Celtic seek review after HMRC win
Celtic seek review as SPFL mull over ruling
CELTIC have called for a review into whether Rangers gained a competitive advantage during the EBT years after the Supreme Court yesterday ruled in favour of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in the socalled ‘Big Tax Case’. More than £47million was paid in tax-free loans by the Ibrox club to players, managers and directors between 2001 and 2010 through Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs). Yesterday, five judges unanimously dismissed an
appeal by the liquidators of RFC2012 (oldco Rangers) — prompting Celtic to call for a review of the Lord Nimmo Smith commission from 2013 which found Rangers had not gained a sporting advantage.
A Scottish Premier League investigation headed by the law lord found Rangers guilty of not registering players properly and the company was fined.
The judgment was made at a time when the EBT scheme was deemed acceptable and Lord Nimmo Smith resisted calls for the club to be stripped of honours won during the years the scheme was in operation.
However, many supporters of Celtic and other clubs have long insisted that, in the event of HMRC winning yesterday, Rangers should be stripped of the titles they won during that period as they recruited players they would not otherwise have been able to afford.
And last night, the League said it would take stock of the situation before deciding if the commission’s findings four years ago had been materially affected by the Supreme Court ruling.
An SPFL spokesman said: ‘The Board of the SPFL notes today’s judgment of the Supreme Court. We will now take time to examine the judgment in detail and to consider any implications for the SPFL.’
While the prospect of further punitive action by the SPFL cannot be discounted, the Scottish FA will not be re-addressing the situation.
Responding to the Supreme Court ruling, an SFA statement seemed to draw a line under the matter, claiming that citing Rangers for breaches of its rules would simply be too difficult.
‘The Board of the Scottish FA notes the judgment of the Supreme Court and wishes to clarify the implications of this final legal decision from a football regulatory perspective,’ it read.
‘In light of the Inner House of the Court of Session decision, the Board of the Scottish FA sought external senior counsel opinion to ensure a robust and independent consideration of all implications of today’s judgment.
‘The Board received written advice from Senior Counsel, amplified when the QC attended a full meeting of the Board to discuss his conclusions.
‘Specifically, Senior Counsel was asked to anticipate whether a determination in favour of HMRC, as announced today, could imply that there had been a breach of the Scottish FA’s Disciplinary Rules as they applied at the time of the EBT payments.
‘The clear opinion of Senior Counsel is that there is a very limited chance of the Scottish FA succeeding in relation to any complaint regarding this matter and that, even if successful, any sanctions available to a Judicial Panel would also be limited in their scope. ‘Accordingly, having had time to consider the opinion from Senior Counsel, and having examined the judgment of the UK Supreme Court, the Board has determined that no further disciplinary action should be taken by the Scottish FA at this time.’
The SFA’s stance is unlikely to satisfy Celtic, however, and they also released a statement yesterday.
‘We note today’s decision by the Supreme Court,’ it read. ‘Celtic’s position on this issue has been consistent — that this has always been a matter for the courts of law and also the Scottish football authorities, whose rules are intended to uphold sporting integrity.
‘In 2013, we expressed surprise — shared by many observers and supporters of the game — over the findings of the SPL Commission that no competitive or sporting advantage had resulted. Today’s decision only reaffirms that view.
‘We are sure now that the footballing authorities in Scotland will wish to review this matter. Celtic awaits the outcome of their review.’
The court’s decision is not expected to have any material or financial impact on Rangers as the club is owned by a different company.