deecie Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 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. Murray could have paid the extra to cover the tax if he wanted to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Rangers themselves in disposition said it was for sporting advantage, not really sure what the contention in, or the relevance of others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 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. Illegal you say... When does David Murray go on trial? Additionally, the information was not hidden. It was disclosed in each set of accounts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 How the hell do you work that out??? If it is the case, then from what was stated be ek Celt ...... Not really sure what this means. But really its fairly straight forward if you read carefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Scottish football has been in agony? You sound like a press release from Ibrox. I dunno, our sides have been split several times over the past few years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Illegal you say... When does David Murray go on trial? Additionally, the information was not hidden. It was disclosed in each set of accounts. This is true. But the side letters were not declared as per SFA rules at the time. As the ebts have now been ruled to have been taxable earnings then effectively the players were registered incorrectly by not declaring the side letters. The side letters agreed to pay any tax liabilities which wasnt done, thus assisting the players to evade tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 This is true. But the side letters were not declared as per SFA rules at the time. As the ebts have now been ruled to have been taxable earnings then effectively the players were registered incorrectly by not declaring the side letters. The side letters agreed to pay any tax liabilities which wasnt done, thus assisting the players to evade tax. So then the side letter punishment has been dealt with and the Tax Liability is a HMRC issue and they'd receive money in the creditor pool. Excellent so now that's sorted and the issue is closed. What's next? ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 So then the side letter punishment has been dealt with and the Tax Liability is a HMRC issue and they'd receive money in the creditor pool. Excellent so now that's sorted and the issue is closed. What's next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 SPFL clubs fear they will be hurt financially themselves if Rangers stripped of titles. Prospect of Rangers being punished for tax avoidance leads to concerns that awarding trophies to runners-up clubs will trigger impossible bonus payments As the turf war between Mike Ashley and Rangers widened to include a court challenge by the Sports Direct billionaire to the Scottish Football Association, the possibility of the Ibrox club being stripped of titles has fuelled concern among several clubs, who fear financial repercussions. The status of the five Scottish championships, four Scottish Cup wins and six Scottish League Cup successes recorded by Rangers between 2001 and 2011 has been called into question since the decision by the Court of Session in Edinburgh to uphold HMRC’s appeal against the rulings of two previous tribunals that EBT (Employee Benefit Trust) schemes for players were administered improperly. Calls for the annulment of the titles won by Rangers during the period when EBTs were used as a tax avoidance scheme at Ibrox were fuelled by the observation of one of the three Court of Session judges, Lord Drummond Young that, had the trusts not existed, some players “might well have taken their services elsewhere”. Both the Scottish Professional Football League and the SFA have referred the matter to their lawyers for scrutiny but last night one chairman, who asked not to be identified, told Telegraph Sport: “There is a strong feeling amongst clubs that this has to be handled extremely carefully because of the possible consequences. “Suppose for the sake of argument Rangers are stripped of all the honours they won during the time they operated EBTs. Do we award those honours to the runners-up – and trigger the bonuses that would have been paid to the players who were on their books then if they had actually won the trophies? “Celtic might be able to afford that but nobody else could. The alternative would be to withhold all of those trophies and devalue all our domestic tournaments at a time when we’ve had to go cap in hand to find sponsors.” Another chairman, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said: “I certainly don’t fly any flag for Rangers and my view is that the EBT scheme was questionable and maybe even reckless from the start but they were given expert advice and they acted on it and it has taken the taxman three tries to get a favourable result. “Rangers have paid the price for that but so has everyone else in Scottish football since the oldco went under. Right now I would say that matters are moving sideways and we still don’t know if the taxman has actually won. “Don’t forget that the SPL clubs got solidarity payments from Uefa because Rangers were in the group stages of the Champions League as Scottish champions. If we take titles away from Rangers and Uefa demand their money back, who would be able to pay it?” The prospect of the controversy being resolved one way or the other in the foreseeable future now depends on whether or not there will be yet another appeal in what is colloquially known as the Big Tax Case. The deadline for an appeal to the Supreme Court by Rangers’ liquidators, BDO, or Sir David Murray, who approved the use of EBTs when he owned the club, falls three weeks from now. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11990181/SPL-clubs-fear-they-will-be-hurt-financially-themselves-if-Rangers-stripped-of-titles.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 ^^^ That's a pretty ridiculous argument! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 ^^^ That's a pretty ridiculous argument! This is going to get very very very very very very messy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce778 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 ^^^ That's a pretty ridiculous argument! It is. Makes shed ta's arguments look credible in comparison! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 It is. Makes shed ta's arguments look credible in comparison! