SEE THE CENTRE PAGES OPEN WARFARE
Celtic accuse SFA of ‘failure of leadership’ as they repeat calls for review
CELTIC last night slated the SFA’s decision to knock back an independent review into the Rangers EBT saga as bombshell correspondence between Peter Lawwell and Stewart Regan was laid bare.
In the most recent letter, sent by Lawwell (inset) to his Hampden counterpart on Thursday, the SFA’s refusal to commission a fresh probe was criticised by Celtic as ‘a failure in transparency, accountability and leadership’.
The Parkhead giants went for broke yesterday in their desire to ‘establish facts and learn lessons’ from the game’s handling of key aspects relating to Rangers’ descent into administration and liquidation in 2012.
The governing body had infuriated Celtic by, on Thursday, writing to every member club to state they would not be involved in any wide-ranging re-examination of events — proposed by the Scottish Professional Football League — as ‘raking over the coals’ was not in the game’s best interests. Lawwell has informed Regan of his club’s intention to continue working with the SPFL on the matter. Celtic contend that information that has come to light since the Craig Whyte trial and the Supreme Court final verdict ruling that EBTs were improper has only heightened the need for a thorough, independent investigation into Scottish football’s response to the crisis. The SFA did declare their objective of probing the Ibrox club being granted a licence to play in Europe in 2011. Celtic want much more to be scrutinised, including the Lord Nimmo Smith investigation which saw Rangers fined £250,000 over non-disclosure of the controversial EBT payments to players, although insiders stress the renewed call for a review is not a direct plot to go for title stripping.
‘Within the context of Scottish football, these have been monumental events and the reluctance to consider them as a whole, on the basis of all available information, in order to clarify the narrative and learn lessons for the future is both surprising and disturbing,’ Lawwell wrote to Regan.
‘As we agree, far more information is available to the Scottish football authorities now than at the time these matters were last considered. I find it difficult to understand why a governing body would ignore that information rather than be anxious to consider it.
‘The board of Celtic remains strongly of the view that a wide-ranging independent review is the best option for Scottish football and will continue this discussion with the SPFL.’
ONCE upon a Scottish football time not so long ago, a perception existed that there was an affiliation between Peter Lawwell and Stewart Regan all too cosy for anyone not subscribing to all causes the Celtic chief executive believed in.
Anyone wishing confirmation that a most special relationship does not exist today can avail themselves of a series of letters — not of the pen pals variety — via a link on Celtic Football Club’s website. With one click, you can be transported to view five items of correspondence arguing for (Lawwell) and against (Regan) an independent review of the events leading to Rangers plunging into liquidation and Scottish football’s handling of aspects of the crisis.
‘Strictly private and confidential’, they are no more. Lawwell takes aim at the SFA chief executive over his refusal to grant what Celtic insist must be a thoroughly transparent examination of a variety of facets of the debacle, not least the way in which Rangers’ use of Employment Benefit Trust payments was dealt with by the football authorities.
In his most recent despatch, on Thursday, he strongly condemns the stance of the Scottish Football Association to reject a review. The release of the letters confirm that Celtic and Lawwell are not going to stop banging at the door.
If it’s ‘closure’ the SFA are after, then Celtic are in no mood to assist. The SFA’s claim that ‘raking over the coals’ would damage the image of the game for years to come has raised hierarchy hackles in the east end of Glasgow.
But if it is further independent investigation the Scottish champions want to prompt, the association are already long since ‘reviewed out’ by years of dealing with myriad issues stemming from the Rangers shambles and lining pockets of legal minds.
They cannot countenance any more, blocking out the belief of the SPFL’s outgoing chairman Ralph Topping, who insisted the SFA must be party to any successful attempt at a review in order that the Scottish game moves on from the bitterness and acrimony of the EBT issue.
The Celtic and SFA camps did agree on one matter — that their mail back and forth be published. The case of these Lawwell Letters began on July 25, six weeks after Craig Whyte was found not guilty of taking over Rangers by fraud and a fortnight following the Supreme Court’s decision to find in favour of HMRC in the case of ex-Rangers chairman David Murray’s use of Employment Benefit Trusts.
By email and post, Regan’s Hampden hierarchy was delivered the following verdict from Parkhead — ‘The events that led to the liquidation of Oldco and ensuing events have festered for over six years, creating distrust and a disconnect between supporters, clubs and the governing bodies,’ wrote Lawwell.
‘Our concern is that this will continue until there is an independent judicial review, the purpose of which would be to provide a transparent explanation of the events that were the subject of the Big Tax Case, the LNS Commission and the Craig Whyte trial, together with the processes followed by the governing bodies.
‘We believe that Scottish football needs closure on these issues and the governing bodies and clubs need to work together to restore trust in the game in Scotland as well as re-establishing faith in the governance of Scottish football.… The focus of the SFA Statement is the possibility of disciplinary charges. In our view this risks missing the point. What is needed is a wider review.’
Nearly a month on, after the letter had been placed before the SFA Board, Regan responded to confirm their standpoint — arrived at following legal advice — on the three issues highlighted by Lawwell. Addressing the Big Tax Case he stated: ‘Senior Counsel expressed the clear opinion that there was a very limited chance of the Scottish FA succeeding in relation to any complaint regarding these matters.’
On the Lord Nimmo Smith issue, he said: ‘LNS found that Oldco had not achieved a sporting advantage by utilising the EBT scheme. The report of evidence given by Sir David Murray at the Craig Whyte trial appears to contradict that finding and it might be appropriate for the SPFL to contact Lord Nimmo Smith to ascertain if he considers the development undermines his findings in any way.’
Later, he admitted: ‘The board agrees that the events of the last six years have led to a lack of trust among many of the stakeholders in the game in Scotland. In any event the Scottish FA Board considers that all salient issues have been addressed.’
Three days later, on August 21, there is a curt response from Celtic in which Lawwell reiterates that advice of Senior Counsel regarding the prospect of securing disciplinary outcome ‘misses the point’ and that a review gives ‘the best chance of closure’. Lawwell states: ‘The fact that disciplinary sanctions may not be secured is, in our view, not a reason for Scottish football to ignore the opportunity to review and possibly learn from the matters in question.’
Regan countered in a letter of last Monday: ‘The reality is that the Big Tax Case signalled closure for many involved in the game. It’s hard to believe that a “wide review”, no matter how wellintentioned and how wide-ranging, could ever bring closure to every Scottish football fan and every stakeholder.’
There is a fundamental disagreement on what represents closure in this toxic affair, with Celtic’s most recent communication leaving Regan in no doubt they find the association’s outlook most troubling.
Lawwell wrote: ‘Within the context of Scottish football, these have been monumental events and the reluctance to consider them, as a whole, on the basis of all the available information, in order to clarify the narrative and learn lessons for the future is
both surprising and disturbing.
‘It seems that the club’s reference to ‘closure’ may have been misunderstood. The purpose of any review is not to satisfy everyone but to establish facts and learn lessons. As we agree, far more information is available to the Scottish football authorities now than at the time these matters were first considered. I find it difficult to understand why a governing body would ignore that information rather than be anxious to consider it.’
Lawwell is now at loggerheads with his counterpart, putting paid to conspiracy theories about Parkhead puppetry at Hampden. Expect to hear the latest response from Regan and the SFA soon.