Michael Kelly: Celtic can gloat... but not for long

He accepted as much yesterday when in an otherwise mealy-mouthed statement attempting to swerve responsibility for the Ibrox debacle he recognised that the tax tribunal proceedings have stemmed from arrangements put in place during his ownership.

But the Rangers’ fans who are now calling for his title to be removed, if not his head, should remember the delirium they enjoyed under his early ownership – signing the English captain and goalkeeper, winning trophy after trophy, competing effectively in Europe. And his media critics should be reminded of how they hungered for any words of wisdom he might deign to impart. For when Murray was in charge, there was little talk of how a weakened Celtic might be bad for Scottish football – least of all from him. He was out to create as big a gap between the two clubs as possible. He told me that himself.

His policy which created that initial medium-term success was what put the Celtic board – of which I was a member – in difficulty. We simply could not match his spending. And he never hesitated to rub it in. While that was irritating in the extreme, I could not fault his approach. We were rivals and he was out to crush the competition. He realised that owning a football club gave him the responsibility not to balance the books, but to succeed on the field. He went for European success and very nearly pulled it off. Sadly for him, he wasn’t quite rich enough and had to pull in his horns. He might have got away with it, but for the too-clever-by-half scheme to avoid tax by paying his players through this murky trust.

So, along with all other Celtic fans I am enjoying a period of pleasant contemplation at the discomfiture of Rangers. Those who thought they were “the people” and “simply the best” have to face the fact that their Establishment club, which based its appeal to a certain kind of fan on blatant discrimination, is now gone. “Sashes to Ashes” and “Nae Readies” will now be the new slogans if the Celtic social networking can have a say.

I just hope Alex Salmond’s anti-football law allows us to sing about it at the next Old Firm game. Chanting “schadenfreude” – a sentiment if not a word familiar to all football fans – would, given its Germanic root, certainly attract the attention of the thought police. But we can surely still all laugh at Rangers without being huckled?

However, for the serious Celtic fan this amusement cannot last for long. Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell is correct in saying that we do not need a strong Rangers to carry on. But that is like saying that an independent Scotland could manage to scrape some sort of a living on the international stage. It does not recognise that the standard of football would be even lower than we suffer today.

Five years ago, Celtic set out on a programme of austerity – to reduce debt and ensure that running costs were kept under strict control. Those objectives have certainly been achieved with the club well managed financially and the balance sheet, as results announced this week showed, in a healthy state.

But that has been reflected in the quality of players Celtic have been prepared to sign. Early exits from Europe indicate that this is a sub-standard squad. In negative correlation with this sound financial strategy, the playing ambitions of the club have been reduced to the lowest point in its history. If Celtic are not spending money on players now, they’d spend a lot less without Rangers – because they wouldn’t need to. Scottish football would be even more mediocre and embarrassing. On the other hand, Celtic would be guaranteed automatic annual entry into the highest level of European competition that Uefa would allow impoverished Scottish football. So that would boost income. But the value of the television deals would collapse.

Celtic and Scottish football need Rangers. There may be a lot of hoops to jump through – financial, legal and football. But soon, probably before the March deadline for qualifying for European football for next season, Rangers will be reborn. And in the Premier League. They will not be relegated, or asked to start again in the lowest division, even if they do emerge as a new company.

Rangers will carry on. The support is too strong, the worldwide appeal so great, the potential to be exploited so appealing that it must make business sense for the phoenix to rise. Owner Craig Whyte appears to have put himself in a very strong position vis-a-vis many of the assets of the club, so he will have a big say in how things are eventually resolved, as will HMRC. But Whyte cannot be part of the final solution.

A man whose evidence a sheriff found wholly unreliable does not have the credibility with the financial institutions necessary to any new deal, never mind among the fans whose ticket money he has mortgaged for years to come.

But a club purged of many of its debts will be an attractive proposition. Rangers’ fans just want their club saved. For the rest of us, the interesting question is what kind of saviour will appear? If they are taken over by a bunch of sensible local businessmen who are able to run the club on the same conservative basis as Celtic, then we can look forward to the usual intense rivalry as two poor teams fight for domestic honours.

But if someone with the wealth of an Abramovic and the ambition of a young Murray were to appear, then we would see quality return to Scottish football. How would Celtic respond? Initially, the present owner would refuse to join what he would see as a suicide pact. But continuing Rangers’ success would, again through inexorable fan pressure, force him to do so or to pass ownership on to some prepared to dig into deeper pockets. From a Celtic point of view, this is beginning to look exciting.