Fred_Zeppelin

My son goes to loads of concerts, when I was his age so did I, I watched a video that I probably shouldn't have of some kids trying to escape down an alley at the side of the concert hall. It could have been the alley down the side of the Apollo in the 70s, or any venue in the world. It defies belief that people will target young people out enjoying themselves on a Friday night. I can't get my head round it, I feel numb.

I don't see how bringing the happenings in France into this thread helps in any way.

And there's more:- http://ptfc.co.uk/news/2015-2016/november_2015/partick_thistle_debt_free_after_restructuring

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34811072 Celtic reiterate view in response to Rangers EBT ruling Celtic have reiterated their view that Rangers may have gained a sporting or competitive advantage from their use of a controversial tax scheme. Last week, HMRC won a judgement that Rangers' former parent company's use of employee benefit trusts from 2001 to 2010 broke tax rules. "In 2013, we expressed surprise....over the findings of the SPL Commission that no competitive or sporting advantage had resulted," read a Celtic statement. "That remains our view." Celtic finished second to Rangers when the Ibrox side won the Scottish Premier League in 2003, 2005, 2009 and 2010. EBTs were effectively loans drawn by players that were never repaid. In 2013, an SPL commission fined Rangers for not disclosing payments to players to the football authorities but did not strip the club of any titles won during the period EBTs were in use at Ibrox. Current Rangers chairman Dave King issued a statement on Thursday denying Rangers had gained any sporting advantage between 2001 and 2010, and urged Scottish clubs to move on from the issue. Other than Rangers, Celtic are the first Scottish club to make any public comment following HMRC's court win. And the Scottish Premiership champions said they did so "in response to considerable interest from supporters, shareholders and media representatives in recent days."

In response to considerable interest from supporters, shareholders and media representatives in recent days, Celtic today made the following statement: “We are aware of last week’s Court of Session ruling, which we note is subject to potential appeal. “Celtic’s position on this issue is consistent – that this remains 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. That remains our view."

Nah, international week apparently. I'll check again next week and get back to you.

We would borrow a lawnmower from someone’s dad and cut the grass ourselves. Then we’d nick a bag of sawdust from somewhere and put down lines.

Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs – who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers’ removal from the Premier League – should even wish to re-engage with this issue. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders....... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34800109

"Third Lanark" *goes to check tomorrow's fixtures*

Every now and then something comes along that defies the mental gymnastics required to believe the holding company myth. Schrodinger's example used a cat, the Scottish football version uses a football club. The SFA do not have the power to fine a holding company. They are a football authority who only have jurisdiction over football clubs. Therefore the Oldco/Newco argument simply doesn't stand up unless you are actually referring to Oldclub and Newclub. A simple observation that betrays the truth.

You said the fine was for oldco, the old club, not newco, the new club.

Right, so that was the old club?

Have you paid the fine?

Or he's being deliberately antagonistic so that he can blame everyone else when it all goes tits up?

All we need now is Gazza walking down the Copland Rd with a chicken supper.

Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn’t want to sign under different financial circumstances.

I have heard that the EBT was inherited from his last club, but I don't know for sure. What I do know is that Celtic took advice at the time and paid the tax so they gained no advantage from this EBT.

In this case the club and the holding company are different entities, although the club is a company too.

Celtic didn't gain any advantage because they paid the tax. The advantage Rangers gained was the ability to attract players they couldn't otherwise afford to attract because they avoided paying the tax.

Celtic paid the tax. Rangers didn't.

The advantage Rangers got was withholding the tax that should have been paid on the earnings that were diverted to the EBTs. Celtic paid the tax on Junihno's EBT payments at the time after taking advice.

*shrugs*

I think you're in denial, if my post is so flawed address the points.

TBH Stevie Wonder could have seen that he was never a fit & proper person anyway.

When I say it's illegal, I mean it's illegal. You don't get fines and penalties for complying with the law. You're claiming Rangers did nothing illegal when they clearly did. HMRC will never be able to claim the EBT tax and NIC money from Rangers because Rangers don't exist any more. But that doesn't mean they didn't break the law at the time. The original defence used by DM was a defence against the tax liability, his defence was that EBTs were not a vehicle to evade tax but that they were a vehicle to allow Rangers to buy players they wouldn't normally have been able to, ie it gave than an advantage over other clubs. If that argument had won then EBTs would have been no different from clubs borrowing large amounts of money or being lucky enough to have a rich benefactor. Distasteful but legal in every way. However It has now been ruled that the way Rangers used EBTs was illegal and therefore that advantage that DM said gave them in the transfer market was a sporting advantage. ie By using an illegal money saving scheme Rangers were able to gain a sporting advantage over other clubs. Hoisted by their own petard.