THE SPFL announced yesterday they will take no further disciplinary proceedings over the use of Employee Benefit Trusts and other tax schemes by Rangers.

The decision, which has been made by the governing body following extensive consultation with Gerry Moynihan QC, has provoked an angry reaction in some sections of Scottish football.

But Ralph Topping, the outgoing SPFL chairman, Neil Doncaster, the chief executive, and Rod McKenzie, the legal advisor, outlined the reasons for the decision at Hampden yesterday as they called for an independent review to be held.

Chief Football Writer Matthew Lindsay was in attendance.

Q: The SPL had no rule allowing it to punish a member club for the non-payment of taxes. Was that negligent on their part.

ND: Arguably, the non-payment of millions of pounds of taxes could be construed as bringing the game into disrepute and that is an area reserved for the Scottish FA. It’s not an area which the SPL as was - or the SPFL as is now – is allowed to get into.

If you look at the period from 1999 and the next decade or so, neither UEFA nor other leagues across Europe, had rules to cover this sort of thing. Rules concerning financial fair play and non-payment of tax are fairly recent innovations across European football.

RT: There wasn’t one single person ever who envisaged this case happening. Did anyone in football see this coming?

The biggest assumption about the set-up in the SPL would be that you would have Rangers and Celtic playing in it in perpetuity. Nobody thought that those two bastions of football would ever be involved in anything like this and nobody flagged it up, hypothetically or otherwise. Whether that was negligent is a legitimate area for the commission to look at.

Q: The independent commission chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith ruled that Rangers hadn’t gained any “unfair sporting advantage". Do you agree?

RM: Firstly, the payments were not made to players, they were made into a trust and then the sub-trust lent the money to the families of the players, which is part of the problem.

The Supreme Court has now ruled that, while there was no payment to those players, they should be treated as remuneration to players. Nobody in football understood that one of its clubs was going to use a tax scheme like this for players.

It’s sometimes suggested that, somehow, the SPL or the SFA got notice of this. They didn’t. There is certainly reference in Rangers’ accounts to them using EBTs. EBTs were widely used industry. But nothing was said to indicate they were being used for players.

The reason Rangers didn’t lodge the documentation with the SPL – and Lord Nimmo Smith helped us establish this – was that they didn’t believe they had to because they weren’t making those payments to the players and, therefore, they didn’t believe they were under obligation under the rules to lodge those documents.

It had nothing to do with disclosure to HMRC because the SPL and the SFA were not in the business of disclosing documents to HMRC. The reason Rangers did not give that documentation to the SFA and the SPL was not to hide it from the tax authorities.

But side letters revealed that trust payments were performance-related with specific amounts being paid after certain targets had been reached.

RM: Most of them did. All I can say is that the side letters did not relate to payments to the players – they related to payments to the trusts. Rangers – incorrectly, in Lord Nimmo Smith’s decision – took the view that they did not need to file them with the SPL because they weren’t about payments to players.

And they had advice about this, so they said. They were still in breach of the rules and were punished accordingly by the commission. But they said – and I’m not here to apologise for them – that there was no competitive advantage gained by not filing the papers.

What feedback have you had from the clubs over this? Are they comfortable with the SPFL stance?

ND: Well ultimately it’s a question for the board and the new board met on Monday. They were clear that they wanted to be not only clear about the position as to any further disciplinary action — but also to ensure that any lessons from what’s happened over the past six or so years should be learned.

So there was a broad view at the meeting that there should be a form of review to understand and benefit from the lessons.

RT: There were no dissenting voices.

Q: Have you had any feedback from Celtic specifically?

RT: We’ve had a number of people expressing a viewpoint. Feedback would not be the word I’d use. It is more a case of ‘how do we move the game forward from here?’ Again, there were no dissenting voices about the board table.

RM: It would be fair to observe that Celtic are one of the clubs who, since the Supreme Court decision, has called for a review. They did not contribute to the board meeting because no Celtic person stood for election for the board.

Q: The SPFL now has rules to punish clubs for the non-payment of taxes. Could clubs be stripped of titles in the future?

RT: Yes, that is now available.

RM: Clubs must tell us within two days if they’ve defaulted on a tax payment. If that happens they are automatically barred from registering players over the age of 21.

So, the point is, they can’t gain advantage thereafter from not paying taxes because they can’t register any new players if they are not paying tax. That can carry on for as long as the tax default is there. So they have to fix the tax default before they can register any new players.

If the club does go into default, and doesn’t tell us within two days and also withholds information from HMRC and we find out, then that is a breach of the rules.

And there are a wide range of penalties for that, including points deductions, which happened to Livingston who didn’t tell us they had defaulted on their tax.

The registration embargo prevents the sporting advantage from being obtained and forces the club to pay the tax it’s due. The whole purpose is to re-balance the sporting advantage.

We aren’t in the business for punishing clubs for not complying with one of any thousands of laws. We’re in the business of ensuring the competition isn’t distorted by one club not meeting their obligations.

In a situation where a club wins a league, where they hadn’t told us about a tax default and they continued to default in their obligations, then one of the possible sanctions which could be imposed would be removal of the title.

