Lord Nimmo Smith headed a Scottish Premier League (now Scottish Professional League [SPFL]) Commission into the matters relating to Rangers EBT tax affairs, the Big Tax Case.
The Commission reported in 2013, finding that while Rangers failed to correctly register dozens of players employed from 2000 – 2011, as Rangers use of EBTs was legal, the methods deployed by the club were open to any other club. Lord Nimmo Smith therefore found that no competitive advantage was gained by this use of EBTs.
On 5 July the UK Supreme Court found that Rangers use of EBTs was not legal, blowing apart the basis on which the of the Commission came to its conclusion. Similar use of EBTs was not available to other clubs, there was not a level playing field.
Acknowledging this predicament, the SPFL board last week announced that it “supports the calls that have been made for an independent review concerning the way in which Scottish football’s authorities have dealt with non-payment of tax by clubs, have applied their rules and regulations”.
The League added that their senior counsel advised them they do not have the levers to investigate this matter. The only other body able to investigate the issue is the Scottish Football Association. However, within hours of the Supreme Court verdict, they hastily issued a statement to assert they would take no action.
A Judicial Review could provide the League with such a lever.
Instructing solicitor, senior counsel and senior junior counsel have been retained. Funding has been secured for the initial undertakings. No crowdfunding will be required at this time, although fans from many clubs have intimated support and a crowdfunding project may commence in the weeks ahead.
Support for this Review cuts across club colours and stretches the length of Scotland. Many fans paid into a sport and feel that they were watching a rigged game for over a decade. It is crucial for the future of Scottish football that wrongdoing, especially if it involved office-holders in the game, is properly investigated and has consequences.
As such, it is hoped the SPFL back the people who put money into the game by welcoming the opportunity for a Judicial Review.
I expect a period of dialogue will commence. This will be conducted in private, there will be no informed leaks until counsel have completed preliminary dialogue and reported their assessment of the Review. At that stage, a decision will be made on what course of action, if any, should be taken.
433 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- ...
- 12
- »
Big Jimmy
In AULDHEID, BRTH PAUL67 CANALMAR…and anyone else involved on our behalf…..I TRUST.
Seriously? Sorry not for me , that ship sailed ages ago, but I respect your opinion.
Turkeybhoy. 11.26.
Really good post.
The media ( UK ) for whatever reasons do not want the story out there.
Hail Hail
Now that Hibs are set to announce Tony Stokes as their latest signing, could they be dark horses for a European spot….or even a challenge for 2nd???
They have added 4 very experienced Premier League level players to their squad in Whittacker, Swanson, Ambrose and Stokes. If they hang on to McGinn I’d say they have a squad that could very well finish 3rd.
JNP
I think the DUP-Tory deal may have some significance.
What would the DUP have been demanding. What are they terrified of. And who do they hate?
HH
Neil Doncaster said wit?When? and under oath lol.
:-)
HH
PAUL67 on 2ND AUGUST 2017 10:47 AM
Thank you , Paul.
That should put a halt to all the whingeing .
SHOULD put a halt.
TD67.
Serious question Tony, is there anyone/body that you do trust in this?Not meant to be having a pop or anything, in case the written word comes across like that. Genuinely wondering, I know you are Celtic to the core and intrigued about your thoughts.
Or are you like my old Dad who told me to jump off a wall when I was about 6 and he would catch me, needless to say he didn’t, he let me fall and said that will teach you not to trust anyone.
His philosophy was flawed as all it done was to make sure I didn’t trust him.
Hail Hail
MACJAY1 FOR NEIL LENNON
Haha I admire your optimism:)))
Moanin’ is Scotland’s national sport.))
HH
The development of a fan funded consideration of a Judicial review is one that is really interesting from a legal perspective (sorry if that sounds a bit like an academic exercise but it just is).
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not party to the judicial review process that Paul refers to, but the exercise raises a number if questions none of which I expect to be answered on here but I pose them anyway.
1. In whose name is any judicial review raise?
2. Does the ordinary football fan have the legal capacity to seek a legal remedy against the SPFL or the SFA where the fan concerned is no more than a customer of one of the shareholders or members of the SPFL or SFA?
3. If the fan is a shareholder of one of the clubs (basically a shareholder of a shareholer of the SPFL/SFA) does that specific legal capacity give the fan a legal right to hold the trade body or association to account?
