LES GRAY, co-chair of the SPFL reconstruction group, is confident clubs will have a “preferred option” to consider before the end of the week.
The 15-club panel held two remote meetings this week to explore the possibility of changing the existing league set-up in time for next season.
That could mean either a switch to three divisions of 14 clubs or expanding the SPFL to 44 teams by including the Highland and Lowland League champions and moving to a 14-10-10-10 arrangement.
Gray, who also sits on the SPFL board, insists any talks over reconstruction aren’t being driven by a need to find a “solution which fixes things for (bottom teams) Hearts, Partick Thistle and Stranraer” but by the unique situation that has arisen as a result of the Covid-19 virus.
And the Hamilton Accies vice-chairman hopes the picture will crystallize in the coming days.
"We hope to have a paper going back to the reconstruction group next week with a view of meeting again towards the end of the week,” he said.
“That paper will hopefully give them as a group what we as a board of the SPFL think are the pros and cons of all the methods that have come up for debate.
“I'd hope to have a preferred option [by end of next week] and then it's into the nitty-gritty.
“What we haven't discussed in the group is the distribution model and we haven't gone into depth about the temporary or permanent restructuring of it. That's the next stage in the debate.
“There are two methods that appear to be gathering support and momentum, but there are two or three other suggestions still on the table that we have to get to the bottom of as well.”
Gray also insisted the first two meetings had been cordial despite each club coming to the table with disparate requirements.
“We have had two good meetings. The meeting we had on Friday lasted about two hours and there was a lot of views expressed and everybody got a chance to speak.
“From the first meeting on Monday to the second meeting on Friday they had all submitted a paper to Ann (Budge, co-chair) and I for consideration that laid out what they felt was the way forward and also, after speaking to colleagues in their leagues, what they thought would work and might get the necessary support.
“There have been views exchanged in an open, professional manner. There isn't the toxicity that has been claimed. The clubs are all trying to do the right thing. Whether they can get to an agreement or not, I don't know at this stage.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel