The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Five.Stars said:
The conclusion that although there were administrative errors, they did not make any player ineligible nor did the club gain or seek to gain a competitive advantage.

You know, that conclusion???
Click to expand...
The conclusion based on that because the SFA didn't know they weren't being told the truth, that the player registrations were still good? Yeah that bit is mince.

As I said earlier that is a whitewash. The suggestion that you can withold information from the authorities to ensure your tax position isn't jeopardised and thus be able to afford players you wouldn't have been able to afford otherwise doesn't give you a sporting advantage is mince as well. And suggesting that other teams might have been doing the same thing (with no evidence of this by the way) so they might not have had an advantage is an affront to the competition.

As I said early, it's like Lance Armstrong getting away with it because they didn't know at the time and other racers might have been cheating as well.
 
Jokester said:
The conclusion based on that because the SFA didn't know they weren't being told the truth, that the player registrations were still good? Yeah that bit is mince.

As I said earlier that is a whitewash. The suggestion that you can withold information from the authorities to ensure your tax position isn't jeopardised and thus be able to afford players you wouldn't have been able to afford otherwise doesn't give you a sporting advantage is mince as well. And suggesting that other teams might have been doing the same thing (with no evidence of this by the way) so they might not have had an advantage is an affront to the competition.

As I said early, it's like Lance Armstrong getting away with it because they didn't know at the time and other racers might have been cheating as well.
Click to expand...

So you are claiming now to have a better grasp of the registration rules of the SFA than the SFA's own registration officer and a better interpretation in to the legalities of said rules than Nimmo Smith and his panel?

Just to be clear about that?
 
Five.Stars said:
So you are claiming now to have a better grasp of the registration rules of the SFA than the SFA's own registration officer and a better interpretation in to the legalities of said rules than Nimmo Smith and his panel?

Just to be clear about that?
Click to expand...
No, lets be very clear, I understand entirely the position. When you register a player with the SFA and it is accepted he is eligible - even if the information that was provided is incorrect.
 
So wait just a minute here...

These side-letters were in existence - they are documented as evidence from the FTTT and the independant panel, yes? The club made no attempt to withhold these or try hide/ deny their existence.

The very fact they existed means that despite their existence the FTTT could still not find them to be contractual, thus no tax due. Therefore the disclosure or non disclosure to the SFA would not have prejudiced any tax investigation. Their very existence would be enough to do that, and yet didn't.

Therefore how can you claim the non disclosure gave the club a competitive advantage? Every penny was accounted for. Quite simply, if someone had a time machine they could go back, lodge the relevant disclosures and it would have zero effect on what happened either on or off the field.

EBT's were legal, even if our aggressive use of them was worthy of investigation.

Tell me, what effect did the non disclosure have exactly? If they were disclosed it wouldn't have made any difference to any taxation issues, given that the letters existing would be enough to do so, and as I say didn't. So the SFA not having the relevant paperwork effected the on field matters how?

And similarly, how did the club off the field benefit, since we have established the EBT's were administered in such a way that no further tax was due? (other than 5 cases which were administered incorrectly and thus tax due)

What you are basically saying is that Rangers use of EBT's gave them a financial and thus sporting advantage. But that would only be the case if EBT's were retrospectively deemed to be illegal. Businesses are free to do as they please with regard to reducing theirs and their employees tax liabilities, so long as it is within the framework of existing tax law. Thus maximising their available resources. Rangers did that. Other clubs use various practices to reduce liability. Film companies, image rights etc. Nearly every company in existence will use any legal means to maximise their available resources. FACT.
 
Five.Stars said:
So wait just a minute here...

These side-letters were in existence - they are documented as evidence from the FTTT and the independant panel, yes? The club made no attempt to withhold these or try hide/ deny their existence.

The very fact they existed means that despite their existence the FTTT could still not find them to be contractual, thus no tax due. Therefore the disclosure or non disclosure to the SFA would not have prejudiced any tax investigation. Their very existence would be enough to do that, and yet didn't.

Therefore how can you claim the non disclosure gave the club a competitive advantage? Every penny was accounted for. Quite simply, if someone had a time machine they could go back, lodge the relevant disclosures and it would have zero effect on what happened either on or off the field.

