Were we all cheated by the SFA? Was LNS Duped?

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

I've copied over the following post from TSFM as I think it's an important summation of the farce that was the LNS Enquiry and details things that, perhaps, many people remain unaware of. I've posted it outwith the 'Rangers' thread so that it will be seen by as many people as possible and not just those who regularly follow the 'Rangers' saga. Should the mods decide that it should be consigned to that thread, fair enough, and I apologise for starting an unnecessary thread. I've not posted this to be a new thread with numerous comments, however, and just wish to make the information available to as wide an audience as possible.

 

I realise, too, that some might not like the post as it's the product of a Celtic supporter, and this tends to raise a few people's hackles here. If that is how you feel, just don't bother reading!

 

The research and blog are the work of Auldheid and can be viewed here on 'The Celtic Underground':

 

http://celticunderground.net/was-lord-nimmo-smith-duped/

 

 

Was Lord Nimmo Smith Duped?

 

The Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) Commission, established in 2012 by the SPL to investigate the use by Rangers Football Club (RFC) of Employee Benefit Trusts with side letters, was derailed and duped ? deliberately or otherwise ? by the inexplicable failure to supply already existing evidence of earlier ?irregular? RFC EBTs. Consequently the invalidated Commission findings must now be set aside in the best interests of Scottish Football. The facts are:

 

? SPL announced on 5 March 2012 that every EBT with side letters used by Rangers Football Club (RFC) from 1 July 1998 would be investigated.

 

? However, only EBTs with side letters from 23 November 2000 onwards were actually scrutinised under the ?SPL LNS Commission? terms of reference. Why? Full details of three EBTs, two with side letters, weren?t provided to SPL lawyers as requested in March 2012 and neither was key HMRC documentation.

 

? The withheld documentation would have revealed three EBTs from 1999 and 2000, two with side letters, which were ?illegal? in HMRC terms and ?irregular? in LNS terminology. In 2005 Murray International Holdings (MIH) denied holding these side letters when questioned by HMRC. But March 2011 saw RFC finally admit liability for ?The Wee Tax Case? following legal advice. The EBTs in question were illegal and side letters clearly existed.

 

? Side letters were lodged in each applicable player?s contract file at Ibrox and when HMRC at a later time requested two files for examination from MIH they were obtained from Ibrox. But on checking the files HMRC found no trace of the side letters which they already knew existed and should have been in the files. These missing side letters aren?t necessarily related to those mentioned previously but indicate behaviour.

 

? Similar EBTs used by a Scottish-based company ? unconnected to Rangers ? had already been declared ?irregular? following HMRC legal action. LNS subsequently ruled ?no dishonesty? in ignorance of the highly relevant evidence which revealed deliberate dishonesty in 2005 and possibly 2012. This has exposed his Lordship?s Decision as fatally flawed particularly with regard to his not considering sanctions of a sporting nature.

 

? The missing documentary evidence was drawn to the attention of SPFL* lawyers and the SPFL Board by The Scottish Football Monitor blog (TSFM) in Feb 2014. The lawyers subsequently failed to reasonably convince TSFM that the withheld documents wouldn?t have impacted on the LNS Decision and at no point has the SPFL Board responded to the points raised.

 

? Lord Nimmo Smith was informed by email of the documentation and correspondence in April 2014 but has not responded. Fourteen journalists have also been provided from September 2014 with the same evidence and TSFM blog debate. No story has been published and only one engaged and confirmed the case was sound. In September the SPFL lawyers stated that all documentation had been passed to the SFA.

 

? Campbell Ogilvie, when Secretary at RFC, was involved in the setting up of the first of the irregular EBTs in 1999. By June 2011 ? when he was SFA President ? the irregular EBT tax bill became due and resulted in ?The Wee Tax Case?. Ogilvie was in receipt of a later RFC (?Big Tax Case?) EBT which is of course still currently under dispute by HMRC.

 

? Although Mr. Ogilvie excused himself from the EBT investigation proceedings he gave evidence to the Commission, but appears not to have provided any evidence that would have highlighted the differences in tax treatment between the three earlier (illegal) EBTs and the later ones.

 

? Stewart Regan, SFA CEO, may or may not have had the distinction explained by the SFA President. If not! Why not? Lord Nimmo Smith apparently wasn?t informed and appeared unaware illegal EBTs existed when issuing his tribunal findings. The extent of that ignorance was total as revealed by LNS stating in his Tribunal Decision: ?We are not aware that they were different trusts. We shall treat them as a continuous trust.? If only the withheld evidence had been provided it?s difficult, if not impossible, to believe the same decision could have been reached.