I can’t pre-judge what an individual independent disciplinary panel would decide the appropriate sanction was. If you recollect, in the case of Rangers and Craig Whyte and that precise tax default which was pre-the SPL/SPFL rules on it, they were prosecuted for bringing the game into disrepute in relation to non-payment of the tax by the Scottish FA. The 12-month registration embargo was imposed.

Subsequently it was identified through the court process that, because of the way the rules were written, the Scottish FA didn’t have the power to impose that 12-month registration embargo, for that particular offence. But ultimately Rangers newco accepted the sanction within the context of the five-way agreement so Rangers ultimately served a 12-month registration embargo.

Have you spoken to Lord Nimmo Smith since the Big Tax Case verdict? Is he comfortable with his findings? Or would he have come to a different conclusion?

RM: I haven’t personally spoken to Lord Nimmo Smith about it but then I never would ask a judicial gentleman to review his decision. If he thought his decision was in some way undermined by the big tax case decision he would initiate that discussion, not us. It’s not for us to say to him. He is independent. The whole point of the commission was that it was independent of us. But in any event, as Gerry Moynihan’s opinion makes explicitly clear, it doesn’t in any way undermine his decision.

Q: Fans could try to crowdfund a legal challenge? Do you anticipate that? Are you confident you would repel that?

RT: There is a body of people who are interested in this, a whole tranche of individuals who are wealthy and who would be prepared to fund something like that. Crowdfunding could do that. We’re not discounting that. We are comfortable with the legal advice we have been given. That legal advice has gone through the grinder at the SPFL. We met with Gerry Moynihan it must have been about four times, including a full meeting with the board where he was challenged on a number of areas of his opinion. I’m sure there are a lot of smart people out there who may wish to go through some form of legal process. But at this point in time I am comfortable with the advice we have been given and confident that we could rebut that. But that’s not to say it wouldn’t happen. We will wait and see what happens.

RM: If I can put it this way, in the two years since the decision of the Inner House, which was really the game changer in the position of tax because the Supreme Court essentially just agrees with the Inner House’s decision, nobody either within the SPFL or outwith the SPFL nobody has suggested a disciplinary route under the SPL’s rules that is open to the SPFL to take against Rangers oldco or Rangers newco that is not covered in Gerry’s opinion. I have no doubt this opinion will be subject to rigorous analysis by people who are lawyers and who aren’t lawyers and there will be all kind of comments. If somebody comes up with some new suggestion we will examine it, it is part of the reason we made it public, to allow the debate.

RT: I think it is a milestone to have this level of openness and transparency. Previously it would have, I think, ended with the legal opinion and that would have been it, let’s get on with our life.

Q: Are you relieved to be seeing the back of this?

RT: I gave a commitment to see it through to the end because I think it would have been immensely unfair for Murdoch (new SPFL chairman MacLennan) to come in. The agreement was always to stay on. I could have cut and run at any point. But I just didn’t think that would be appropriate. I am often criticised about not being public with this, but I don’t think that is how you resolve these issues. They are done behind the scenes. I accept that that causes a lot of questions, but I always envisaged at the end of this we would be entirely open and allow people to really thoroughly examine what we are saying. I think it is a big step forward doing that. We won’t please all the people all the time, but we, as a way of operating as an institution, have fallen into line with what others have done in business and wider society. I wouldn’t compare this in any shape, size or form to Grenfell, but I think you have to be sympathetic to what people who are perceived to have been affected by this and their supporters are saying. I think it is entirely incumbent upon the authorities, the SPFL especially, to be open and transparent as we go forward.

Q: Do you accept that many supporters won’t be happy with your decision?

RT: I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a whole body of disgruntled supporters. But when you are sitting on the board of any institution your responsibilities are often defined in legal terms and by rules and regulations. Football is a beautiful game, a simple game. But it is a complex game when it comes to rules, regulations and legal positions. That took me a long time to get my head around.

But there are some legitimate areas we could explore with supporters and with clubs with an eye on improvement and an attempt to cauterise the wound, if you like, the sore. Whether we are successful in that is not up to me to determine. The only question

I have ever asked when I sat around the board table is ‘what is the right thing to do guys?’. If people want to point the finger and say we got it wrong, fine. But we ask the question ‘what is the right thing to do?’ It would have been easy to duck a lot of issues over the last eight years and hide, but we confronted them, bearing in mind the law, the regulations and the rules. I think now is the time for reflection and examination.

Q: Do you think the punishment fitted the crime?

RT: There are a lot of people who will have a view on that. I think it is there for the review body to have a look at. If they want to examine me on that issue I am happy to put myself forward as will the board members be.

Who sits on the review body? There is a lot of work to be done in that area. We need to work with the SFA on that. That is an absolute imperative. There is a lot of good people along at the SFA. There is not one single person in Scottish football who set out to bring about an outcome that suited them. We all need to go through that process of scrutiny. I am happy to go through it. The board of the SPFL are happy to go through it. I think everybody in Scottish football should have their opportunity to have their say and the review body report on it.

