SCOTTISH football's governing body has said it is sticking to its guns over its refusal to have a review over the Rangers EBT issues and says it is "ludicrous" to say there is a conspiracy to stop it.
Celtic had questioned the Scottish FA's decision not to support a judicial review is "a failure in transparency, accountability and leadership".
And SFA chief Stewart Regan insists that of the SFA’s 108 members it’s only Celtic who are pushing for a fresh probe into the use of EBTs which eventually led to the Oldco liquidation.
The Celtic intervention came after the SFA said it would not support a probe into the events that led to the Rangers oldco liquidation in 2012.
The SPFL called for a review after the Supreme Court found against the Ibrox club for its use of the EBT tax scheme between 2001 until 2010 to give millions of pounds of tax-free loans to players and other staff.
How SFA told Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell, it's original decision over a review
But the SFA has said it is not for budging and Mr Regan who has embarked in a letter exchange over the issue with Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell said: “Closure is a difficult thing for some people. I don’t ever think there will be truly closure on this issue.
“It is too emotive and too many issues have arisen over the years.
“All I can say is that we are acting on behalf of 108 members. I wrote to all of our members last week and invited them to discuss any aspect of my letter to them when we notified them of the board’s decision.
“I haven’t had a single email, a single phone call or a single letter from anyone other than clearly Celtic Football Club and the SPFL.
“So as far as the wider membership, 108 members, we are on the right track as far as those members are concerned."
FA chief executive Stewart Regan has embarked in a series of letter exchanges with Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell over the review question
Mr Regan said he understood why Mr Lawwell was pursuing the issue saying: "He is doing what is right for Celtic Football Club, he has a fiduciary duty to his club so I don’t think it is personal."
He pointed out there is an "independence on the board now that we've never had before" and that they have had independent legal advice every step of the way since 2010.
"To think that four QCs, three law lords, executives of all of our clubs, myself and my board colleagues and some others are somehow involved in some big conspiracy... it's ludicrous," he said.
"It's time now to look forward and let's stop focusing things in the rear view mirror."
He added: "In terms of transparency, we will be happy to publish any information that Celtic wish us to publish, subject to any live cases that are taking place.
"As far as leadership is concerned, I think leadership involves looking at the interests of 108 members, not looking at the interests of maybe one or two.
"In Celtic's case, they are key rivals of Rangers and I am sure there will be a lot of pressure and a lot of demands from fans' groups for this to be looked at."
The SFA said: "The Board of the Scottish FA has considered the recent requests from the SPFL and one of our member clubs to participate in an independent review in light of the UK Supreme Court judgment on the use of EBTs by Rangers FC and its implications for Scottish football.
"Notwithstanding the Board’s statement of July 5th 2017, it considered the request and explored the potential scope of any additional independent review in some detail. After a full debate, the Board’s position remains unchanged."
It reiterated confirmation that a further investigation would be carried out by an SFA compliance officer over the awarding of a UEFA licence to Rangers in 2011.
This comes after the SFA examined "new information" over what was commonly referred to as the Wee Tax Case.
"This information came to light in the recent Craig Whyte trial and concerns the testimony in Court of two former directors of Rangers FC regarding “overdue payables” to HMRC and relating to a Discounted Option Scheme," the SFA said.
It also repeated that the events over the past six years had "contributed directly to many amendments" to SFA protocols to "address key learnings".
The SFA said: It is also worth noting that all relevant Scottish FA disciplinary tribunals were undertaken with senior legal advisors. Indeed, all such cases were also chaired by senior legal figures.
"In summary, the Board of the Scottish FA has considered thoroughly the implications of the recent UK Supreme Court Judgement and, furthermore, has identified specific matters from the Craig Whyte trial that require to be revisited."
Celtic had said a review should be commissioned "to consider the events that led to the liquidation of Rangers Oldco and the governance issues arising from those events".
The club added: "This is exactly the same position as adopted by the SPFL board on behalf of all Scotland's 42 professional clubs.
Celtic said at the weekend that the failure to carry out a full review of the events and issues at Rangers "which have been without precedent in Scottish football would represent a failure in transparency, accountability and leadership".
And Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell in his letter to the SFA chief executive Stewart Regan said a refusal to review "to clarify the narrative and learn lessons for the future is both surprising and disturbing."
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in its fight with Rangers over the club's use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) in July.
More than £47m was paid to players, managers and directors between 2001 and 2010 in tax-free loans.
However, HMRC argued the payments were earnings and should be taxable.
Rangers' use of EBTs and the subsequent appeals by HMRC became known as the "big tax case".
Two tribunals in 2012 and 2014 had previously found in Rangers' favour, but the Court of Session found in favour of HMRC after an appeal in 2015.
Liquidators BDO were then allowed to appeal to the Supreme Court in London as the ruling has implications for future cases.
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 hereComments are closed on this article