Clyde angry at rejection of three-league structure being viewed as failure

The SPFL announced last week that the Task Force established to look at reorganisation of the leagues had finished its discussions without any agreement.

A three league structure of either 14-14-14 or 14-14-16 is understood to have been among the options on the table.

But in a statement on the club website Clyde reiterated their view that such a ‘solution’ would have been grossly unfair on them, Peterhead, Forfar and Stranraer who would all have been demoted to the bottom tier - and criticised the self-interest shown by some clubs.

The statement said: “We remain resolute in our belief that no club should be worse off due to the effects of Covid-19, whether that is through relegation caused by the early termination of the leagues or through the outcomes of any reconstruction talks.

“We have noted with interest various statements and comments over the weekend, following the unsuccessful end of talks of the Reconstruction Group. We have been disappointed by some of the comments made which appear to be wholly contradictory and, ironically, promoting a self-interest that those clubs now claim to be a victim of.

“We feel it’s important to note that we received no formal communication from the group at any time. However, we understand that the proposal discussed with Premier League representatives on Friday contained a three-league structure, either with 14-14-14 clubs or 14-14-16 clubs.”

The statement continued: ”This proposal, if carried, would have significantly disadvantaged Clyde and other clubs, with effective relegation to the bottom tier and the financial and sporting impact arising therefrom.

“Therefore, we are surprised, to say the least, to see the rejection of this proposal being regarded as a failure to stand together and protect each club in solidarity, when the reality of the situation is the complete opposite for Clyde and others.

“We accepted that by voting for the Resolution to end the 2019-20 season it would lead to reconstruction talks. We were willing to accept and participate in this process, but only on the basis that no club, however large or small, should be disproportionately disadvantaged because of this crisis situation. This was the stated aim of the Reconstruction Group on the day of its formation.

“Regrettably, it seems that some clubs, while stating the above as a common aim, have not taken all clubs into account, and continue to ignore the unfair penalty that would have been imposed on certain clubs by the proposal.”