Ann Budge gives Hearts SPFL resolution update

Hearts owner
Ann Budge has given an update on the club’s stance with the SPFL’s resolution
which member clubs voted on last Friday. She gave the following statement to
the club’s official website on Sunday afternoon:

“On Wednesday, 8th April, following a series of briefings and receipt of
the SPFL’s Written Resolution of that date, I issued a statement which clearly
indicated that Heart of Midlothian would be voting against the Resolution. Both
in my statement and in subsequent media interviews, I outlined our reasons for
voting in this manner. I can confirm that we lodged our “No” vote on Friday
10th April 2020.

Following what has been a hugely turbulent few
days, please find below an updated statement of our position.

To remind you, our objections to the
Resolution were in large part condemnatory of the process being followed.

 1.     I argued that
the possible implications involved in the decision were of such magnitude that
all 42 Clubs needed time to discuss, debate and ensure a full understanding of
all of the relevant factors and options.  I also argued that to ask Clubs
to vote on one option only, within little more than 48 hours, was totally
unreasonable.

 2.     The Legal
briefing notes which accompanied the Written Resolution makes it very clear
that given these unique circumstances, it falls to the SPFL members to decide
the fairest basis on which to determine final league standings along with the
associated implications, for Season 2019/20.

These briefing notes outline 6 (of various)
options, the advantages and disadvantages of which the Board has apparently
considered. The brief summary of the first 5 of these options focus on why the
Board considers these options to be unsuitable.  While I have no issue
with their views being expressed, I do not consider the arguments for or
against these options to have been objectively expressed. 

In the 6th option, the single one that members
are being asked to vote on, the reasons for (not against) this being the best
solution are more fully stated.  The very language used is
different.  Instead of talking in terms of something being arbitrary or
unfair or damaging, as is done when discussing other options, the language
changes to talk of how this is the fairest method of determining the final
League positions.  Clearly, this is a subjective judgement. It suggests
that the Board has made a decision and simply wish now to convince the members
to accept that decision.  This is not, in my view, how you honour the principle
that it is up to the members to decide how to ensure the fairest approach is
taken.

The Board has clearly discussed and considered
various options. This is exactly what we would expect of the Board. However, to
then dismiss all but one option and present only this option for a members
vote, within a very limited timescale, must surely raise the question of
whether the Board is attempting to unduly influence the members decision making
process.

3.     In my earlier
statement, I also indicated that I did not accept the position being argued by
the SPFL that the only way to make much needed funds available to members was
to pass this Resolution. It is difficult not to argue that linking the vote in
this way to releasing funds, was an attempt to unduly influence the outcome of
the vote.

A number of Clubs were angered by this
approach, and as has been well publicised, Rangers promptly pulled together a
Resolution, which if passed, could have seen funds able to be released to Clubs
immediately.  This would have removed any suggestion that a Club’s
financial situation could be a possible influencer in the vote.

The fact that such an important matter was not
properly addressed by the SPFL, in advance of the vote, is hugely
disappointing. 

Rangers submitted their paperwork to the SPFL
on Thursday 9th April and were advised that the Resolution required the support
of 2 further clubs, before it could be considered. We had already publicly
stated that we supported Rangers in this matter and duly, at 3.47pm, submitted
an identical Resolution to the SPFL, receipt of which was promptly acknowledged
at 3.50pm. We did not receive any subsequent correspondence on this matter
until 11.57am on Friday 10th April, when we received an email from the SPFL
notifying us that the Resolution was not competent. Our in-house lawyer
contacted the SPFL to understand in what manner the Resolution was not
competent, to be informed that the issue was the use of the single word
“instructed” as opposed to “requested” (That the Board of the Company be
authorised and instructed as follows:). I am not a lawyer but find it quite
incomprehensible that this should hold up the whole process. 

My observations are that if the SPFL genuinely
wanted to work with member clubs to find a solution to the matter of releasing
funds they could and should have reverted both more timeously and more
helpfully. I have also been advised, from various reliable sources, that on a
video call with the Championship clubs at approximately 4.30pm on Thursday, it
was stated that the Rangers’ Resolution was incompetent.  I would stress
that I was not personally on that call. However, assuming, as I do, that this
remark was made, I have to wonder why we were not so advised until lunchtime
the following day. Once again, I strongly question the process.

 4.     The final
point from my last statement, on which I wish to update you, is the question of
whether League reconstruction is being, or should be, considered in time for
2020/21.  It was confirmed over the past few days that if the Resolution
was approved, the Board would be prepared to consult with Clubs on League
reconstruction.  It was also intimated that they thought the chance of
reaching agreement was very slim.

Given that the Resolution is not yet approved
and given that time is marching on, I can confirm that Hearts, either alone or
in conjunction with other Clubs, will be proposing a Temporary Adjustment to
the Leagues, aimed at bringing matters to a close in a manner that ensures no
Club is financially penalised as a consequence of these exceptional
circumstances.   

I would add that the financial consequences
for Hearts of the current Written Resolution being accepted and thereby, almost
certainly facing relegation, would be in the order of £2.5m – £3.0m of lost
income next year.  This would be on top of the financial burdens we will
all face as a consequence of what is going on in the world today.  For
other relegated clubs, the financial penalties, while perhaps on a different
scale, would be equally devastating to their operations. For this reason, if
for no other, we will not give up on seeking an alternative Resolution that
sees greater fairness for all.

In summary, the past few days have been quite
extraordinary.  Over this period, I have been speaking regularly and extensively
to other Chairmen and Chief Executives both in the Premier League and the
Championship and I was convinced that the SPFL Written Resolution would fail on
Friday.  I knew that some Clubs had moved their position in the run-up to
the vote, as indeed is always their right.  I knew that the Premiership
clubs would vote ‘yes’.  However, I was absolutely confident that 3
Championship Clubs were united in voting ‘no’, thereby buying Clubs more time
to consider other options.  I have no more insight than anyone else as to
why Dundee’s vote has not yet been confirmed.

I saw also the Rangers statement of yesterday
and the SPFL’s response.  Once again, I have no further insight into the
claims being made by Rangers.  However, this is a major embarrassment for
Scottish football, one which I believe could so easily have been avoided. 
Without openness, transparency and pragmatism we will simply keep making the
same mistakes. 

I refuse to speculate and can only assure you
that we will continue to explore, in every way possible, any and all options
that will offer a more equitable outcome than has to-date been proposed to the
very real problems that face us all.”