The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

jas72 · 24 May 2012 at 12:17

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18183076

There are very strong similarities between this case and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The SPL clearly thinks it doesn't have all the documents because it's actually missing the dual contracts , the same dual contracts that Rangers have said don't exist. However the SPL are still waiting for them to be delivered.

LOLSFASPL

Be nice to hear what's happening in the ongoing police case about the takeover.

Jokester · 24 May 2012 at 12:27

Rangers would be due the tax man effectively £40million if £40 million was paid out to employees with PAYE evaded, that's why it's £49million in total that's quoted. HMRC see what the employee receives as being net, not gross.

pingwing · 24 May 2012 at 12:28

jas72 said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18183076

There are very strong similarities between this case and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The SPL clearly thinks it doesn't have all the documents because it's actually missing the dual contracts , the same dual contracts that Rangers have said don't exist. However the SPL are still waiting for them to be delivered.

LOLSFASPL

Be nice to hear what's happening in the ongoing police case about the takeover.

Well they clearly are not doing it at the moment because they aren't paying anyone anything!

What everyone might have discovered is the magical invention of the paper shredder... As a speculative effort what everyone may end up finding is some money in the Rangers accounts that leaves "unaccounted for". Seeing as Rangers clearly have none anyway it could be interesting to see where it is supposed to have gone.

jas72 · 24 May 2012 at 13:43

Rangers accounts were audited until end 2010 are you saying the auditors of Rangers annual accounts are also in some sort of conspiracy :eek:

The EBTs were accounted for I'm surprised that the SFA, SPL for the last 10 years looked at Rangers published accounts saw the EBT payments and didn't even bother to ask if they were in the registered contracts.

Like I said the SFA/SPL have been and continue to appear to be shocking in their administration

LOLSFA/SPL.

Metalface Mark · 24 May 2012 at 13:45

wasnt it the case though that it was the murray group's EBT fund and thus, these did not show on the books of Rangers?

McMav · 24 May 2012 at 13:57

Metalface Mark said:
wasnt it the case though that it was the murray group's EBT fund and thus, these did not show on the books of Rangers?

No they appeared in rangers account for the 10 years that they ran. Alastair Johnson said so when interviewed in the BBC doc last night. They were never hidden. Unless in plain sight == hidden?

Metalface Mark · 24 May 2012 at 15:17

http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/i...chat-in-here/page__view__findpost__p__6268238

This PDF is one amazing, some people have a lot of time on their hands!

pingwing · 24 May 2012 at 17:17

Well the BBC cleared most of that up for me...

Rangers have basically operated beyond their means to a point of total meltdown. The EBT stuff seems a bit of an open and shut case as realistically the HMRC should be able to show that no one was going to pay the loans back so its fraud.

The Craig Whyte stuff is even more entertaining, he seems to have turned up to take a slice of pie through even more fraud, shame it's going to get worse with the phoney administration team in place first.

I don't think anyone comes across well in it, even some of the Rangers fans seem mildly in denial that the club's done anything wrong.

steve1873 · 24 May 2012 at 20:05

eddiemcgarrigle said:
Well, you claim Celtic have admitted to using one EBT scheme, whereas Rangers have deined, deflected and denied again. It's hardly the same. Celtic can easily take the moral high ground.

REALLY? I suggest you do a little research. EBT payments were included in all the audited accounts.

Metalface Mark · 24 May 2012 at 20:13

Celtic have admitted that the payments were not on Juninho's contract though, as a payoff when he left. Rangers have denied making any kind of secondary payments.

steve1873 · 24 May 2012 at 22:48

Metalface Mark said:
Celtic have admitted that the payments were not on Juninho's contract though, as a payoff when he left. Rangers have denied making any kind of secondary payments.

This is hard work!

That is because the club didn't make the payments. They paid money into an offshore trust. The players then applied, indepentantly of the club, to loan money from the trust.

But the club certainly did not try to hide the fac that it used this loophole. Their use was documented in the clubs annual audited accounts. That there may be an administration error on 1 or more of the sub-trusts remains to be seen, and is a matter between Rangers FC PLC and HMRC. Private and confidential. The fact this has been played out in the public is a disgrace.

The other issue is undeclared payments regarding players registrations - well Celtic are bang to rights on at least 1 occasion, as they themselves have admitted. It was also widely publicised that Dermot Desmond was personally subsidising the wages of the likes of Roy Keane, Robbie Keane and Craig Bellamy, which again would contravene the rules regarding a third party paying players. Marius Niculae of ICT was another who reportedly received part or all of his wage via a third party. If Rangers have a case to answer in this respect, then it would appear they are not alone!

Metalface Mark · 25 May 2012 at 00:43

steve1873 said:
This is hard work!

That is because the club didn't make the payments. They paid money into an offshore trust. The players then applied, indepentantly of the club, to loan money from the trust.

This is exactly what Rangers players did too. The problem with both is that it was never a loan.

steve1873 · 25 May 2012 at 11:26

Metalface Mark said:
This is exactly what Rangers players did too. The problem with both is that it was never a loan.

How do you know? As far as I am led to believe the scheme is administered with a loan term of 99 years. The loan can be repaid at any point during this time.

Jokester · 25 May 2012 at 12:21

The loans are typically written off after 3 years, which just happens to be the point at which no tax would then be due on it.

Metalface Mark · 25 May 2012 at 12:30

steve1873 said:
How do you know? As far as I am led to believe the scheme is administered with a loan term of 99 years. The loan can be repaid at any point during this time.

Thats what it said happened on the bbc program, it showed for example, Murray requesting a million pounds from the EBT.

jamesy505 · 25 May 2012 at 12:34

steve1873 said:
The other issue is undeclared payments regarding players registrations - well Celtic are bang to rights on at least 1 occasion, as they themselves have admitted. It was also widely publicised that Dermot Desmond was personally subsidising the wages of the likes of Roy Keane, Robbie Keane and Craig Bellamy, which again would contravene the rules regarding a third party paying players. Marius Niculae of ICT was another who reportedly received part or all of his wage via a third party. If Rangers have a case to answer in this respect, then it would appear they are not alone!

I dont recall the payments by Desmond as being undeclared. As long as they were part of the contract submitted to the SPL\SFA there is no issue.

steve1873 · 25 May 2012 at 12:41

jamesy505 said:
I dont recall the payments by Desmond as being undeclared. As long as they were part of the contract submitted to the SPL\SFA there is no issue.

The rules state that no payment can be made to a player for football activities via a third party! Desmond paying them directly would contravene this rule. I do not know if that wss the case, but it was midely reported to be the case in the press at the time, so worthy of being investigated, no?

Metalface Mark · 25 May 2012 at 12:42

The Juninho EBT was apparently as part of a golden handshake to leave, not part of his contract of employment, ergo, no dual contract.

Jokester · 25 May 2012 at 12:43

Definitely, as time goes own the more the SFA/SPL seem to have been failing in their duties.

jamesy505 · 25 May 2012 at 12:46

steve1873 said:
The rules state that no payment can be made to a player for football activities via a third party! Desmond paying them directly would contravene this rule. I do not know if that wss the case, but it was midely reported to be the case in the press at the time, so worthy of being investigated, no?

If it is against the rules, then yes. The thing is that Celtic are a well run football club so I doubt they have a case to answer.

But we wouldnt want the SFA\SLP to be distracted from investigating Rangers, but considering they havent received any info from Duff and Phelps after two months then maybe they have some spare time