 

Q&A

 

Why revisit the LNS Decision? The hidden evidence clearly reveals that the whole truth wasn?t presented to LNS causing his Commission to get it horribly wrong.

 

What hidden evidence? That DOS EBTs had already been declared illegal and although Rangers accepted this and accepted the ensuing tax liability this was kept from the LNS Commission.

 

Does it matter? Only if you are interested in establishing the Truth which is the very least the Scottish game and its fans deserve. Lord Nimmo Smith might also be unhappy at being kept in the dark.

 

How did the judge get it wrong? LNS concluded from the evidence presented that all EBTs were similar. They weren?t and DOS EBTs had already been declared illegal. It seems unlikely that senior Rangers people and others involved in football governance were totally unaware of this.

 

Name names! Well the SFA President is in a unique position to do so. Although it appears he didn?t tell LNS about the different EBTs. Campbell Ogilvie authorised the first DOS EBT in 1999 and himself benefitted to the tune of ?95K as a beneficiary of the revised EBTs. If anyone knows the difference between them it?s him. Mr Dickson who provided a witness statement to the LNS Commission and was responsible for the ?mechanics? of EBT administration and the files in which documentation was kept at Ibrox might also be in a position to shed light on the DOS EBT side letters that were stated by MIH not to be on files when HMRC asked questions in 2005.

 

Can the Truth finally emerge? Only by reconvening the Commission preferably under LNS who would surely welcome having the full facts this time round. It would not only restore his good name but that of Scottish Justice.

 

The earlier seriously flawed judgement cannot be allowed to stand in the face of the facts which have been unearthed and which render the previous findings invalid.

 

Will it happen? It?s down to Scottish Football fans and up to every single one of us ? irrespective of club ? to speak as one and tear down the united wall of silence erected by the SFA, SPL, SPFL, the SMSM and even Lord Nimmo Smith?s Commission which was used to provide a veneer of legality and then appears to have been duped.

 

Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, even at this late hour. And it must not be carried out behind closed doors with fans excluded and no transcript of the evidence produced.

 

Notes

Initial RFC EBTs ? The Wee Tax Case ? used a Discount Option Scheme subsequently ruled illegal by a FTT in Oct 2010.

From 2002/03 the RFC EBT scheme was altered but HMRC still believed the new arrangement was illegal and started the Big Tax Case. To date a First Tier Tax Tribunal and an Upper Tier Tax Tribunal have ruled these EBTS legal but HMRC has again appealed with a hearing due soon.

 

* The Scottish Football League (SFL) and Scottish Premier League (SPL) amalgamated to form the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) in June 2013.

 

A video of an interview with Mr Regan by Alex Thomson Ch4 News and further detail appear on line at

 

http://www.tsfm.scot/did-stewart-regan-ken-then-wit-we-ken-noo/

[Phil Dunphy]

And I thought Hibs were bad.

[airdriejambo3]

good old Scottish football - sweep sweep nothing to see here 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

If it's been on TSFM, then no.

[Diadora Van Basten]

When Reagan spoke at the Rangers into Division one meeting it became obvious that those in charge of Scottish Football were on the side of Rangers.

 

Since then Doncaster has put no effort into talking up Scottish Football and is clearly waiting for Old Firm games to sell Scottish Football.

 

I remember at the time LNS ruled that no sporting advantage had been gained by the use of EBTs and the non reporting of the side letters that it was very strange.

 

However others posted that he had come to the correct conclusion based on the way that the questions had been asked. The questions being set by Reagan and Doncaster who were both clearly on the side of Rangers.

 

Rangers fans can moan about how hard they were done by having to start in division three but the fact is these two clowns gave them a much softer landing than they should have had.

[Riccarton3]

The purpose of the charade was to minimise the impact on rangers in a sporting and financial context. Without fear or favour is a redundant term for our football authorities: Corruption goes back so far no one today was alive when it started. And it's not all to do with money but darker stuff that encourages officials to warn of social unrest if the order is not maintained.