4. If the answer to No’s 2 or 3 above is in the affirmative, how do football clubs and Celtic in particular view this development and would they welcome fans of any club being able to hold the SFA/SPFL to account through the courts?
5. If the answer to 2 and 3 above are in the negative, and it is deemed that only a football club can seek a judicial review of an SPFL/SFA decision, does this development increase the pressure on Celtic PLC to commence or at least threaten a similar court procedure instigated by them?
6. All Judicial Reviews proceed on certain specific legal grounds and more often than not, if they are successful, conclude with the court reviewing the decisions under review and ordering that they are incorrect in law and so send the entire case back to be reconsidered by the original decision making body such as a local authority and or a licensing board. However, occasionally, it can be argued that the original decision-making body has got it so wrong or is so compromised in its thinking, that the court does not remit the case back having reviewed the decision. What is the view on the LNS commission in this regard?
7. Any decision to proceed with a judicial review normally proceeds with a detailed opinion from counsel which sets out the proposed grounds of review and gives an opinion on the merits of the case and the prospects of success. Privately, I have been arguing elsewhere for the commissioning of such an opinion with the idea that it is made public in the event that it disagrees with the thoughts of Colin Moynihan QC. I wonder what the reaction of the SFA/SPFL would be to the tabling of such a counter opinion?
8. In the course of any judicial review in the Court of Session, the Lord Ordinary, having considered the merits of the application, can make a number of ancillary orders including any of the following:
(a) reduction;
(b) declarator;
(c) suspension;
(d) interdict;
(e) implement;
(f) restitution; and
(g) payment (whether of damages or otherwise).
There is an awful lot of scope within those powers to have LNS reduced or declared unsound on a variety of grounds (erred in law, proceeded in an incorrect material fact, is contrary to the Law of Scotland etc) but there is also a lot of scope for the court to say that LNS is unchallengeable on the basis that any such review is now out of time (normally judicial reviews are lodged instantly or within a very short time of the original decision though in this case the SC decision may well have a bearing on the timescales).
Further, any judicial review in Scotland in relation to these matters may have some interesting implications on the legal standing of the Court of Arbitration for Sport which is not really a court at all and which only comes into play if the Sports body concerned has agreed to have its rules and decisions come under the CAS.
Do the SPFL/SFA come under the jurisdiction of CAS, and if they don’t should they? Do they come under the jurisdiction of CAS for domestic matters or is it only in relation to European Matters by way of the SFA being affiliated to UEFA?
9. Judicial reviews are frequently used in relation to the grant or the refusal of licences (liquor licences, hotel licences, casino licences, bookmakers licences, taxi licences etc) — will the court entertain the judicial review of all football licences granted by the SFA if it can be shown that fans have a legal standing to seek such a review through the Scottish courts OR would the courts take the view that such matters are Governed by CAS jurisdiction in the case of a European Licence but would accept jurisdiction on domestic licences granted by the SFA (remembering that Rod McKenzie has stated that all licencing matters are for the SFA and not the SPFL — and he has conducted hundreds of Judicial Reviews on behalf of bookmakers etc).
10. Is a judicial review the right way to go at all or should Celtic and/or shareholders in Celtic PLC be making legal overtures to UEFA re the recent SC decision and the evidence provided at the Craig Whyte trial, with a view to the “Football review” into this entire affair being conducted by UEFA itself and so bring the entire review process under the jurisdiction of the CAS and its previous decisions and rulings?
I am not convinced that there is only one legal or management route to follow here and will be very interested in the progress of the initiative that has been started.
As an aside, and by way of a humorous end to all of this dull legal stuff, many years ago I was involved in the review of a decision made by the City of Glasgow Licensing Board in relation to a well known Glasgow nightclub and its licence.
The board had decided upon the insertion of a number on the licence which stated that the club concerned was licensed to hold x number of people and alleged that if they exceeded that number then this would constitute an offence.
Our argument was that the licensing board did not have the power in law to insert such a condition and that the insertion of the condition was ultra vires and that any breach of the alleged number could not constitute a criminal offence known to the Law of Scotland.
The main plank of evidence was an excerpt from Hansard where the late Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (a thoroughly dreadful man in many respects but with a sharp legal brain) addressed Parliament on a proposed licensing bill which contained a clause which would give a licensing board the power to insert such a condition. The bill failed partly because Fairbairn ridiculed the proposed law by pointing out that one way of avoiding prosecution for having too many people on the premises would be if the landlord killed members of the public in the premises and so reducing the number of patrons to an acceptable number with the odd cadaver left over.
