THERE have been so many inquiries, investigations and tribunals into the collapse of Rangers that one hesitates to suggests another.

This proposed initiative would, however, fall under the banner of a truth and reconciliation commission.

The fabric of Scottish football has been ripped asunder by events at Rangers but yesterday's findings by a commission chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith do, however, serve to illustrate that The Wee Boy Did it and Ran Away Theory about the troubles of the Ibrox club do not survive scrutiny.

Rangers were involved in mismanagement long before Craig Whyte bought the club for a pound before taking it into administration and subsequent liquidation.

The extent of the EBTs scandal is soberly presented by the commission. Basically, it says the payments were not in breach of Scottish Premier League rules and did not give Rangers an advantage on the pitch. This verdict scotched any prospect of the stripping of titles and substantially lowered the temperature in the immediate aftermath of the report's publication.

However, there are matters worthy of scrutiny. The commission found there were "proven contraventions" of the disclosure rule over a substantial period of time. This is the sort of offence that does not require Lord Nimmo Smith to don a black cap but it shines a light on the Ibrox board under Sir David Murray.

Why were details of the EBTs not given to authorities?

If nothing else, they make for interesting reading such as Steven Davis receiving a letter promising £1.2m and Jerome Bonnisel (remember him?) the sum of £48,000.

The report states: "Oldco through its senior management decided that such side-letter arrangements should not be disclosed to the football authorities, and the Board of Directors sanctioned the making of payments under the side-letter arrangements without taking any legal or accountancy advice to justify the non-disclosure."

In short, Rangers weren't telling and they weren't telling why they weren't telling.

Surely this stance over payments that would come to tally tens of millions of pounds was a result of fevered boardroom discussion?

Not according to Campbell Ogilvie, now president of the Scottish Football Association and one-time secretary at Rangers who was employed by Oldco from 1978 to 2005. He told the commission: "I assumed that all contributions to the Trust were being made legally, and that any relevant football regulations were being complied with. I do not recall contributions to the Trust being discussed in any detail, if at all, at Board meetings. In any event, Board meetings had become less and less frequent by my later years at Rangers."

He adds: "Nothing to do with the contributions being made to the Trust fell within the scope of my remit at Rangers." The report adds: "However it should be noted that Mr Ogilvie was a member of the board of directors who approved the statutory accounts of Oldco which disclosed very substantial payments made under the EBT arrangements."

Mr Douglas Odam, who took over as company secretary, said the loan arrangements were "discussed by the Board, possibly only at one meeting". He did not recall which directors were or were not in attendance. "Specific details of player contracts or EBT arrangements were not discussed at board meetings in the normal course."

More than £45m is listed in contributions to EBTs in accounts from 2000-2010 so it can be reasonably assumed that the Rangers board could never be described as inquisitive, certainly on this issue.

This was Oldco under Sir David Murray. So what can Scottish football expect of Newco under Charles Green and Malcolm Murray?

A severe difference of views lies at the heart of the recent turbulence at Rangers. It concerns how the Newco faces up to a climate where many outside the club are appalled at the deeds of Oldco. Do Rangers decide to interact with Scottish football, accepting past sins of omission or commission? Or does the club maintain an aggressive stance to any criticism and distance itself from the rest of the industry?

The commission in its considered verdict yesterday cleared some of the wreckage from the past. The way to the future seems more clear with another inquiry completed but the report is part of a process where there must be an acceptance of the truth before reconciliation can be achieved.