SFA vice-president Mike Mulraney has described the bitter row between Rangers and the SPFL as “four baldy guys fighting over a comb” – and insisted safeguarding the future of Scottish football amid the worldwide coronavirus crisis is of far greater importance.

The Ibrox outfit, who are pushing for an independent investigation into the resolution on the end of the season, are set to share their “dossier of evidence” with the other 41 SPFL clubs this week.

They insist they have proof of “bullying and coercion” in the build-up to the controversial vote and hope to convince enough of their counterparts to back their demand for an external inquiry at an extraordinary general meeting next week.

Mulraney admitted that “robust lobbying” took place on “both sides of the debate” before the SPFL board were given a mandate to end the Ladbrokes Championship, League One and League Two and the Premiership at a later date.

However, the chairman of second tier Alloa Athletic believes that dealing with the repercussions of the Covid-19 outbreak and securing the long-term future of the Scottish game is a far greater concern at the moment.

Speaking on Sportsound on BBC Radio Scotland yesterday afternoon, he said: “I understand that people are exercised by the happenings of what goes on. It is an imperfect world and when people are trying to react at pace there are frustrations on all sides, there are harsh words spoken on all sides.

“But in the context of what our game is facing it’s white noise. I am paying attention to it because of course it’s important in the context of that event. But in the context of what Scottish football is facing it’s kind of white noise.

“It’s like me and another four baldy guys fighting over a comb. It’s not really going to impact on the long-term future of Scottish football.

“I believe the SFA and everyone has a responsibility to make sure when my wee boy, who is six-years-old, is 16 he has a game he can meaningfully take part in.

“So, yeah, I understand how important it feels to those who are at the centre of it, but in the grand scheme of what Scottish football is facing, society is facing, it is not important.”

Mulraney admitted he will look over the material that Rangers intend to present to SPFL member clubs this week before deciding to vote in favour of or against an independent investigation into the vote at the general meeting a week tomorrow.

However, he stressed he had seen no evidence of improper conduct by chief executive Neil Doncaster and legal adviser Rod McKenzie, who Rangers have demanded are suspended, or board members.

Asked if lobbying had taken place in the build up to the vote, Mulraney said: “There are 41 other clubs. Absolutely. Of course. As (Hamilton vice-chairman and SPFL board member) Les Gray said a couple of weeks ago, he was one of the guys doing the lobbying. Everybody lobbies.

“There were some robust discussions took place on all sides of the argument. Do I feel I was bullied? I am a bit big and long in the tooth to feel bullied by anybody. Did I see anybody else being bullied? No. Did I see some robust discussions on both sides of the debate? Absolutely. So there should be in such a big decision.

“If people were getting upset by it that’s understandable. Did I see anything coming from the SPFL executive? Nothing. But it doesn’t mean to say it didn’t happen. I can only tell you what I saw.

“Any club who are upset as Rangers are have an entitlement to express their frustration and their anger. That is what being a members’ organisation is all about. We have got to listen to each other.

“I don’t know what it is they feel the SPFL executive have done wrong. I will pay the attention to the release of information and make a decision.”

Mulraney continued: “We need to get the current wound in Scottish football cauterised. When you have an open wound within a small pool of members it is unhelpful to resolving the huge problem we have. However, until you can get that dealt with you can’t move on. That will be part of what we have to deal with in the next week, month.

“Is it important to those who feel distressed by the decision and the circumstances of that decision? Yes it is. Should we respect those people’s rights to be upset? We should respect everyone’s right to be upset.”

Mulraney, a former SPFL board member, admitted aspects of the vote on the resolution had been badly dealt with, but stated that working to ensure every senior club survives the pandemic and football shutdown is of greater significance.

“The SPFL themselves have said they wished they had handled one or two things differently,” he said. “Everyone does after something like that. The overwhelming majority of members voted in a fashion that got an answer.

“To be honest, from my point of view, whether they called it then or called it two weeks later, inevitably it was going to be called. That was an almost inevitable happening. Nobody is going to go through this period of time without looking back and going ‘I wish I’d done something differently’. And that’s everybody.

“I don’t think anybody on either side of this current argument is trying to do a bad thing, they are doing it because they are frustrated or they are pressured in to trying to make the correct decision. And all decisions have two sides. You will always have people who will have different views on every decision in football.

“Have any catastrophic mistakes been made? Not to my knowledge. We will see what unfolds in the next week.

“In the context of the tragedy facing our country and football. It is a tsunami coming our way. In that context, it is a bit white noise. I am more concerned with making sure there is 42 senior football clubs when we come through.”