As there was no law at all in relation to the legal status of a “deid punter” in licensed premises the proposed law was unworkable nonsense for this amongst other reasons.
I raise this point only to pose the legal question – what is the legal status of a deid club when it comes to football? We have seen many column inches printed on the same club argument, but very few considered opinions on the legal status of OLd Co.
If the memo and articles state that Rangers PLC and the Club were one and the same (and that is what the memo and articles do say) and LNS seems to state that was not the case, then just who WAS Rangers and who were Old Co legally when there was no mention of holding companies or the likes within the articles of the SFA or indeed UEFA.
It occurs to me that it must be the case that to escape prosecution or liability in terms of the footballing rules, someone has chosen to use the seemingly ridiculous defence outlined by Sir Nicholas Fairbairn and that Scottish Football is troubled by a football club and a cadaver of a blue hue.
Quid Iuris?
One of the singers of the Lee Rigby song named.From Coatbridge.Many from that neck of the woods on here will know his father.Sadly,this is a bit personal for me.In fact,very.
just suggesting like…….
Craig Whyte received legal aid funding for his Trial.
CONVICTED Criminals in Scottish prisons are provided with legal aid funding whenever they claim that their “Legal/Human Rights” were abused at the time of arrest, in Court and/or whilst in Jail ?
Maybe someone smarter than me ( not hard to find ?), could look at the possibility of crowdfunding and the reasons why such a “crowd” would require funds to state argument at any Review ?
IF viable, could we not argue to The Legal Aid Board that as we supporters were season ticket holders, which is in effect a ” Contract” between that supporter and Celtic FC, that Celtic supporters ( and any other club supporter ?), were clearly “Denied Access to a Level Playing Field” for those years of cheating by the Huns SFA/SPL etc….therefore we wish to argue at this Review that the “Contract” that existed between any supporter and Celtic ( or any other club) was in effect “Broken” ?
I have posted this at the severe risk of being proclaimed ” Feckin Crazy” ” ?
If or WHEN my suggestion is shot down, please remember it was only a suggestion, and that being a man who is desperate for Justice to be carried out against those cheating huns, I will resort to any methods whatsoever to bring THEM down !
I am a little bit nuts most of the time anyway.
HH
BRTH,
Great read.Sooooooooo many things to consider.Glad you are on our side.
JIMMYNOTPAUL
oh I would have Paul 67 in the team yes for sure, but the other three have had they’r dual in the sun (no disrespect) a few more fresh faces, suggestions: James Forrest, Phil Mac, Paul Larkin, Joe McHugh and obviously no one from the CT or the GB, just my opinion.
Kojo was like a God on here.
Sound advice,wise counsel.
Infinite wisdom.
When Kojo spoke, people listened.
HH.
https://youtu.be/iDIMzm2LPi0
Moanin ?
I’ll give you Moanin –Art Blakey – Blue Note Style .
Work done —— beach time . Wee blast of this before I go-https://youtu.be/oa6WFluF38o
Timi Yuro CSC -way down south -42 at 1.07 -scorchio
Time to wheel out my old maxim…
Opinions are like guns; there are too many of them about and not everybody can be trusted with one.
Just my opinion btw….
;)
Mon the hoops!
TONY DONNELLY 67,
No worries mate, I too respect your opinion.
I live only 10 minutes walk from your favourite pub, maybe I will join you for a few beers sometime soon ?
I am waiting for some good news about money real soon ( hopefully), so maybe if you agree I would share a few beers with you ?
Also,,,I have no wife to ask.. ” Honey, is it okay if I go oot” ?
Cheers
HH
https://youtu.be/oa6WFluF38ohttps:
Timi Yuro
If the SFA and the SPFL used Scottish supporters money (ours) to get the (so called) top QC in the country to make his opinions on what he thought was right on questions of RFC (IL) cheating.
Why can’t we as supporters use that same money to get our top QC to contradict and ask they’r QC questions and give our opinions, its Democracy right?
Or is that just to easy?
BATEEN BHOY ***STRIP THE TITLES*** on 2ND AUGUST 2017 10:08 AM
Chill Ultra
I read through all of your post, and that’s not something i can say about all the ‘long’ish’ posts on here – just don’t have the time, unfortunately. Well-written, and well-considered, and worth reading if only to see things from a different perspective.
