Wednesday 2 June 2004


We libertarians believe that private organisations should be free to set their own rules so long as they don't involve the initiation of force or fraud. That doesn't mean that we necessarily agree with those rules.

Yesterday's decision by the Scottish Premier League seems to me to be quite wrong:

SUPPORTERS and politicians in the Highlands united last night in condemnation of the Scottish Premier League’s decision to block Inverness Caledonian Thistle’s promotion to its ranks.

The Division 1 champions do not meet the SPL stadium criteria but had agreed a ground-share deal with Aberdeen to allow them to take their place in the top flight.

The SPL insists that member clubs have stadia that can seat at least 10,000 people. Inverness doesn't meet that stipulation but has agreed a deal with Aberdeen allowing the use of their ground for home matches. The SPL has vetoed that deal. Actually, I think that it was a nonsense to expect Inverness fans to travel 100 miles or so to Aberdeen to watch their team's "home" games, but that's been ruled out now. Inverness normally attracts only two or three thousand spectators, although more could have been expected were they to play in the Premier League. The SPL should welcome Inverness into their ranks - they have earned that right fair-and-square. If the Inverness ground were to be filled to capacity (2,280 sitting plus 4,000 standing) every two weeks that would provide the sort of atmosphere that is sadly lacking nowadays anywhere outside Ibrox or Parkhead.

1 comment:

David Farrer said...

Comments made on previous template:

David Farrer (
Roland is referring to the win against Celtic that attracted the greatest news headline of all time: 
"Super Caley go ballistic, Celtic are atrocious".

3 June 2004, 11:52:27 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate

Roland Watson (
I am a bit ambivalent here. Emotionally I side with Inverness Caley (especially after famous victories over Celtic ) but being a private organisation, the SPL are allowed to set the rules of admission. 
The point however is that the SPL agreed that Caley had fulfilled the rules but then stupidly put it to a vote fraught with points scoring and personal agendas. Partick Thistle obviousl would vote "no" whilst Aberdeen would vote "yes". Some feel that Celtic voted no to spite Caley and would have less distance to travel to Partick than Caley! 
If they fulfilled the rules, there shold not have been the need for a vote.

3 June 2004, 10:48:33 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate

Steve Shackleton (
I wish Inverness well, but do not hold out much hope for the future. 
The same happened with our local rugby team, under Phil Larder Keighley overextended themselves cash wise but qualified for the superleague (twice I think). Their promotion was blocked on the same grounds and left the club with a professional side and structure and no chance to play the bigger clubs and generate income. 
To make matters worse Bradford council refused to help (I know they shouldn't ) but then gave Bradford £3m. 
We are now a struggling side and have been since.

3 June 2004, 10:08:05 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate

Neil (
Having written in this rather silly rule about 10,000 seat stadia they have left themselves open to a massive suit by Partick Thistle if don't adhere to it.  
The problem is not whether organisations should be free to set their rules but whether they should be free to interpret them. To do so would clearly be inequitable on the other hand to allow lawyers to do so gets silly. 
The best thing I can think of is to hang the lawyers & hand lawmaking over to computer programmers but I am not entirely happy with that either.

2 June 2004, 21:57:58 GMT+01:00