.

It’s rather strange and perhaps convenient that it gets thrown in to the mix weeks later. It’s categorically untrue.

I also replied to the SPFL chairman and referenced the previous complaint the club had made about comments attributed to him by Private Eye magazine.

I asked for clarity on whether he made those comments or not. No assurances were forthcoming, which I find odd, given the allegation has dogged him since he arrived at the SPFL.

If the comments were made, it would certainly give cause for concern about his ability to treat any complaint we took to him.

Perhaps this is a question he could answer the next time he sits down with himself for a Q&A.

In the club’s initial statement of April 11, Rangers say that Doncaster refused to discuss the issue of evidence with you. How did he do this and did it heighten Rangers suspicions that there could be foul play on behalf of the chief executive and his legal team?

He simply said he couldn’t discuss it.

Whilst I’ve been in business for over 50 years – 48 running my own company – I am used to a culture where if you raise serious concerns with a figure in a position of authority, they tend to take it seriously, they want to hear you out and they want to get to the bottom of it.

It’s as if, throughout all of this, they just wanted it to go away.

It’s been reported that when senior officials of other clubs raised concerns about the conduct and behaviour of others, including a director of the SPFL, that Neil Doncaster responded by asking if the individuals who made the comments were acting in a club or SPFL capacity at the time.

If true, that stuns me.

When a director of the SPFL makes comments relating to how funds from the SPFL will be shared, his position as a SPFL director is the very reason why these comments become a threat.

Surely the chief executive of a company where one of its directors is making such threats would want to investigate.

Indeed, he’s obliged to investigate appropriately. However, this disinterest does resonate entirely with the lack of interest my complaint seemed to generate.

Of course, their main interest was in trying to ensure I didn’t repeat any of these concerns I raised.

Again, there was no suggestion of referring the issue to the chairman which, based on subsequent comment, Mr Doncaster now believes is the appropriate process.

The SPFL directors’ letter to member clubs suggested your claim regarding the non-disclosure of potential £10m liabilities is based on a complete misunderstanding on your part. How do you respond?

There is no misunderstanding on our part, and we have received the opinion of legal counsel which confirms our understanding is correct.

The SPFL directors are being extremely patronising to the 42 member clubs if they think they are incapable of reading and understanding the documents provided by us, in particular Appendix 1, which includes the SPFL board paper, and Appendix 3, which includes the briefing note to members.

The central point which the SPFL directors are deliberately avoiding is that the briefing paper to clubs specifically referred to “significant commercial risks” and refund claims from broadcasters in the section relating to “voiding the season”.

However, no mention of these risks and refunds in relation to the SPFL proposal was contained in the briefing paper.

The argument made in the SPFL director’s letter – that no decision had yet been taken to bring an end to the competition – applies equally to “voiding the season” and calling the season on a “points -per-game basis”.

Yet they mentioned the liabilities as arising only in relation to the option they were rejecting and omitted it completely in the option they were proposing. This is serious misrepresentation.

The SPFL has said your managing director, Stewart Robertson has failed to meet his duties, in this regard through “gross breaches of confidentiality”. How do you respond to this accusation and slight on Stewart’s character?

I find this one really intriguing and insulting.

Stewart made his concerns known at the SPFL board level, repeatedly and this will have been minuted.

We as a club followed a legitimate process of attempting to open dialogue with the chief executive.

Stewart has a duty to the shareholders, i.e. the 42 member clubs, which he felt was compromised by the SPFL executives’ failure to deal with his concerns. Indeed, I think Neil Doncaster suggested in an interview we should make our evidence public.

We had no intention of making it public as we recognised it was an issue for the member clubs.

It took just 90 minutes for the SPFL to jettison that confidentiality and make matters public.

Stewart has been first-class throughout this. He’s made significant personal sacrifice and taken a lot of flak for doing what he, and many others, believe is simply the right thing to do.