I don’t know Auldheid. Have never met him ( that I’m aware of ) and have only had brief contact with some of the other Res. 12 guys – all of whom i believe to be very genuine, honest guys, and unquestionably passionate about our Football Club.
No matter what you think of Auldheid’s motives ( and your opinion is as valid as any others here ) you surely can’t question that he wants what is best for Celtic, and Celtic fans, and has invested hours and hours and hours of his time in trying to get the club ( and Scottish Football as a whole ) to a better place than it finds itself now.
I know for a fact that most football fans in Scotland have little or no real idea about the train (crash) of events embarked on by SFA/SFL/SPFL and the various entities emanating from Ibrox which have led us to where we are now. Most of what they know comes from reading what are laughingly referred to as ‘newspapers’ and we know who controls that narrative. They are largely ignorant of the circumstances around ‘Rangers’ liquidation , LNS and Res 12.
The same can’t be said of a great number of Celtic fans especially those who read and contribute to this blog on a regular basis. In comparison to most fans of other clubs, thanks to Auldheid, BRTH ( who for me can do no wrong ) James Forrest, Paul, and many others, too numerous to mention, we are better informed about why we are in the situation we are.
Without these guys – Auldheid in particular, since he seems to be the one with the target on his back – we’d be like all the other ‘move-on’ lemmings, and we’d all be moving back to the back of the bus.
I think they deserve as much praise and support as we can give them, after what they’ve given us.
You think differently, and i don’t have a problem with that, and you obviously believe that he’s trying to lead (or mislead) people in the wrong direction, but i do think your criticism is unjustified…..for what that’s worth.
—————————–
Thanks for taking the time to read my post, and for your open-mindedness in giving consideration to what I had written. I could have given more facts to support what I’ve written, including what I learned from my dozen or so email exchanges with Celtic (Michael Nicholson) but, aside from the privacy issue this open forum is not the place for divulging sensitive information.
HH
Turkeybhoy on 2nd August 2017 10:53 am
Re the recent Jessica Ennis case, a worrying aspect here is that in that case ( basically the case against Tatyana Chernova) the court proceedings against Chernova were raised swiftly and the halted temporarily to allow other cases in other courts to be resolved first.
It might be argued that in relation to LNS a judicial review should have been commenced by any interested party long ago and then stopped pending the outcome of the Whyte Trial and the SC case.
That may be a real difficulty.
Tony Donnelly.
Basically, all of us took the view that if the game in Scotland is so bent and so corrupt then we would not buy a season ticket or indeed attend any football matches played under the authority of the SFA in future whether they feature Celtic or not.
In a long conversation with my 84-year-old mother (who has followed Celtic all over the world) she, independently of any viewpoint expressed by me, came to the conclusion that Celtic, as something more than a football club, should consider entering teams into other sports or facilitating others sports in the name of Celtic.
At the outset, Celtic Park saw cycling and athletic competitions, and while I know that these are nowhere as near as popular as football, I really do not see the point in continued participation in a sport where absolute and real wrongdoing or rule breaking is deliberately manipulated, managed and facilitated by the governing body which is designed to ensure fairness and neutrality but which jettisons those standpoints to maintain the success or participation of one particular team.
That is no longer sport at all and in the event of football not sorting this out I would want to end my support of football in Scotland. I would want to find a way whereby I can still support Celtic and the Celtic family if that is possible. Hopefully that answers your question — though I suspect you will not agree with my point of view.
BIG JIMMY
Money’s not a problem, Masty and Marrakesh Express are loaded :))
Seems like a great initiative Paul, and thanks for the update!
It’s also good to hear this is coming from all across the football support in Scotland and it will no longer be seen as a Celtic v huns issue.!
KTF
BRTH
Was that your lawyers hat you had on when you posted that?
:-)
Great post BTW.
BROGAN ROGAN TREVINO AND HOGAN on 2ND AUGUST 2017 11:50 AM
Similar questions mutatis mutandis would arise in the event of anyone seeking to challenge the SPFL if they were to revisit the Nimmo Smith whitewash.
tonydonnelly67 on 2nd August 2017 12:12 pm
See my long post above where I propose the same thing exactly. What would the SFA/SPFL do if a counter opinion from an equally eminent QC was made public? Good question I think.
TD67.
Thanks for taking time to reply, as I said no agenda in the question.
I was genuinely interested in your take on it.
I honestly get a sore heid with it all between arguing with Huns, trying to educate non Celtic fans and then we have people with all sorts of opinions on here too.
