Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside.

[Chief]

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.

What's the difference? I mean, Rangers made an offer that was refused, Arsenal settled for an amount less than what was owed too, so surely all these clubs had EBT's set up for one reason only? At the time Celtic would have been able to sign this player due to the EBT, and have retrospectively paid the tax after advice?

This would suggest that Celtic wouldn't have signed Juninho without an EBT.

[Toepoke]

Indeed. Any Kilmarnock and Motherwell fans posting their faux outrage on this subject should be getting their brass necks polished.

Killie's debt came from building a hotel. Not sure what sporting advantage that gave us...

[Chief]

Killie's debt came from building a hotel. Not sure what sporting advantage that gave us...

The money it made, lots of Killie fans on here were happy to suggest it was practically the only part of the Club or Company that was actually making money.

[Squirrelhumper]

The money it made, lots of Killie fans on here were happy to suggest it was practically the only part of the Club or Company that was actually making money.

It lost money! Well after we'd paid interest on its loan every month.

Club made money some seasons (naisy etc) but that money went straight to bank.

We were paying 10ks a month in interest. Hotel made hee-haw.

[ShedTA]

SFA have said they'll fight Ashley on this.

I was watching The Hunt the other night. Featured a pack of dogs that managed to take down a buffalo (i think it was) by running it to exhaustion. Well getting into protracted legal battles with Ashley is only going to exhaust the dogs chasing the buffalo. King is crazy waging lawfare on Ashley. Ashley can outspend him x 20. As for the SFA of course they are fighting they cannot fold that quickly. But if Ashley is going for them they should be shitting themselves. Finally these rat bag whanks are going to come under some real legal scrutiny, the scrutiny of Mighty Mike's considerable legal team. If I was running the SFA I'd probably be shitting it. Mike Ashley could do Scottish football a big favour here if he wipes the floor with SFA. C'mon Mike.

Mike Ashley can afford the best legal advice going. He also doesn't like getting beaten hence his refusal to bow to king despite the relative pittance of a reward in this whole thing for him. Agreed SFA should be shitting it.

[Chief]

It lost money! Well after we'd paid interest on its loan every month.

Club made money some seasons (naisy etc) but that money went straight to bank.

We were paying 10ks a month in interest. Hotel made hee-haw.

I'm certainly no expert on club finances certainly, but I could've sworn there were a few Killie fans on here peeved when Johnston sold off the Hotel as it was on of the only things making money at the time, I maybe have that confused with another asset.

[Fred_Zeppelin]

What's the difference? I mean, Rangers made an offer that was refused, Arsenal settled for an amount less than what was owed too, so surely all these clubs had EBT's set up for one reason only? At the time Celtic would have been able to sign this player due to the EBT, and have retrospectively paid the tax after advice?

This would suggest that Celtic wouldn't have signed Juninho without an EBT.

Celtic paid the tax. Rangers didn't.

[adamntg]

Anyone seen that film "It Follows".

I know a Minor Threat song by that name - any help?

Edited November 11, 2015 by adamntg

[Squirrelhumper]

I'm certainly no expert on club finances certainly, but I could've sworn there were a few Killie fans on here peeved when Johnston sold off the Hotel as it was on of the only things making money at the time, I maybe have that confused with another asset.

No they were pissed off as he paid 1 for the club and now owns the hotel.

He did a deal that was best for him. Not the club.

[bruce778]

correct as at the time EBT's were not declared illegal - it was still a moot point. so the side letters meant nothing as the earnings were seen by rangers as non taxable. HMRC have for a long time declared that they viewed the ebt monies as taxable and that they would pursue rangers for these taxes. That has now been backed up by three senior judges. So the side letters now become part of a failed attempt to evade tax on player wages which were not declared to the SFA which renders the players registrations ineligible under the SFA's own rules.of the time. .

It wasn't tax evasion hence this isn't a criminal case. It was tax avoidance executed incorrectly, which resulted in a retrospective tax bill. There is a difference.

The issue of non-declaration of the side letters has already been dealt with by Lord Nimmo Smith. The characterisation of those payments as wages or loans doesn't matter. LNS was dealing with the non-disclosure of "payments" to players. He said Rangers should have declared the payments, but didn't. He said they gained no unfair sporting advantage by not declaring the side letters because the declaration would not have changed anything, ie the SFA wasn't going to question the legality of the scheme if HMRC hadn't done so.

[bruce778]

there is no such thing as UK law, there is Scots law and england/Wales Law, sometimes they are the same thing, but there is no law called UK law.

Hearts and Motherwell were different from Gretna. Gretna were Liquidated, the other two went into Admin. there is a difference.

Gretna is the only team that we can compare with Rangers. Both were liquidated, all others went into Administration,.,,

Tax laws apply to the whole of the UK and are not different in Scotland and the rest of the UK (yet), so it's perfectly correct to talk about UK law because it's the same across the whole of the UK (with some minor exclusions).

