A long-running war between one of the country’s top clubs and one of the game’s governing bodies. A dispute lasting years and taking hundreds of thousands of pounds out of the game. An eventual admission of wrongdoing by the chief executive of that organisation. An apology issued, and substantial financial damages awarded to the aggrieved club.
The sequence of events described here relate to the downfall of Jim Farry in 1999, when the then all-powerful SFA chief executive fell on his sword as it was finally confirmed he had delayed the registration of striker Jorge Cadete three years earlier, meaning that he could not play in a Scottish Cup semi-final that Celtic lost to Rangers.
Each of these points though also apply to the more recent imbroglio of the SPFL’s making, the so-called ‘cinch dispute’ with Rangers, which finally looks to have drawn to an end this week as the SPFL issued an apology to the Ibrox club and agreed to pay them a six-figure sum, which will in turn be given to charity.
The main difference between the timelines of these disputes is that the Cadete row ended with Farry’s head on a spike, while SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster appears ready to hunker down and hold onto his position once more following the latest controversy surrounding his leadership of the league. The don’t call him the ‘Teflon Don’ – now 14 years in position – for nothing.
Significantly though, as part of the settlement, the SPFL have agreed to facilitate an 'Independent Governance Review' into the leadership of the league body. Though, the sub-committee who will appoint that independent auditor will be made up of SPFL non-executive director Karyn McCluskey and SPFL Audit Committee members James MacDonald of Ross County and Chris McKay of Celtic.
By extension, that inquiry though will become a judgment not only on the way that Doncaster has led the organisation, but on his fitness to do so in the future. In many ways, then, this does feel like his ‘Jorge Cadete’ moment.
At the heart of the cinch dispute, just as it was at the heart of the row between Celtic and the SFA 24 years ago, were two stubborn men. On the one side, cast as the Farry figure, is Doncaster, the great administrator who ends up being hoisted by his own petard, misunderstanding and misapplying the rules of his own organisation.
On the other, perhaps equally as undervalued by his own support as Fergus McCann was at the time, is Stewart Robertson. Whatever the legacy of the outgoing Ibrox managing director is to be, if he can strike the blow that brings down Doncaster, it will certainly enrich it with a great majority of football fans across the country, never mind only those of a Rangers persuasion.
It was he more than anyone at Ibrox who would simply not allow the matter to rest, and he will no doubt feel as though his hardline stance and years of fighting the club’s corner on the issue has at last been vindicated.
The comparisons with Farry’s downfall don’t end there. It was reported at the time of the arbitration process finding in favour of Celtic in the Cadete affair that a letter of apology sent by the SFA to the club ‘didn’t best please Farry’. And even now, sorry seems to be the hardest word for Doncaster to say.
Instead, while Doncaster eventually agreed to express his own ‘regret’ for the way he handled the cinch agreement and the damage it caused to the reputation of Rangers and the Park’s Motor Group, it was down to SPFL chairman Murdoch McLennan to actually offer a full-throated apology, rather than one that stuck in it.
Rest assured, had Doncaster any other option open to him other than to admit to any wrongdoing in this case, he would have taken it. That he is forced even to accept culpability and back down to Rangers will be lodged stubbornly in his craw for some time, one suspects.
A former colleague of Farry’s, quoted in the Scotsman in 2009, said this of Farry: "Increasingly, he was running the Association as if it were his personal fiefdom.
"He had a way that made it very difficult for other voices to be heard and meant there was no way of suggesting to him he could have made a mistake. He prided himself on his knowledge of the rule book, and had an impressive grasp of it."
This could pass as an almost verbatim description Herald Sport has heard from present-day sources who have worked alongside Doncaster when assessing how he operates and sees himself. And just like Farry, it seems his opinion on his grasp of the regulations does not quite merit his cocksure positioning throughout this row with Rangers.
Now, he faces judgment by way of the independent governance review. The questions he must answer are multitudinous, but chief among them will be just how and why he forced through an agreement so hurriedly that may well end up costing our clubs over a million quid and change.
Why were clubs given such a short timescale to agree to the resolution? Why were the other clubs not informed that Rangers had raised issues around not being able to provide inventory to cinch? Why did he not discuss this potential issue with cinch, leading to him having to renegotiate the deal? What now for future league-wide sponsorship deals, like that agreed with drinks company, the Loch Lomond Group?
Just as in the Farry case, when Celtic stressed they weren’t suggesting malfeasance on the part of the SFA chief executive, neither are Rangers accusing Doncaster of holding an agenda against their club. But when these questions are finally addressed, the answers are bound to tell a story of incompetence on just as grand a scale as that which spelled the end of Farry’s reign.
Will that be enough to finally bring down the ‘Teflon Don’? Time will tell. But it could certainly be argued that going by precedent, it should be.
