Rangers FC On Field Gossip & Rumour Thread 2017 Mod Note in OP(Updated 14/08)

blahfckingblah wrote: »

thats fair enough imo.. other people here just want me and other celts to apologise which i think isn't either deserved or likely

deccurley wrote: »

I wouldnt watch Rangers too often but that Templeton boy looks a player

Eirebear wrote: »

Regan and Doncaster still haven't found it within themselves to release a statement with regards to yesterday's announcement - despite being so outspoken about Rangers guilt over the last year or so.

Eirebear wrote: »

Yes, but not of gaining any form of on field advantage - not of anything worthy of stripping titles.

Findings did not lead to stripping of titles but nor did they cover Rangers in glory

Forgive me if I've got this wrong but, did Lord Nimmo Smith in his independent commission declare an "innocent" rather than "guilty" verdict on Rangers on Thursday?

From some of the reaction – especially that of some Rangers fans and even certain media commentators – you would think that was the case.

This was a very odd experience for me. I locked myself away to study in silence Nimmo Smith's findings; reading of his guilty verdict on Rangers' repeated breaches of Scottish Premier League rules and of his conclusion that only a "substantial financial penalty" could cover the club's wrongdoing.

Having digested all of this I came blinking back into the sunlight to find people declaring it a marvellous day for Rangers, even a "total vindication" of the side-letters policy at Ibrox. On television Charles Green hooted about how the stain had been removed from his club, and even more, about how apologies were now due.

I had to go back and look again at Nimmo Smith's verdict. No, sure enough, he had found Rangers guilty. He deemed the club's undeclared payments to at least 43 players over 11 years – worth something between £40m and £50m – to be a blatant disregard for the house rules of Scottish football. Yet this finding had Rangers fans punching the air in celebration.

The truth is, everyone had become preoccupied with the punishment, not the crime. The theme of "title stripping" – coincidentally something I have always been vehemently against in the context of Rangers – had become in the public mind the be all and end all of this case. So when Nimmo Smith ruled out title stripping and imposed a financial penalty as punishment, this apparently was enough for his actual verdict on Rangers to be viewed as little more than an incidental.

Briefly, let's just go back over these findings, to double-check what was found. Fundamentally, had Rangers flouted football's rules, in terms of undeclared payments to players, or not? Yes, said Nimmo Smith. The non-disclosure had been "a seriously misconceived plan" for which "the directors [of oldco Rangers] must bear a heavy responsibility." He added: "The non-disclosure [of the payments] was deliberate."

Nimmo Smith opted to explore why Rangers had deliberately withheld the fact of the infamous side-letters and stated that the evidence was "clear" that the club had feared its tax-avoiding EBTs scheme might be either hurt or compromised. "The evidence clearly indicates a view among the management of 'oldco' that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being made to have disclosed the existence of these side-letters to the football authorities."

In this regard, Nimmo Smith especially highlighted witness statements by Douglas Odam, who had been the Rangers company secretary until he left in 2003, and who had taken charge of the preparation and signing of player contracts. "It is clear from Mr Odam's evidence," wrote Nimmo Smith, "that Oldco's failure to disclose the side-letters was partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBTs scheme."

Nimmo Smith also presented a picture in his report of various figures associated with Rangers ducking and diving, for want of a better phrase, when it came to providing documents and information which would aid his enquiry. Such prevarication or stalling tactics only served to hold up the whole investigation. This continuing failure to be transparent, wrote Nimmo Smith, was a further "serious breach of the rules".

The commission's findings cast further light on the way this EBTs scheme was operated by Rangers. Steven Davis, for example, was entitled to receive £1.2m via the scheme. Shota Arveladze would receive £990,000. Barry Ferguson, it had been previously stated, received £2.5m in total over a number of years from the scheme. These are pretty hefty sums of money being "paid" (or "loaned") without any tax being due and there are two possible conclusions to be drawn about what this meant for Rangers. Either the club saved itself millions in tax liability, or it was able to offer players a bottom-line salary it might not otherwise have been able to afford.