Yes, others went into administration but didn't pay their debts. They were only allowed to come out of administration by having friendly debtors. Are you saying that if Rangers had cut a deal with HMRC that this would not be an issue? Either way, I haven't seen any suggestions that Gretna's titles should be stripped and that has not occurred.

[bruce778]

There's a difference between failing to pay a debt for back taxes due a business failing and setting up a scheme that is judged to be deliberate tax evasion.

It hasn't been judged to be deliberate tax evasion. It's incorrectly executed tax avoidance. Tax evasion is criminal.

It cannot seriously be denied that Rangers were hit with a retrospective tax bill that they couldn't pay. That is it in a nutshell.

[bruce778]

It is one thing to take on a legitimate debt and then spunk the borrowed money on players so you can win the league (but then actually go bust) situation.

It is quite another to defraud the tax man to win the league (and then get busted for it and go bust) situation.

That is (more) like robbing a bank (to fund the team) and then later listing the robbed funds as a 'creditor'.

Scots law disagrees with you, which is why HMRC is not a preferred creditor at law. By your logic, Rangers could borrow the money from a (very stupid) Bank, pay HMRC the tax bill and then not re-pay the Bank the money and everything would be hunky dory. The approach you propose ignores the practical realities of the way businesses operate. HMRC is just another creditor. The fact that they took so long to issue their tax bill to Rangers is a matter for them.

There has been no fraud here. The payments were in Rangers' accounts as I am sure you recall.

Your last analogy is interesting because there have been a lot of Banks left out of pocket by insolvency events affecting football clubs. But that's ok, as long as it wasn't the tax man.

[Mitre]

Celtic paid the tax. Rangers didn't.

Why stop at the EBTs?

Let's delve back in the biscuit tin years and work out how much Celtic cheated the taxman out of by under declaring their attendances throughout the 60s to the 90s.

[EddardStark]

The SFL chairman agreed to stand by Lord Nimmo Smith's verdict.The stripping of titles and cups was kicked into touch as part of the five way agreement. No one can deny that Rangers have suffered financial damage and consequences from taking bad advice on the use of EBT's. Time to move on unless Scottish Football wants to commit itself for another 10 years of agony and recrimination.

Edited November 12, 2015 by EddardStark

[EddardStark]

Decent article from Michael Grant in The Times

The “Big Tax Case” is beginning to feel like one of those daft matches that come along now and again, the lead dramatically switching hands as late goals are scored at either end. If BDO, the company in the process of liquidating Rangers Football Club plc, are going to turn this around they have one last chance to launch a lengthy appeal. That will mean another year of football fans interpreting tax law on the basis of what team they support.

Is it outrageous to not support Rangers but believe that a) stripping titles would be an excessive and disproportionate punishment for their tax breaches and something doesn’t sit right about the endless accusations of “cheating” levelled at them over complex and (still) disputed EBTs? To cheat, don’t you have to set out to deliberately break the rules? Don’t you have to know something is forbidden and say, to hell with it, this is what we’re doing anyway? Ben Johnson, Lance Armstrong, the Russian athletes and their federation: deliberate, sustained, systematic corruption and lying. Rangers using/misuing EBTs isn’t in that ball park.

It’s been said often enough already but these core points remain sacrosanct if we’re going to talk about something as profound as title-stripping: EBTs were not illegal when Rangers used them and they’re not illegal now; Rangers declared their use of them in their annual accounts; when the SPFL got Lord Nimmo-Smith to rule on the issue in 2013 he found the following: “The payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in breach of SPL or SFA Rules.” He ruled that none of the players who got EBTs were ineligible, and that “it is not a breach of SPL rules to minimise tax liability”. Count me among the majority who couldn’t get their head around Nimmo-Smith’s strange interpretation that Rangers gained no sporting advantage from not disclosing the side-letters. If a football club embraces an aggressive tax-avoidance scheme it’s doing it to save money to use elsewhere, ie potentially on bringing in more and better players. If Sir David Murray had had the discipline he could still have signed and retained all the true stars — Ronald de Boer, Lorenzo Amoruso, Barry Ferguson — without using EBTs. But he couldn’t stop signing players, and there were plenty of duds among them who made little impact.

But Nimmo-Smith did not act on using EBTs to pay players because it was not covered in the SPL rules (non-disclosure of “side-letters” was and Rangers were fined £250,000 for their shifty, dubious behaviour on that). His verdict was not based on the actual EBT use or misuse and, for what it’s worth, he doubtless he assumed that HMRC (losing its case at the time) would continue its appeal. So what exactly is that people are calling for now? That Rangers be stripped of titles for avoiding tax between 2001 and 2010 even though that itself broke no football rules at the time? How does that work, exactly? Should those rules and punishment be drawn up now?

The way Murray latterly ran Rangers was reprehensible. The way Rangers and their fans revelled in the success explains the unquenchable desire among rival fans to see them punished. It’s understandable that even some fair-minded supporters feel that their team was shafted by Rangers over those years. But others accept that football knew all about EBTs. Arsenal used them. Celtic had the sense to dabble and then settle their tax liability and have nothing more to do with them, recognising that they might become more trouble than they were worth. Not Murray. He was addicted to the high-risk, daring aspects of EBTs. Well, look where it all got him.

