Nimmo Smiths verdict vs The FTTT

[Ricky_ 893]

I hope all you bears are walking around the workplace today looking like this

Of course we should, we've been vindicated of any accusations of cheating, of lacking sporting integrity, of gaining any kind of unfair advantage with a report that stated no sporting advantage was ever gained by having a facility to give players & their families trusts as set up by MIH.

There is 1 aspect of yesterdays report we shouldn't overlook however - it was the fact that "wrong doing" was established, hence the fine.

What was the "wrongdoing". Well, Nimmo & his 2 QC panel members, interpreted the the trust funds as "payment" to players - hence should have been declared. Now our entire argument throughout this process, both in the BTC & this commission, was that these were not 'payments', and they were not for services rendered.

The residing judges in the FTTT came to the legal verdict to substantiate our claim. By LAW... by LEGAL DEFINITION these were not payments. Which begs the question, why did the SPL's 3 man panel ignore this ruling and interpret the EBT scheme as 'payments', thus hitting the oldco with a fine?

Is this another 'transfer embargo scandal' whereby the SPL believes it's not bound by the laws of the land? OR, is something more sinister going on here - the SPL wouldn't be trying to add a little beef to HMRC's appeal now, would they?

[JCDBigBear 10,830]

Nimmo Smith and his 2 colleagues were appointed by the SPL to do the SPL's bidding. The SPL (and Celtic's) lawyers, Harper McLeod set out the terms of the investigation. These terms were "Rangers are guilty, just you prove it for us". In the brief summary at the start of the SPL Commission report, Nimmo Smith states that they were loans. How can a loan possibly be interpreted as a contractual payment of wages/salaries? The side letters were a distraction which really had little worth because the trust payments were loans paid out on request at the discretion of the trustees. The trustees have to be independent from Rangers and MIH. There was no guarantee that the loans would be paid out to the players or whoever, such payments were discretionary.

I would also point out that this wasn't a legal enquiry but the FTTT was a legal enquiry.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Nimmo Smith and his 2 colleagues were appointed by the SPL to do the SPL's bidding. The SPL (and Celtic's) lawyers, Harper McLeod set out the terms of the investigation. These terms were "Rangers are guilty, just you prove it for us". In the brief summary at the start of the SPL Commission report, Nimmo Smith states that they were loans. How can a loan possibly be interpreted as a contractual payment of wages/salaries? The side letters were a distraction which really had little worth because the trust payments were loans paid out on request at the discretion of the trustees. The trustees have to be independent from Rangers and MIH. There was no guarantee that the loans would be paid out to the players or whoever, such payments were discretionary.

I would also point out that this wasn't a legal enquiry but the FTTT was a legal enquiry.

They styled it as such, legal enquiry that is.

[Ricky_ 893]

Nimmo Smith and his 2 colleagues were appointed by the SPL to do the SPL's bidding. The SPL (and Celtic's) lawyers, Harper McLeod set out the terms of the investigation. These terms were "Rangers are guilty, just you prove it for us". In the brief summary at the start of the SPL Commission report, Nimmo Smith states that they were loans. How can a loan possibly be interpreted as a contractual payment of wages/salaries? The side letters were a distraction which really had little worth because the trust payments were loans paid out on request at the discretion of the trustees. The trustees have to be independent from Rangers and MIH. There was no guarantee that the loans would be paid out to the players or whoever, such payments were discretionary.

I would also point out that this wasn't a legal enquiry but the FTTT was a legal enquiry.

indeed, so we have here a judgement, by a law lord none the less, which completely put aside an already established legal verdict.

What grounds do we have to appeal, or sue? Hopefully the legal team at MIH are looking into possible legal action against the SPL for their ruling on this, because it undermines their case & the FTTT verdict.

[five stars 1,634]

How can LMS ignore the verdict of the FTT which was delivered by experts in the field? They were technically loans so did not need to he declared. Maybe he thinks that he can find us guilty of non discloser, even although a proper judge in a proper court,would probaly of went with the experts view, because its of little benefit for us to appeal the verdict and saves some of the embarrasment of his employers the SPL?

[Jamie0202 12,380]

The thing is, who will appeal the decision? The fine applies to Oldco and I don't think BDO will spend money and effort on an appeal when nowhere near the £250K will be paid anyway.

[JCDBigBear 10,830]

I think if we are all being honest, the "verdict" was much better than we had hoped or expected. Having said that, justice has not been done but do we really want to go down the route of an appeal? The way this commission was established was to give it the appearance of legality by employing the three QCs. We don't know exactly what their remit was as that would have been set out by the SPL and that odious individual McKenzie of Harper Macleod. In my opinion, much of it is down to interpretation of SPL rules and no attention has been given to the ruling of the FTTT. However, I don't suppose that £25k per annum for each year of the alleged breaches is a great deal under the circumstances. Their only chance of getting the £250k from "oldco" is by deducting it from the money they withheld from us last season. I'm not sure what happens to their costs which I would have expected to be claimed from "oldco" also. What I am now concerned about is if these sums are going to pass to us now as "oldco" football debt.

[five stars 1,634]

The fighting funds lawyer who represented the oldco, you would think would look over LMS findings and give his opinion whether the judgement was sound to the RFF. Can the RFF instigate an appeal if in our best interests? Would it need to be sanctioned by the liquidators of oldco? Would it be worth appealling to completely clear our name and put further shame on the spl/sfa? Or should we just move on.

[Big Al 55 9,281]

My interpretation was that there were a small number of cases which we also lost in the FTTT, could his findings relate to those cases?