09 November 2015

An idiot's guide to Lord Nimmo Smith's 2013 ruling


by Scott Ferguson | Guest Contributor

We heard a cannon the other day at Ibrox – a rather large BOOM it made too.

TOMOblog Alex Thomson tried to recreate it today – alas I couldn’t help picture a cartoon cannon with a little flag with ‘BOOM’ come flapping out the end.

His attention seeking blast at Rangers is another attempt to put himself at the forefront of this story – a place he hasn’t been since it began back in the day of yore. Day late Alex has continuously been at the back of the line chasing his own tail trying to get the exclusive that one of the rags had the day before.

This attempt at calling for Rangers titles to be null and void screams of desperation...and well, it’s just has no factual reality. Alex has a very large misunderstanding of the Lord Nimmo report – this much is certain.

Where to begin. Alex says triumphantly: 
"If you field an ineligible player to gain sporting advantage, you are punished. So it is that the game is now up for Rangers FC and only a successful Supreme Court appeal can now save them from what must now ensue."
Now Alex, the Lord Nimmo Report goes into quite a lot of detail about this. This one was on page 1:
"Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed upon Rangers FC."
Or - it states that the SPL lawyer Mr McKenzie...
"...accepted that no provision of the Rules enabled the Board of the SPL retrospectively to terminate the registration of the player."
Or:
"We are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches. This is an important finding, as it means that there was no instance shown of Rangers FC fielding an ineligible player"
Alex then blethers on at length and finishes each bit highlighting how Rangers gained a "sporting advantage".

Note: He tries to be more and more dramatic – right up to the point where he even produces one word sentences - "Sporting. Advantage." How cute!

Now what did Nimmo and his two pals say about that?
"Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed upon Rangers FC."
Eventually Alex makes reference to Lord Nimmo Smith and declares in numbered points (he has two) that: "Nimmo Smith’s commission made their findings on the basis that the tax avoidance was legal."

Not quite old boy.

Yes, Nimmo did state that he accepted the ruling of the Tax Tribunal that the EBTs were lawful – however his ruling was NOT based on this fact.

Nimmo is not a stupid man – he was well aware that HMRC would appeal – I’m sure he even realised it was a possibility that they could win. He even alludes to this in the report:
"(even leaving aside a possible reversal of the Tax Tribunal decision on appeal)"
You see what Alex does not understand is that Nimmo wasn’t judging whether Rangers had acted inappropriately with the taxman – he was there to judge whether Rangers had broken SFA/SPL rules and what punishments would be given out.

That is exactly what he did. He said no sporting advantage. No. Sporting. Advantage. And Alex guess what? That my friend is final.

Nimmo’s commission verdict was – as stated in the rules of the fine runners of our game up here: ‘final and binding’.

14 comments:

  1. Nimmo's verdict was not in a legal capacity.
    It means nothing in a court of law.
    You cheated. So if your a new club forget it. If your the same club pay your debts and accept the consequences for cheating. Make your mind up time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we were a new club folk such as you wouldn't still be spouting obsessive nonsense about us. We are not a new football club. The debts belong to the old company. Debt has also been shed in relation to other continuing football clubs.

      Delete
    2. 2000 2001 season until 2010 2011 seaso Gers used EBTs in that time 10 leauge titles were contested Gers winning 5 of them if EBTs gained Gers an un sporting advantage how does that explain the 5 they lost while using EBTs, to me they are good as bad, Gers won 9 in a row out with EBT scheme are they more of a hinderence

      Delete
    3. It's you're. Looks like EBT's failed on 50% of your you're

      Delete
  2. Indeed Sam - it was in an official capacity for the powers that be running our game - the guys who take titles or not...and by their rules it is 'final and binding'.
    Enjoy your evening

    ReplyDelete
  3. On the understanding that the EBTs were legal Scott.
    Void argument. Guilty as charged.
    Night x

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like everyone frothy you all seem to miss/ignore that last bit in bold (kisses)

      Delete
    2. You haven't fully read the article. It covers that point about a possible reversal of the original tax verdict not affecting his no sporting advantage verdict. So I guess your argument is void. Good night ya numpty.

      Delete
    3. You haven't fully read the article. It covers that point about a possible reversal of the original tax verdict not affecting his no sporting advantage verdict. So I guess your argument is void. Good night ya numpty.

      Delete
  4. Sam....how can I put this to make it easy to understand....

    "EBT's are legal"...

    RFC/MIH have done nothing illegal in any way shape or form. What the CoS have decided is that a Tax Liability exists. RFC/MIH have NOT been found guilty of anything.

    Now.. as has been pointed out the only issue that SFL/SPFL can take action on is the side letters issue and as this has been dealt with in the previous LNS Commission there can be NFA under the rules pre SPFL. LNS has ruled there was "No Sporting Advantage" even taking into account that the EBT ruling in place at the time could be overturned & The SPL board who commissioned the Investigation at the time accepted to be bound by the Commissions findings.

    Therefore to put it clearly....No Further Action Can Be Taken.....no.matter how much that drum is banged!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Again, two Tax judges ruled Rangers were not guilty, then someone with limited experience in Tax ruled the other way. He did so on 'common sense?', instead of on legality. This is why every tax expert in the UK are baffled by this. Instead of doing his actual job, he's acted like he's standing in for Judge Judy. Bizarre!?!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sam, no its not a court of law. It's a ruling on whether rules were broken and if a sporting advantage was gained. There was none.

    Nor can rules be changed and retrospectively applied. If they could be, Motherwell would be due a point deduction, for example.

    Nor does paying anything change anything.

    I don't expect a sensible response.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sam, no its not a court of law. It's a ruling on whether rules were broken and if a sporting advantage was gained. There was none.

    Nor can rules be changed and retrospectively applied. If they could be, Motherwell would be due a point deduction, for example.

    Nor does paying anything change anything.

    I don't expect a sensible response.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I just don't understand why Thomson would put his reputation on the line in the first place by allowing himself to be dragged into this by a bunch of crazy Rangers-haters. He must be so easily duped. And seemingly being unable to comprehend the ruling by Lord Nimmo Smith is also baffling. Rather than continue to shout about something of which he has little or no understanding, he'd be better to keep quiet and hope people eventually forget about his "contributions."

    ReplyDelete

Keep it civil, lads.