But it isn’t necessary to have a shred of sympathy for Murray to say this: in the clamour to come down hard on Rangers, it cannot extend to revisiting old rules and writing new ones just to get them in the dock.

[Chief]

Celtic paid the tax. Rangers didn't.

As usual you're deliberately missing the point.

Celtic used an EBT end of story. Why did they use it? Surely to gain a financial advantage at the time.

So just like Rangers did, if they gained a sporting advantage from the use of EBT's, then so did Celtic. It doesn't matter about the use of 1 or 100.

If there is a difference in how they were administered and that's the fundamental difference then a fine would be a more appropriate penalty.

[northernscum]

Anyone else read this shite? Typical Rangers & Celtic = Scottish football. Absolute over the top nonsense.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/14024724.Spiers_on_Sport__Scottish_football_has_become_a_cesspit_of_venom_and_hate/

[sbcmfc]

As usual you're deliberately missing the point.

Celtic used an EBT end of story. Why did they use it? Surely to gain a financial advantage at the time.

So just like Rangers did, if they gained a sporting advantage from the use of EBT's, then so did Celtic. It doesn't matter about the use of 1 or 100.

If there is a difference in how they were administered and that's the fundamental difference then a fine would be a more appropriate penalty.

As far as I'm aware, Celtic used an EBT to pay up Juninhos contract when he left the club. So it was slightly different. It wasn't how they were paying him while he was there.

They did also pay the tax later having decided it was a bad idea.

For those drawing a comparison with Motherwell, I'm in full agreement with you, and think Motherwell should be stripped of all the titles we won as a result of john boyles over spending.

[ShedTA]

It wasn't tax evasion hence this isn't a criminal case. It was tax avoidance executed incorrectly, which resulted in a retrospective tax bill. There is a difference.

The issue of non-declaration of the side letters has already been dealt with by Lord Nimmo Smith. The characterisation of those payments as wages or loans doesn't matter. LNS was dealing with the non-disclosure of "payments" to players. He said Rangers should have declared the payments, but didn't. He said they gained no unfair sporting advantage by not declaring the side letters because the declaration would not have changed anything, ie the SFA wasn't going to question the legality of the scheme if HMRC hadn't done so.

Incorrect. The side letters meant it became tax evasion. They stated rangers would underwrite any tax liability of the ebts therefore those letters chenged it from tax avoidance to tax evasion. Hmrc was looking at and challenging the ebts at rangers since 2001 and told them they believed tax should be paid. By issuing the side letters rangers assisted in tax evasion. This has been ruled to be the case by the latest supreme court. To say the side letters have already been dealt with is very handy but in fact the latest ruling changes completely the impact of those side letters and any ruling made about them. In fact no ruling should have been made until this whole process is finished.

[ShedTA]

The SFL chairman agreed to stand by Lord Nimmo Smith's verdict.The stripping of titles and cups was kicked into touch as part of the five way agreement. No one can deny that Rangers have suffered financial damage and consequences from taking bad advice on the use of EBT's. Time to move on unless Scottish Football wants to commit itself for another 10 years of agony and recrimination.

Scottish football has been in agony? You sound like a press release from Ibrox.

[ShedTA]

If rangers want to move on, why don't they hold their hands up, say sorry we paid players through an illegal ebt scheme, using side letters which we did not disclose to the SFA, rendering them ineligible for the games they played in. Please take back our titles, and we can all work together again? No, didn't think so...

[Mox]

Spent money they didn't have and didn't pay back.

Apparently that's financial doping and therefore cheating. Or so I'm told by lots of posters on here.

You and other The Rangers punters on here trying to equate this whole thing to over spending is comical.

There is a huge difference between spending money you don't have and offering illegal financial incentives to potential employees.

[Glasgowmancity]

Incorrect. The side letters meant it became tax evasion. They stated rangers would underwrite any tax liability of the ebts therefore those letters chenged it from tax avoidance to tax evasion. Hmrc was looking at and challenging the ebts at rangers since 2001 and told them they believed tax should be paid. By issuing the side letters rangers assisted in tax evasion. This has been ruled to be the case by the latest supreme court. To say the side letters have already been dealt with is very handy but in fact the latest ruling changes completely the impact of those side letters and any ruling made about them. In fact no ruling should have been made until this whole process is finished.

How the hell do you work that out???

If it is the case, then from what was stated be ek Celt .....

Celtic paid the tax. Rangers didn't.

Celtic have also assisted tax evasion, as it's Juninho that should have paid the tax, not Celtic as it would give rise to an individual tax liability.

[Fred_Zeppelin]

As usual you're deliberately missing the point.

Celtic used an EBT end of story. Why did they use it? Surely to gain a financial advantage at the time.

So just like Rangers did, if they gained a sporting advantage from the use of EBT's, then so did Celtic. It doesn't matter about the use of 1 or 100.

If there is a difference in how they were administered and that's the fundamental difference then a fine would be a more appropriate penalty.

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.