Q: Are you content you couldn’t have done any more?

RT: I am satisfied that we have gone through the legal process and we have done the responsible thing in terms of getting wiser minds than we’ve got to look at it from a legal perspective. We have taken that advice and we have acted on it. People can be critical all they want, but we haven’t set out in anything other than in a sincere fashion to try and do the right thing. Anybody that knows me will know that I always want to do the right thing. If I haven’t or the body hasn’t then it’s a fair criticism.

Q: Broadly speaking, did the SPL rules prevent you from punishing Rangers for something that was morally wrong?

RT: Some may have that view. Some will inevitably have that view. However, as Rod has eloquently explained, we were looking at the rules as were. That is the only thing left to a body. That is the only way in which this could progress, looking at it from the company’s perspective.

ND: Of course, we don’t know what the limitations of the Scottish FA’s rules were in terms of disrepute. That’s not something that’s been shared with us.

RM: After the AGM, I had to brief five new members on the details since 2012 and why they either should or shouldn’t support what the executive were proposing. They all accepted it.

Q: Will the rules the SPFL now have in place prevent this from happening again?

ND: We certainly hope so. Again, this independent review will look at whether there are further suggestions, further ways to tighten up the rules. If there are then we should he absolutely open to them.

RT: There may be areas that football would want to look at. Fit and proper person might come into that category. That’s an area where other leagues have found it difficult to get the perfect definition and perfect rules to apply. Fairness comes into it as well. How do you apply a rule fairly? I think there is a lot that needs to be examined here before we move on.

Q: Did you ever consider moving on?

RT: I could have walked away at any point. When I came in, I agreed to do the job for no money because I was still working. It’s not as if I wanted to turn up to earn what the SPFL were paying me.

But, no. Having been a CEO of a big organisation and dealt with shareholders, you are not going to please all the shareholders. But what you can try and do is communicate as far as the law allows.

I was used to operating in that kind of environment. If you can’t take that degree of pressure, you shouldn’t be in corporate life or football life.

ND: Football matters and it probably matters more in Scotland than anywhere else in the world. In that environment, you have intense focus on every move you make and syllable you utter. You shouldn’t be surprised if you get criticism or scrutiny. That goes with the job, goes with the territory. That hasn’t surprised me and it doesn’t deter me.

Q: Can Scottish football really move on from this episode?

ND: I think that’s why transparency and openness are the themes of this morning. I think the only way you can possibly try and draw a line under the events of the past is to understand precisely what happened.

There is so much misunderstanding about everything that has happened involving Rangers over the past six years or so. That openness and transparency is, I think, important to trying to move on. We absolutely welcome dialogue with clubs and supporter groups. We welcome their questions and scrutiny of the legal opinion. We will be as open as we can.

RM: Part of the transparency is about what the purpose and functions of the different bodies are. The SPFL is not the regulator of payment of tax. That is HMRC. It is not the regulator of compliance with the minimum wage. Again, that is HMRC.

The job of the SPFL can’t be to ensure that all of its 42 member clubs comply with every law at every time. It’s purpose is to run, as far as it can, a competition which is not affected by irregularity, that unfair competitive is not attained.

The body with the job of protecting the reputation of the game as a whole is the Scottish FA. That’s why it would be mad to have two bodies in control of that because you could come to conflicting decisions.

Somebody has to take responsibility. So what the SPFL has tried to do in the last period is to develop a set of rules that, so far as we can, ensures that unfair competitive advantage is not obtained.

That’s why if we learn that clubs have not paid their tax we stop them signing new players and we continue that until they pay their tax.

So we rebalance the advantage-disadvantage and if clubs are not truthful to us you punish them with additional sanctions – fines, deduction of points, stripping of titles whatever it comes to be.

That’s what the SPFL’s job is – to run competitions as fairly as they can be run and to some extent generate income for its members.

But it’s not for the SPFL to continually inspect every club and make sure they are complying with every law.

Q: Do you think the SFA have shirked their responsibility in that regard?

RT: I wouldn’t put that interpretation on it.

In terms of a perfect world and everyone moving on, Hibs fans don’t clap Hearts players for some fantastic play you abuse your defenders for letting them have such a move and you criticise your goalkeeper for letting a goal in. That’s the way football operates. Events that take place on the field reflect the attitude off the field of play.

For an institution like football all you can ever ask is ‘what is the right thing to do?’. We think the right thing to do is put ourselves under this form of scrutiny, to be open and receptive to ideas, criticism, whatever, by an independent body.

RM: Traditionally, the league has taken the lead on player contracts. So in 2012 the SPL prosecuted Rangers in relations to player contracts. That was our job and we did it at a time just before we could no longer do it.

There was a sanction imposed and we subsequently enforced that sanction on newco through the five-way agreement and the fine was paid.

No disrepute charge could have been taken against Rangers effectively until after the Supreme Court decision because nobody had decided finally whether tax had or had not been paid.

So it seems to me you can hardly blame the Scottish FA for not opening a disrepute charge when it was still open. It wouldn’t be fair to say it’s been left to the SPFL. We have done the jobs we were supposed to do.