[Footballfirst]

The only means of action on this issue is for the clubs to have the will to do so.  I don't believe that the fans have sufficient single mindedness or sense of purpose on this issue to make it happen in the same way as the threats of non renewal of season tickets did have an effect on how clubs voted on the Sevco Scotland application to join the SPL. The clubs are the SPFL, just are they are the SFA.  If they want change then they are free to vote for it.  To date, there has been no action to hold, Regan, Ogilvie or Doncaster to account for their actions in relation to both the Oldco and the Newco..

 

For the most part, the club that was significantly impacted by Rangers deceit over the LNS enquiry was Celtic.  I think that it is telling that Celtic as a club has failed to act with any alacrity on this specific issue. In the same way, they have also avoided actively progressing AGM Resolution 12 (the granting of Rangers UEFA Licence for 2011).  Celtic effectively kicked it into the long grass, IMO because they don't want to rock the boat when it comes to the restoration of a duopoly at the top of Scottish football.

 

I am more encouraged by Leeann Dempster and Ann Budge publicly voicing concerns about sporting integrity in their criticism of the SPFL fixture debacle.  That I believe is the best and quickest route to change.

 

That said, Auldheid's blog remains an important record of what happened (or didn't happen) and fans of all clubs should be aware it, and be able to form their own opinions.   

[Riccarton3]

The problem with Celtic as a football club raising any objections to the rangers dealings is, perhaps, the genuine fear of social unrest involving sociopaths in both supports that has been left festering forever to exploit the sectarian divide for ? gain.. Having just typed that, though, Celtic fc could align themselves with other clubs on certain issues but seem more interested in a return of their 'bitter' (ha ha) rivals with as little fuss as possible. That's showbusiness.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

The LNS decision was unbelievable. How could he say that they got no sporting advantage by giving players undisclosed EBT payments? Through these payments they managed to get the German national teams goalkeeper, Dutch and Italian internationals and top English players to come and play in our crap wee Scottish league. He was either duped or influenced in some way

[DETTY29]

LNS was all about keeping Campbell Ogilvie (plus another dozen folk) out of the football pokey.

[Riccarton3]

The football authorities in conjunction with LNS found pragmatic solutions to the issues given the size of rangers. Pragmatism is th xway to go when there are actions that have been indefensible by one party but there are a number of different parties with vested interests.

 

Reagan - I am sure Neil will find a pragmatic solution (to the fixtures farce)

[Charlie-Brown]

Shenanigans.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvK1F-Thrzk

[22inarow]

The LNS decision was unbelievable. How could he say that they got no sporting advantage by giving players undisclosed EBT payments? Through these payments they managed to get the German national teams goalkeeper, Dutch and Italian internationals and top English players to come and play in our crap wee Scottish league. He was either duped or influenced in some way

This, in a nutshell! How the LNS conclusions were not laughed out of court was amazing. It just goes to show that these people put something out there that they hope folk will swallow and , with the help of the people that pass for journalists in Scotland, we fell for it hook, line and sinker.

[269miles]

The problem with Celtic as a football club raising any objections to the rangers dealings is, perhaps, the genuine fear of social unrest involving sociopaths in both supports that has been left festering forever to exploit the sectarian divide for ? gain.. Having just typed that, though, Celtic fc could align themselves with other clubs on certain issues but seem more interested in a return of their 'bitter' (ha ha) rivals with as little fuss as possible. That's showbusiness.

I don't know who (if anyone) had any genuine fear of social unrest but that was shown to be a total fallacy when Rangers went bust and Sevco were relegated to the 3rd division  given unexpected immediate entry to the 3rd division. As it turned out their fans were delighted to be hammering everyone in  sight at a canter - for the first two seasons anyway.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

This, in a nutshell! How the LNS conclusions were not laughed out of court was amazing. It just goes to show that these people put something out there that they hope folk will swallow and , with the help of the people that pass for journalists in Scotland, we fell for it hook, line and sinker.

How old is his Granny?

[Tasavallan]

The way I look at it is anyone with a surname as a given name tends to be a staunch Presbyterian and a lodge member to boot.

[Footballfirst]

The way I look at it is anyone with a surname as a given name tends to be a staunch Presbyterian and a lodge member to boot.

 

His given name is William.  (William Austin Nimmo Smith)

 

He has been in involved as a judge in a number of high profile cases and decisions that were questioned thereafter. e.g. the "Magic Circle" about homosexuality among the judiciary, nepotism at Monklands Council, the al-Megrahi appeal.