In this context, some in Scottish football will continue to be baffled by Nimmo Smith's conclusion in regard to no competitive advantage being gained by Rangers. In truth, it is the weakest part of his report and is a subject skirted over in a few cursory paragraphs, though he stated that, all being considered, no football advantage was gained by Rangers.

Or does he? Even here Nimmo Smith actually hedges his bets a little. "We are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage," he wrote. But he also states: "If the breach of the rules by non-disclosure of the side-letters did confer any competitive advantage, then that could only have been an indirect one."

I have to admit, I'm not sure what all this amounts to. Nimmo Smith reached a judgement about Rangers not gaining any advantage but he did so in less than resolute fashion.

Having said that, for different reasons I'm glad he reached the conclusion he did about no titles being stripped from Rangers. First, because this whole saga is so convoluted. Second, because going back and erasing football history seems to me to be a dodgy exercise. And thirdly, because what would be gained by it? Title stripping of a now defunct company (or club?) would have served next to no purpose. The fact is, these titles Rangers won during the EBT years will now be forever bickered over by supporters, especially those of Rangers and Celtic.

The last 48 hours have been pretty bizarre around Rangers. The club's fans have been near-jubilant at this Nimmo Smith verdict. One media figure even said: "So, a good day all round for Rangers, then?"

I guess it depends which way you look at it. Rangers' guilt or innocence was one thing, the apparent vulnerability of five of the club's 54 domestic titles, it now transpires, was something far greater.

PauloMN wrote: »

Rangers cheated and got away with it. It's as simple as that and clear for all to see. I'm surprised anyone ever thought that titles would possibly be stripped.

Brewster wrote: »

I was looking for a personal apology as I suffered personal abuse on the matter. I wouldn't dream of asking Celtic fans to apologise over the issue, why the hell would they. However, I suffered personal abuse because I had the temperity to look at the facts and not get drawn into the hate filled propoganda campaign against Rangers. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial I said, but this was dismissed. I said wait for the outcome to be revealed, however people didnt want to wait. I was dismissed as sort some of fool and comedy act on the Celtic thread for not buying into campaign. I was told "you just don't get it" etc etc. The problem was that some people used this information and wrongly deduced this guy must be a Rangers fan etc etc. I was and still am deeply annoyed about this and I am quite entitled to come back now and ask for an apology. It's human decency from where I come from. If you've wronged someone, you should man up and take responsibilities for your actions....

bobmalooka wrote: »

Lol the cheek of some people to focus on ye being guilty of undisclosed payments, other leagues have expelled clubs for the same thing yet Rangers are vindicated because ye got a slap on the wrists.

Morally bankrupt.

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

Yes we just don't understand how there was no sporting advantage gained. Maybe you can explain for us all?

47 million in illegal EBT's over 11 years and it wasn't a sporting advantage?

One example Stephen Klos got a 2 million EBT, made 200 appearances, was good for maybe 10-15 points a season? He wouldn't of played for Rangers if you never used EBT's.

That is just one player.

So there is your advantage.

2006 you used EBT's for a third of your wages, how can you say there is no sporting advantage? you must be really stupid.

These rules are not designed as any form of financial regulation of football,analgous to the UEFA Financial Fair play Regulations. Thus it is not the purpose of the rules to regulate how one football club may seek to gain financial and sporting advantage over others.
Obviously, a successful club is able to generate more income from gate money sponsorship,advertising, sale of branded gods and so on, and is consequentially able to offer greater financial rewards to its managers and players in the hope of even more success.
Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs-within the law-so as to minimise its tax liabilities.

PauloMN wrote: »

That the best you can do? Pmsl?

To call hiding 49m of payments an "admin error" makes me laugh. Some fcukin admin error that!

By the way Im not saying the verdict would have been any different had it been Celtic cheating, but imo Rangers cheated and got away with it. Bad verdict for Scot football overall.

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

The point is the verdict was given and I suggest you actually read the report the club did not hide the payments they didn't hand over copies of the side letters the money paid was in every yearly set of accounts

Independent Commission wrote:

The evidence clearly indicates a view among the management of 'oldco' that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being made to have disclosed the existence of these side-letters to the football authorities