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) I think folk get lost in the details much like the first two tribunals. Take a step back and look at in substance not form. As the good Lord said it is common sense that income tax was due and it is equally common sense that RFC was cheating like a ba$tard, financially doped up to the eyeballs when it was juiced up to the gills on these EBTs. I realize I am mixing metaphors but that is how serious this shit is. How insolvency law ranks different creditors doers not mitigate that cheating (red herring). FFS you don't pay taxes so you can pay players more in order to get better players and people are honestly arguing that is not cheating. And that is before you get to the massive industrial scale of it. And yes the scale of it does matter. RFC were already one of two hugely dominant clubs in Scotland. To add this EBT cheating shite on top (which BTW was quite disgusting considering your advantages of scale already) unquestionably yielded titles they would ordinarily not have won. The smart thing to do would be to agree to some titles being voided and THEN we can move on and forget about. Edited November 12, 2015 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 This is going to get very very very very very very messy... It isn't though, not for anybody other than Rangers and the SFA/SPFL. The football authorities will take the path of least resistance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I think folk get lost in the details much like the first two tribunals. Take a step back and look at in substance not form. As the good Lord said it is common sense that income tax was due and it is equally common sense that RFC was cheating like a ba$tard, financially doped up to the eyeballs when it was juiced up to the gills on these EBTs. I realize I am mixing metaphors but that is how serious this shit is. How insolvency law ranks different creditors doers not mitigate that cheating (red herring). FFS you don't pay taxes so you can pay players more in order to get better players and people are honestly arguing that is not cheating. And that is before you get to the massive industrial scale of it. And yes the scale of it does matter. RFC were already one of two hugely dominant clubs in Scotland. To add this EBT cheating shite on top (which BTW was quite disgusting considering your advantages of scale already) unquestionably yielded titles they would ordinarily not have won. The smart thing to do would be to agree to some titles being voided and THEN we can move on and forget about. You're persistent, I will get you that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I think folk get lost in the details much like the first two tribunals. Take a step back and look at in substance not form. As the good Lord said it is common sense that income tax was due and it is equally common sense that RFC was cheating like a ba$tard, financially doped up to the eyeballs when it was juiced up to the gills on these EBTs. I realize I am mixing metaphors but that is how serious this shit is. How insolvency law ranks different creditors doers not mitigate that cheating (red herring). FFS you don't pay taxes so you can pay players more in order to get better players and people are honestly arguing that is not cheating. And that is before you get to the massive industrial scale of it. And yes the scale of it does matter. RFC were already one of two hugely dominant clubs in Scotland. To add this EBT cheating shite on top (which BTW was quite disgusting considering your advantages of scale already) unquestionably yielded titles they would ordinarily not have won. The smart thing to do would be to agree to some titles being voided and THEN we can move on and forget about. It was stated clearly in disposition that it was for a sporting advantage. Ignore all the hoopla and rationalizations etc. It's always the same when cheating goes on, deception and sophistry abound, critical thinking is the skill that allows you to parse all this and rank information in credibility. It's easy to lie to gullible folk therefore gullible folk believe lies. For example "i'm on my bike 6 hours a day" "i've had cancer i'd never put anything in my body to damage it" This is a litmus test in gullibility and wishful thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 It isn't though, not for anybody other than Rangers and the SFA/SPFL. The football authorities will take the path of least resistance. This is true. And no one said the clubs wanted the titles transferred to anyone, just voided. So the bonus payment thing is the biggest pile if shite I have read yet in this whole affair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 ^^^ Been some close competition right enough but it's up there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langtonian Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 if the ordinary working man never paid tax due he,d be jailed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMcoolJ Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Charles Green case is quite interesting. Ranger's lawyer claiming that the indemnity provided to Charles Green, with respect to Legal Fees (which Charles Green is now relying on), related to his activites as Chairman of the Football Club, whereas the indemity is from and relates to the Company - two separate entities. Defence being that the indemnity should not apply to his actions as Chairman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Charles Green case is quite interesting. Ranger's lawyer claiming that the indemnity provided to Charles Green, with respect to Legal Fees (which Charles Green is now relying on), related to his activites as Chairman of the Football Club, whereas the indemity is from and relates to the Company - two separate entities. Defence being that the indemnity should not apply to his actions as Chairman.Interesting and at least Rangers are being consistent in arguing that the company is not the Club. Finally something quite easy to understand in all of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Interesting and at least Rangers are being consistent in arguing that the company is not the Club. Finally something quite easy to understand in all of this. What if the judge rules that the club and the company are the same thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnie x Posted November 12, 2015 Author Share Posted November 12, 2015 What if the judge rules that the club and the company are the same thing? He will be labeled as a jhudge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) In this case the club and the holding company are different entities, although the club is a company too. Edited November 12, 2015 by ek_celt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.5eeaf0fbe501ba3c868c32fd77caef1f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.