We all wondered why the “rangers ” suddenly developed a dose of altruism when they claimed to be sticking up for the little clubs in the league, and consequently turned their venom on those in charge at the SPFL.

We all know there is more than enough evidence out there to bring about real change in Scottish football by removing those who have allowed it to become the laughing stock of Europe, despite having a higher proportion of the population than anywhere else attend matches.

If the media, or any of the clubs for that matter, really wanted to change those who run our game, they have plenty of ammunition to fire, not so much a smoking gun as a machine gun with a full belt attached.

So why didn’t it happen ?

We could argue that the majority of clubs were too concerned about their own well being during the current crisis, and that, of course, is their right.

We could argue therefore that there was no real desire for change, although the witch hunt in the media and the wailing and whining from Ibrox would suggest otherwise, and only the next few weeks will see if everything settles down again and we can look forward to next season with at least optimism that there will be a next season, with all of the clubs involved.

League reconstruction has bitten the dust, largely because Sky TV want four games between Celtic and “rangers “, and herein we may see the beginnings of what was a massive smokescreen start to lift.

We all know that “rangers ” are in a bit of difficulty when it comes to balancing the books, and this Covid crisis has made things considerably worse for them, in that they have no money coming in, and little prospect of selling season books unless they can convince an already fleeced support that they should part with their money again, this time with absolutely no guarantee that there will be any football, never mind any football that they can actually attend.

That explains the creation of the siege mentality, which gave the impression, or rather added to the myth, that “rangers ” are badly treated by the other clubs, the SFA/SPFL and the media.

That certainly seemed to work, as we have seen, with some journalists even putting, and losing, their credibility on the line.

But for what ?

Why would they throw their weight behind a campaign that was never going to get off the ground, and why would they risk libel action from individuals at the SPFL who have had their professional credentials seriously defamed ?

None of it makes any sense, unless there was something behind it.

Look at the case of Scot Gardiner of Inverness.

He was prepared to cost his own club around £175,000 by advocating that the season should be declared null and void and all monies due shared eqally between the competing clubs.

There has to be a reason for that, and one can only wonder if he has been offered a position at another club or company for leading the line on this front.

There must be a reason for all of the fuss, and it certainly isn’t the reason we’ve been led to believe it is.

So, what are they up to at Ibrox, and in the corridors of power at Hampden ?

League reconstruction is not going to happen now.

That means Hearts will be relegated, and Ann Budge will probably take some sort of legal action, although it’s difficult to see on what grounds.

It means that Sky will get their four “Old firm ” games, and they probably now won’t push for any refunds from the SPFL for the early end to the season, and the quota not being fulfilled this time around.

However, they will want something in return. Which is the four games mentioned, but if one of thise clubs/companies was about to go under then the whole lot is thrown into turmoil, and maybe thats a clue as to whats really going on.

Could those in charge be looking at a little moral flexibility and be actively trying to save the “rangers “, for the good of the game ?

They may feel they need to.

But that kind of intervention would provoke a furious backlash from supporters of all clubs.

But what if there were funds available elsewhere, and what if a little moral flexibility was applied in order to attain them ?

Something like this, for instance ?

Would a crisis hit football club-or company- be eligible ?

Let’s look at the criteria….

Eligibility

You can apply for a loan if your business:

• is based in the UK

Staunchly so, and there are flags to prove it

• has an annual turnover of up to £45 million

Absolutely, and there are accounts to prove it, available as soon as they’ve finished them

You need to show that your business:

• would be viable were it not for the pandemic

It will be once they’ve finished doing the accounts

• has been adversely impacted by the coronavirus

The entire industry has been shut down…all over Europe.  

If you want to borrow £30,000 or more, you also need to confirm that your business wasn’t classed as a business in difficulty on 31 December 2019.

This is the tricky bit, but if the SFA/SPFL can show they’ve checked the accounts , as part of say a larger application from other clubs, then everything would go through on the nod, a bit like it did when they applied for a European licence they shouldn’t have had. 

Does that explain why no one has seen their interim accounts yet, as that would clearly show that they werent eligible ?  

Does it also explain the nonsensical smokescreen we have just seen m from all involved ?

We have all seen exactly how far they were prepared to go in 2011-12, and there is no reason not to suspect they would do it all again 

there is more information on the loan….

That would be no problem, as they would simply be borrowing against players, sponsors tv money, season books, and all of it would be government guaranteed.

Well, eighty per cent of it or so.

And they may well still have friends in the banking circle that would put the stamo of approval on any application, especially if it was part of an SPFL/SFA approved “across the board submission.

That, in effect, means they are drawing on the very taxpayer that they stiffed in a previous incarnation.