[Guest oldcastlerock2012]

What the establishment wants, the establishment tends to get - especially with a compliant media on their side. Rangers is one example. Last year's referendum is another.

[Alva-Jambo]

Magic circles of gay lawyers, that I would love to see.  

 

I am not sure there is much that can be done about the fact that pre 2000 side letter contracts were not included for scrutiny.   Too late?  

Not surprised in the least though.

[jambovambo]

To me, within the strict constraints of what LNS was given to make a judgement on, I can see why he decided what he did.

 

It's what was left out that made the difference.

 

Also it should have been football people deciding.

[Rods]

I for one think there was no favoritism towards Rangers It was more down to self-preservation on the behalf of Ogilvie,Doncaster et al.

[colinmaroon]

I for one think there was no favoritism towards Rangers It was more down to self-preservation on the behalf of Ogilvie,Doncaster et al.

 

 

Yes, preserving themselves by showing favouritism.

 

It's committing the crime, not the "cause" behind it that gets punished in the courts.

[Guest oldcastlerock2012]

I for one think there was no favoritism towards Rangers It was more down to self-preservation on the behalf of Ogilvie,Doncaster et al.

 

There was definitely favouritism. Rangers are very much part of the "establishment" in Scotland, which includes the football authorities and, sadly, the media more often than not these days. 

 

When the media sides with the establishment, as they did in the Rangers case and the independence referendum and - more seriously - the Iraqi War - they basically give the establishment (football club, politicians, etc) a free pass to do and say what they want without being challenged - and they misinform the public at the same time.

 

The only way to combat this is through people power. We've seen that in the rise in grassroots support of the SNP, etc and in anti-Iraqi war demonstrations at the time.  Football fans haven't really risen up against the favouritism of Rangers as its tough to put club loyalties to one side. The media have definitely been shamed into being more critical of Rangers and the SFA/SPFL, etc - although they still don't do their job properly by pushing for answers.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

To me, within the strict constraints of what LNS was given to make a judgement on, I can see why he decided what he did.

 

It's what was left out that made the difference.

 

Also it should have been football people deciding.

was it ever explained why LNS should only look at a limited amount of evidence?

[graves2002]

LNS wasn't duped. He knew the answer he was to give before he'd even heard his terms of reference.  

 

And the Celtic Football Monitor can GTF.   When their most vocal contributor blames the home teams for TGFITW's terrorist supporting, seat-wrecking, ballboy attacking, toilet defiling antics and is allowed to attack anybody who dares point out his bigotry, then it's not worth the clicks.

[Sidsnot]

Here's the bit I don't get,this blog has been around for a good few weeks now,folk like Ogilvie,Regan,members of RFC,the media have all most certainly have saw the article yet not one of them has taken Auldhead to task,why not?

Surely if Aulhead is wrong then it would end up a court case,right?

[newbie]

Here's the bit I don't get,this blog has been around for a good few weeks now,folk like Ogilvie,Regan,members of RFC,the media have all most certainly have saw the article yet not one of them has taken Auldhead to task,why not?

Surely if Aulhead is wrong then it would end up a court case,right?

 

They realise they don't need to take anyone to court. They realise they need do nothing but rely on public apathy, as illustrated by the distinct lack of interest in this thread, sadly.

[Yoda]

There was definitely favouritism. Rangers are very much part of the "establishment" in Scotland, which includes the football authorities and, sadly, the media more often than not these days. 

 

When the media sides with the establishment, as they did in the Rangers case and the independence referendum and - more seriously - the Iraqi War - they basically give the establishment (football club, politicians, etc) a free pass to do and say what they want without being challenged - and they misinform the public at the same time.

 

The only way to combat this is through people power. We've seen that in the rise in grassroots support of the SNP, etc and in anti-Iraqi war demonstrations at the time.  Football fans haven't really risen up against the favouritism of Rangers as its tough to put club loyalties to one side. The media have definitely been shamed into being more critical of Rangers and the SFA/SPFL, etc - although they still don't do their job properly by pushing for answers.

Agreed. I think the fact that people are more media savy now and get their information from many different media outlets online now, mean the appologists in the newspapers/radio/TV media, have had to say something or they just become (even more) irrelevant.

[Sidsnot]

They realise they don't need to take anyone to court. They realise they need do nothing but rely on public apathy, as illustrated by the distinct lack of interest in this thread, sadly.

To be fair,it's a forum bud,you can't force people to say anything but conversing certainly helps.