No matter how it proceeds and by whom, it will be difficult to obtain a United front.
Hail Hail.
CQN Saturday Naps Competition 2017-18
Lads,
is anyone interested in taking part in our CQN Naps competition this season?
If so, please confirm your interest by posting on the previous article:
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/coaching-brendans-open-canvass/comment-page-16/#comments
A big thanks to Paul for allowing us to continue to use his platform.
Cheers, fleagle1888
BRT&H
No no, not at all , I was only asking who it was that was saying it, I didn’t know if it was the guy you where talking about or you, but you’ve cleared it up, your point of view is yours and to be respected same as others, the reason I asked was that I never had you pegged as a quitter, that’s all .
HH
Great news P67
Like the term “competitive advantage” instead of the fudge smoke and mirrors term “sporting advantage”
I said all along that when business A pays tax and business B does not pay tax. Business B has an advantage and all the moonbeams in the universe wont change the rock solid logical view.
HH
PAUL67
You can send that post to NEGANON2 if you dare!
BRT&H
Ah! I missed it sorry, well I didn’t miss it, it was kinda long so I chopped bits out scrolling, bound to miss out the good bit, it’s a bad habit I have and gets me in trouble a lot :)).
HH
TONYDONNELLY67 on 2ND AUGUST 2017 12:21 PM
I think you may have misunderstood the reasoning involved in the consideration of whether or not to renew.
There comes a point when a lot of folk (not you, obviously) question exactly what it is they are being asked to support.
BRTH- do you think if Celtic gave the required 2 Years Notice period to leave Scottish Football,would bear any fruit?
BRTH, on this paragraph ( below) of your excellent post may I dare suggest something ?
There is an awful lot of scope within those powers to have LNS reduced or declared unsound on a variety of grounds (erred in law, proceeded in an incorrect material fact, is contrary to the Law of Scotland etc) but there is also a lot of scope for the court to say that LNS is unchallengeable on the basis that any such review is now out of time (normally judicial reviews are lodged instantly or within a very short time of the original decision though in this case the SC decision may well have a bearing on the timescales).
BRTH, you correctly make mention of possible “Timescale” issues in having the LNS overturned etc ?
Excuse me, as you may already be aware of this, and I speak from most recent personal experience in Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
I was suing a legal office in Scotland.
They ( The Defenders) claimed before and in Court that my raised action was “Time barred” ?
They attempted to use the Supreme Court Ruling from 2009 ( I think ?), of David Morrison Ltd v ICL Plastics of Maryhill Glasgow, against me in Court ? The firm ICL Plastics was in effect STOCKLINE. That was the Maryhill Tragedy of 2004.
I stated ” Section 6 Part 4″ of that Supreme Court Ruling to the Court, and it WAS accepted as a viable legal point. At my next appearance in same Court my argument pertaining to Section 6 part 4, was fully accepted by the Court, and therefore my raised action was ruled to be NOT TIMEBARRED !
The Section which I refer to in effect states that IF the “time period” is somehow “interupted” then the Court has the remit to decide in favour of The Pursuer raising the action.
i had provided the Court with documented evidence that the the organisation I was suing, had clearly MISLEAD me for approx 3 years, so therefore that would explain why it took me so long to raise Court action ?
The Court agreed with me…..a party litigant !
Now, and forgive me if I am wrong here BRTH, but in relation to the LNS Report, and the strong probability that THEY were MISLEAD, which in turn led to the LNS MISLEADING others, could that not be an argument to overcome any possible “TimeBar” /
Just asking mate.
HH
TONY DONNELLY 67,
Cheers mate.
I will see what happens moneywise to me, in the next few weeks.
HH
BROGAN ROGAN TREVINO AND HOGAN on 2ND AUGUST 2017 12:14 PM
Turkeybhoy on 2nd August 2017 10:53 am,
Yes,sadly i do realise the “Time bar”thing could be a problem.On the other hand,just thinking,could the argument not be made,that no action was possible at the time as the verdict of the SC was not available.
The SC verdict would have been required to mount any legal challenge to the LNS enquiry.I know there is a difference,but just as the Jessica Ennis case was delayed for a reason,could the same not be argued for the JR.
Hope I am speaking to the “Right hat”here.I can be easily confused.LOL.
EmbraMike- If we get through tonight,who are the unseeded teams we can get in the Play Off Round? Thanks.