THIS blog has never deviated from the view that the matter of the decline and fall of Oldco Rangers will run and run. There are sons and daughters of prominent Scottish lawyers who ought some day, when they grow-up, in gratitude, to become share-holders in whatever form "Rangers" then take - for forward tho a canna see, I guess and fear - I have no doubt that, like the poor and (ironically) taxes, Rangers will always be with us in some form or other.
These precious children of 2012 should become Rangers shareholders, because sorting-out the can of worms which were opened when HMRC went after Murray International Holdings' Employee Benefits Trust will take years, and this will enable their fathers and mothers to fund their school fees, make certain they are well looked after at university and in a few cases will even I would wager fund the purchase of their first homes of their own.
The least they could do in thanks was buy shares in Rangers.
However, all that lies ahead, that's long-term, what of the short-term. I was this week directed to a blog post by a gentleman I first encountered through the now deceased 'rangerstaxcase' blog; he goes by the pen name of 'Brogan, Rogan, Trevino and Hogan' and is a Celtic-supporting lawyer.
This guarantees a modicum of anonimity, for it is said the best list to consult if you are looking for a good criminal lawyer is not the Scottish Law Society's listing, but the list of Celtic season ticket-holders and share-holders. BRTH could be any one of thousands.
BRTH writes sensible opinions on the on-going matter of the BTC and the repercussions thereof and his dissection of the findings is as good a place as any for the layman to look when, as so many of us has, that layman asks; "How did we get here?"
As BRTH points out, the reason for the 2-1 Rangers "win" at the FTT is simply explained, the two members who sided with Rangers were lawyers, the one dissenter, Dr Poon, was an accountant. In law, HMRC lost the battle, so the lawyers HAD NO OPTION, but to back Rangers.
In the real world, however, the belief that Rangers/MIH were "at it", is the stronger currency, so the accountant went against the club.
This division of opinion, I might add, re-opens the age-old saloon bar argument - come the revolution, which tribe do we shoot first: the accountants or the lawyers?
So, in law, Rangers are innocent; in the real world - guilty. This raises another vexing question - is Hampden in the real world? Because the next act of a saga which makes anything written about Noggin the Nog seem plausible will be fought out in the committee rooms along Hampden's corridors of power, when Lord Nimmo Smith and his SPL tribunal convenes.
I reckon ths SPL is on shifting, unsteady ground on this one - largely thanks to the tribalism in Scottish football and almost everyone else in Scottish football's fervent wish to kick Rangers while they were down and when everyone but the lunatic fringe of Vanguard Bears believed the club was guilty as charged and had somehow fiddled HMRC out of around £100 million.
In the over-heated climate of a few months ago, the SPL cast-out Rangers - now the club has won the FTT, that can be seen as a big mistake.
Sure the SPL tribunal can meet, adjudicate and maybe rule that: yes, Rangers did indeed break SPL rules during the period 2001 - 2010. They might well then decide to strip Rangers of the five SPL titles they won in this period. However, they cannot then re-assign these titles to Celtic and expect to retain any credibility.
The Rangers of 2001 - 2010 no longer exists; the current Rangers can and will say: "nothing to do with us guv". They will not remove a single star from the jersey, they will not take down any of the titles from their records. From Charles Green down, they will say: "These titles were won fair and square on the field, the SPL tribunal was not independent, they had no right to rule and we will ignore their findings,since they cannot compel us to recognise them".
The mainstream media will agitate for a few days, then move on and, in 100 years' time, if I was able to come back, I believe I would still find Rangers credited with those five titles - perhaps with a side-bar *title subsequently rescinded by an SPL tribunal.
What I will say is this - Rangers will NEVER again play in the SPL. Indeed, by the time Rangers are in a position to re-enter the top flight of domestic league football in Scotland, while there might be a "Premier League" or a "Premiership", the SPL as presently constituted will be no more.
Some small-minded men, in driving Rangers out of the top-flight, for whatever reason or reasons, boobed badly. Since league football started in Scotland in 1890, Celtic and Rangers have always been the two biggest and most-successful clubs. Sure, there have been spells when one or other has slipped a bit: Rangers had a sticky spell during the reign of Edward VII, Celtic weren't so-hot during the long reign of Bill Struth at Ibrox and in the New Firm era of the late 1970s - early 1980s, Rangers, having battled bravely to compete during the Jock Stein Years at Celtic Park, finally ran out of puff before the Souness Revolution chagned things.
But, even when the Old Firm were the undisputed joint number ones or one and two, Scottish football found a way of coping. The other clubs competed well when one side slipped - Hearts, Hibs, Airdrie, Motherwell, Kilmarnock, Aberdeen, both Dundee clubs, even dear old Third Lanark - they all had seasons in the sun when one half of the OF slipped. But, while they enjoyed the moment, they NEVER thought of really putting the boot into the struggling giant.
In kicking Rangers out of the SPL, they boobed, because, they have given the Ibrox hard-liners the upper hand and when Rangers get back, they will remember and they will seek retribution.
Events have, in my opinion, shown that the SPL ought to have kept Rangers inside the tent, pending the resolution of the FTT. They could then have decided either to accept the majority view - the "Not Guilty" verdict - and moved-on; or they could have decided, notwithstanding the FTT finding, there was a case to answer in the matter of the club's player contracts and convened the tribunal.
That tribunal would then have been acting against a member club, it would have had greater credibility and its final findings would have been accepted. As it happens, when the ruling eventaully comes, it will probably contribute nothing other than further muddying of already dark brown waters. And shortly afterwards, a new model will be announced for senior football in Scotland, but, that new model will contain no mention of a body named 'The Scottish Premier League'.
No comments:
Post a Comment