Can this really happen?
Yes. Where there is political will driven by economics, almost anything can happen in football. Remember the Premiership's creation? That happened when the larger clubs sought more of the television cake. It can happen again, and in this case there appears to have been a change of attitude by chairmen in England over the past 12 months. Salary and transfer-fee levels are frightening everyone. Rangers and Celtic appeal because they can help maintain the amount of money the Premiership can charge television and because of gate receipts. There are obvious legal questions; the clubs in the Premiership have to give notice if they intend to withdraw from the league, and it is thought to be the same for clubs in Scotland.
Would it require a breakaway by the Premiership?
Perhaps. One of the ideas being mooted is for a Premiership split into two divisions, possibly of 16 teams each.
How would they decide on the final 32?
There would probably be three criteria - finishing position, stadium capacity, financial guarantees. This idea might appeal to clubs such as Coventry and Bradford, those who have invested in their stadiums. To be in an elite club of 32 is better than being outside an elite of 20. That's the theory.
Does television have a role?
Definitely. The Premiership has just embarked on a three-year deal with Sky and ITV. While Premiership football retains its popularity there is no demand for change, but were advertising revenue to drop off, for example, or were it to become apparent that saturation level had been reached, the television executives might feel it was time to rebrand the product.
But there must be obstacles?
For a start this could not happen before 2004. That's when the new Premiership television deal ends. Clubs will have projected revenue and expenditure budgets based on this income. It is most unlikely they would want to disturb those plans. There are also the legal implications of an earlier move, as mentioned above.
What would happen to the rest of Scotland's clubs?
That is uncertain. No doubt there would be parachute payments to cover the first few seasons without the Old Firm - that's if they do not field an XI in a Scottish league - but this will be a decision based primarily on economics and, it will be said by those at the top, if some clubs go out of business then they were unsustainable. There will be no room for romance. Surely any new development would need the sanction of both national associations?
Yes and no. As Dermot Desmond said, it is up to the shareholders of Celtic to decide if and when the club should move - provided Celtic have somewhere to go to. Clubs do have a commitment to their respective leagues but there is a timescale to that.
What about UEFA? Surely it would want to protect the national associations?
Again, yes and no. UEFA would prefer to see leagues remain based on national boundaries as far as possible, although that stance may be eroded by pressure from the powerful G14 group of clubs. Brian Quinn, the Celtic chairman, used the word "rejig" in relation to how UEFA might be prepared to accommodate change. UEFA would also have to accept that Scotland and England come under British jurisdiction at government level and in this respect the move would not be the same as, say, Belgian clubs wanting to play in Germany.
What would the police say? Would they want hordes of fans making cross-border raids every week?
Almost certainly not, and this could be a more prickly problem than it seems at first. The Association of Chief Police Officers refused to comment yesterday but is understood to be not entirely comfortable with the concept. The Home Office is believed to think along similar lines.
