"Let the others come after us. We welcome the chase. It is healthy for us.
We will never hide from it. Never fear."
- William Struth

Common Sense?

Written by: NineteenSeventyTwo
Thursday, 5th November 2015

It really should surprise no one in Scotland that the Court of Session ruled in HMRC's favour against the Murray group & RFC2012 with regard to the EBTs used by the Murray Group while they owned Rangers in the naughties.

After years of legalities and technical arguments between tax specialists, lawyers, advocates, it has been the decision of three Lords in Edinburgh to ignore the legalities and force through a consensus of opinion contrary to each previous ruling. Their statement was surprisingly candid in referencing 'common sense' rather than any technical legal explanation.

Some early reaction in the world of accountancy is interesting, with one observer commenting that the decision is "astonishing".


One English based QC, Jo Maugham has stated this morning that 'Rangers' are getting a raw deal.

When you look at the back story of each of the three judges on the panel, it becomes an even more astonishing story.

There were three judges on that panel; Lord Drummond Young, Lord Carloway, and Lord Menzies

Lord Drummond Young has an impressive CV including several years working for the Inland Revenue (now known as HMRC). Quite why anyone thought he'd be the most objective judge is anyone's guess, but someone did.

Also on the panel was Lord Carloway, who Rangers fans will remember sat on an SFA Disciplinary panel that punished Rangers in the form of a transfer embargo, which Rangers challenged and had overturned. Lord Glennie found that the ruling and subsequent punishment was unlawful. Lord Carloway has lost against Rangers, and by all accounts didn't take it well. Was he best placed custodian to rule on the HMRC versus Murray Group/RFC 2012 legal battle?

Lord Menzies for his part, also has history with Rangers, being the man who allowed Craig Whyte to appoint Duff and Phelps as administrators of Oldco. Bear in mind the administrators in question are now charged with various counts of fraud in both takeovers of the club, and the running of the club while Administrators. Again I will ask why Lord Menzies was chosen given his history with Rangers affiliated companies?

I have little doubt that the Murray group, and BDO, who are in the process of liquidating RFC2012 have a strong case to appeal to the Supreme Court on the technicalities alone, and I expect BDO at least will challenge it, but what of any Supreme Court panel?

Given the amount of vultures across the city attempting to find areas to exploit (to punish the new owners of the club), a fair hearing is a must. While some observers are reporting that the SPFL will take no further action against Rangers, my view is that their statement is ambiguous and in no way can be interpreted as closing the door on the issue.

I also feel that Rangers statement last night, particularly on the subject of our "history", was not concrete. No one is suggesting that we will lose all of our history, however, there are strong calls for stripping of titles, and unless the club has had a solid pledge from the SPFL that this is never going to happen, then the statement is meaningless.

So, given the clamour out there to punish Rangers, more clarity is required from the football bodies, and from BDO before we can rest easy that our enemies end game of title stripping will not be reached.

What BDO will need to fight strongly for, is fair representation, and we should all be asking for it, as we have been let down on this appeal.


by WeMustBeBolder
by D'Artagnan


Recent Articles:

This site prevails due to the
sterling efforts of volunteers for no
financial gain
. If you wish, you
can donate to VB running costs
by clicking the button below

From The Archive: