SO, then, how on earth did Rangers find themselves in such a hole?
Five years on from being placed into liquidation, the team itself might well be in the top flight but not even the most optimistic supporter could claim the club is where it should be after all this time.
Since everything changed in 2012,
a litany of mistakes have been made, too many got involved who had only their own self-interests at heart and,
as is what always happens, it’s the punters who suffer.
The most significant aspect of the shambolic and humiliating defeat to Progres Niederkorn of Luxembourg was that it wasn’t that big a surprise. Not really. Rangers have been an average team for a long time and many of the players who failed last season were involved in both legs.
They were added to by new signings, many of whom can hardly speak a word of English, and they made up a team put together by a manager who even at this ridiculously early stage could be said to be walking on thin ice with weights in his pockets.
And just when Rangers thought things could not get worse, yesterday morning as fans were still trying to get their collective heads around the worst result in the club’s history – and that’s what it was – the long-running dispute over a tax avoidance scheme was lost after the Supreme Court ruled in favour of HMRC.
We shall get to this in a moment because anyone who doesn’t believe that what happened in Luxembourg is unrelated to how the club was run between 2001 and 2009, when under David Murray about £50m, an astonishing sum of money, was paid to dozens of Rangers players and staff through the Employee Benefit Trust scheme, needs a time out.
But before we get to that, much of the talk among Rangers supporters was about Pedro Caixinha.
It is no secret that not everyone inside Ibrox, and on the fringes, are far from convinced by the Portuguese. Tuesday night hardly helped his cause.
It would be remarkable if Caixinha were to lose his job after just a few months, although perhaps not improbable, but there is already a sense he’s a dead man walking.
Looking a couple of months ahead to the first derby match – Celtic go to Ibrox on September 23 – if Rangers are trailing their old pals and then lose that fixture it would be hard to see him carrying on.
Caixinha (left) was always an avoidable risk. There were far steadier hands the board could have asked to guide the tiller. He still has time to turn this around but how much is up for debate.
Sir David Murray, the former owner and chairman, is the man many supporters are blaming for where the club finds itself.
He was, after all, the one who
used EBTs and yesterday’s verdict strengthens the case that the 14 trophies won during that time should be stripped, as unlikely as that is to happen.
Murray, of course, was also “duped” into selling Rangers for £1 to Craig Whyte. A quick Google search would have told him that the Monaco-based apparent billionaire was perhaps not what he made himself out to be.
Administration and then liquidation followed. Rangers found themselves in the fourth tier of Scottish football and at the beginning of a long journey. What happened on Tuesday night in Luxembourg is a result of this mismanagement.
Had Rangers been run differently, or better, they might not have won so many trophies but they would not find themselves in their current mess; being outplayed in a European tie by the mighty Progres Niederkorn.
When big football clubs fall, it pays to go back to where it all started to go wrong and see where the villains of the piece are.
This is what Murray had to say within half an hour of the verdict which cannot be appealed.
“I am hugely disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Court of Session, reversing the decisions of the specialist tax First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal in this matter.
“The decision runs counter to the legal advice which was consistently provided to Rangers Football Club, that on the basis of the law and legal precedent at the time, the contributions made to the trust were not earnings and should not be taxed as such.”
In a written judgment, the judges said: “The sums paid to the trustee of the Principal Trust for a footballer constituted the footballer’s earnings
. . . the discretionary bonuses made available to RFC’s employees through the same trust mechanisms also fall within the tax charge as these were given in respect of the employee’s work.”
The verdict will not have a direct impact on the club as it exists now. The assets, business and SFA membership were transferred to a new company in 2012 to allow the team to continue playing as Rangers.
It’s now going to be fascinating to see which clubs do peruse the “tainted titles” and argue the case that were it not for Rangers’ use of EBTs then several clubs would have qualified for European football, even if there would be a few ifs and buts in that argument.
Celtic were the first to blink and yesterday released a statement which read: “Celtic’s position on this issue has been consistent – that this has always been a matter for the courts of law and also the Scottish football authorities, whose rules are intended to uphold sporting integrity. In 2013, we expressed surprise – shared by many observers and supporters of
the game – over the findings of the SPL Commission that no competitive or sporting advantage had resulted. Today’s decision only re-affirms
that view.
“We are sure now that the footballing authorities in Scotland
will wish to review this matter. Celtic awaits the outcome of their review.”
We started with a question and shall end with one. When will Rangers get back to being a team which at the start of a season could realistically believe they could win the title?
It’s not going to be any time soon and things cou
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel