Celtic watched Rangers spend what they couldn’t afford – now David Murray’s own EBT words come back to haunt him

Simon Jordan has just dragged one of Scottish football’s most uncomfortable scandals back into the light – and David Murray’s explanation simply isn’t good enough.

Jordan revealed that he was offered a similar tax-saving arrangement while running Crystal Palace.

He looked at it. He saw the danger. He worried HMRC would eventually come calling.

He said no.

Murray said yes.

Now the former Rangers owner says the EBT scheme was presented as valid, auditors signed off the accounts and he “rubber-stamped it”.

That defence deserves ferocious scrutiny.

Murray’s own admission destroys the innocent narrative

Forget opinion for a moment.

Listen to Murray himself.

Giving evidence years later, Murray admitted the EBT arrangement gave Rangers “the opportunity to get players we may otherwise not been able to afford”.

That statement is absolutely staggering.

Football clubs spend money on better players because better players give them a greater chance of winning.

Murray admits Rangers could obtain players they might otherwise have been unable to afford.

Yet Scottish football was subsequently told there had been no unfair sporting advantage from Rangers’ rule breaches.

How does that make sporting sense?

The side letters make this even worse

Then we reach the undisclosed side letters.

The Lord Nimmo Smith commission established that Rangers’ senior management DECIDED the side-letter arrangements should not be disclosed to the football authorities.

That wasn’t Celtic supporters making allegations.

That was the commission’s finding.

It also found that the Rangers board sanctioned payments under those arrangements without taking legal or accountancy advice to justify their non-disclosure.

Those were serious breaches.

Oldco was fined £250,000.

To this writer, deliberately withholding contractual payment arrangements required by football’s rules while using a remuneration system that Murray admits helped Rangers recruit players they might otherwise have been unable to afford represents blatant sporting unfairness.

Call that cheating? In my opinion, absolutely.

Lord Nimmo Smith’s conclusion deserves to be challenged

The commission nevertheless concluded that Rangers gained no unfair competitive advantage from the rule breaches and refused to strip titles.

That judgment stands.

But judgments can be criticised.

Celtic themselves subsequently expressed surprise at the no-advantage conclusion.

And there is a glaring problem with it.

Money matters in football.

It determines wages. Wages help determine recruitment. Recruitment affects the quality of a squad. Squad quality affects results.

Rangers’ financial power under Murray brought success. Celtic’s vastly superior financial position over most Scottish clubs today unquestionably helps Celtic build stronger squads.

Money doesn’t guarantee championships.

But pretending financial resources provide no sporting advantage is detached from the economic reality of professional football.

Five titles – Celtic second five times

Here is the statistic that should make every Celtic supporter furious.

During the EBT era, Rangers won five league championships.

Celtic finished second on every single occasion.

Five Rangers titles.

Five Celtic runners-up finishes.

That doesn’t mean those championships legally belong to Celtic. The commission didn’t strip Rangers’ honours and the football authorities subsequently determined the matter could not be reopened.

But supporters are perfectly entitled to question the sporting legitimacy of what happened.

We cannot replay those seasons without Rangers recruiting players through an arrangement Murray acknowledges helped them obtain footballers they otherwise might not have afforded.

That’s precisely why the damage can never be calculated.

McLeish inadvertently explained why money mattered

Alex McLeish’s Rangers won two of those championships.

BBC Scotland later revisited the financial arms race between Rangers and Martin O’Neill’s Celtic.

McLeish acknowledged the fundamental reality: Rangers had to compete with Celtic’s wages or they would have been behind them.

Exactly.

Money mattered.

Wages mattered.

Players mattered.

Yet somehow we’re expected to accept that Rangers obtaining players they might otherwise have been unable to afford had no relevance to sporting advantage.

That argument simply doesn’t withstand common sense.

And then Murray sold Rangers for £1

This was the same Murray era in which Rangers’ finances spiralled spectacularly.

Eventually Murray sold his controlling interest to Craig Whyte for £1.

One pound.

Experienced people inside Ibrox had warned Murray about Whyte.

Martin Bain had raised concerns about the lack of due diligence.

Murray sold anyway.

Within a year Rangers were in administration.

After a proposed CVA failed, the old operating company subsequently entered liquidation.

Liquidation.

Not “demotion”.

Not merely “financial trouble”.

Liquidation.

Scottish football’s media should be hammering Murray

That brings us back to Simon Jordan.

Why has it taken an English football businessman to confront Murray so directly about this?

Jordan examined a similar proposition and walked away.

Murray accepted Rangers’ scheme.

The scheme ultimately lost its tax battle at the Supreme Court.

There were undisclosed side letters.

Rangers committed serious disclosure breaches.

Murray admits the arrangement helped Rangers obtain players they might otherwise have been unable to afford.

Rangers won five championships during the EBT period with Celtic second every time.

Then Murray sold Rangers for £1 before the catastrophe that followed.

The Scottish media has certainly investigated Rangers before – BBC Scotland produced major investigations into precisely this period – so claiming there was a total media blackout would be false.

But Murray’s latest interview deserves far more scrutiny than another comfortable trip down memory lane.

Put his words beside the side-letter findings.

Put them beside the five championships.

Put them beside Celtic’s five second-place finishes.

And ask the question Scottish football should never stop asking:

If Rangers were able to obtain players they otherwise couldn’t afford, how can anyone seriously argue that money provided no sporting advantage?