EBT's were legal, even if our aggressive use of them was worthy of investigation.

Tell me, what effect did the non disclosure have exactly? If they were disclosed it wouldn't have made any difference to any taxation issues, given that the letters existing would be enough to do so, and as I say didn't. So the SFA not having the relevant paperwork effected the on field matters how?

And similarly, how did the club off the field benefit, since we have established the EBT's were administered in such a way that no further tax was due? (other than 5 cases which were administered incorrectly and thus tax due)

What you are basically saying is that Rangers use of EBT's gave them a financial and thus sporting advantage. But that would only be the case if EBT's were retrospectively deemed to be illegal. Businesses are free to do as they please with regard to reducing theirs and their employees tax liabilities, so long as it is within the framework of existing tax law. Thus maximising their available resources. Rangers did that. Other clubs use various practices to reduce liability. Film companies, image rights etc. Nearly every company in existence will use any legal means to maximise their available resources. FACT.
Click to expand...
The club made no attempt to withhold or deny their existance?!??!?!
 
Jokester said:
The club made no attempt to withhold or deny their existance?!??!?!
Click to expand...

Did they? No attempt at witholding or denying their existence is not the same thing as not disclosing their details to the football authorities.

Come on then, IF the details of the side letters were filed with the SFA as they should have been, how would that have changed things either on or off the field? Therefore, the lack of said paperwork can be deemed to have what effect exactly?!?!?!?!?!?!? What sporting/ competitive advantage would be gained by such an occurrence?
 
A note for the re-writers of legal written judgement, The Tax Tribunal is currently heading into extra time with the HMRC successfully appealing the original FTT decision (2 vs 1 Majority)

Will probably go to penalties
 
strocky said:
A note for the re-writers of legal written judgement, The Tax Tribunal is currently heading into extra time with the HMRC successfully appealing the original FTT decision (2 vs 1 Majority)

Will probably go to penalties
Click to expand...

The current judgement stands until any appeal is upheld. Not that it matters now.

Rangers have been vindicated thus far in as much as the tax arrangements were recognised as valid and the club was cleared of any cheating (attempting or succesfully gaining a sporting/ competitive advantage).

There were errors in the administration of a number of pieces of paperwork (crucially, not creating any eligibility issues), for which the clubs former operating business was fined a sum of £250,000. Which can be withheld from the prize money/ transfer fees the SFA has thus far withheld from that business and which BDO will be attempting to recover.

The helicopter did indeed change direction. If only it wasn't for they pesky EBT's eh!

EDIT: re-writers of legal judgement??? When you claim HMRC have succesfully appealed the original decision! Lol.
 
Last edited:
strocky said:
What's the worst that could happen? :confused:

Fined 0.03% of your turnover over 11 years (and only have to pay the fine if the club still exists) ;)
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it would be interesting to find out whether every clubs financial details would stand up to the same level of scrutiny.

Oh and the club very much does still exist. Unless you disregard Lord Nimmo Smith, Lord Glennie, the SFL, the SFA, the SPL (as confirmed in their accounts lodged with companies house on thursday), UEFA and the European Club Association. I mean what do they know eh!
 
I see strocky said a should move on. Perhaps we should start with closing this thread then. Don't you think strocky
 
How can it possibly be argued that the EBTs didnt lead to a competitive advantage?

I really dont want Rangers stripped of titles or hung out to dry any more than they have been but i cant get my head round the idea that the EBT scheme didnt have a direct benefit to the players that they put on the park.
 
placeholder said:
How can it possibly be argued that the EBTs didnt lead to a competitive advantage?

I really dont want Rangers stripped of titles or hung out to dry any more than they have been but i cant get my head round the idea that the EBT scheme didnt have a direct benefit to the players that they put on the park.
Click to expand...

They were not CONTRACTUAL agreement. They were loans FTT said this LNS said this. They were declared in the official accounts. What wasn't disclosed were side letters. Now for all we know these side letter could say There is a loan facility available for you to use. We don't run it but you can if you wish apply to it.

Therefor the player got paid there wage by rangers the wage they agreed when signing on. Therefore no competative edge was gained. Remember many players didnt apply to the Scheme. a lot of the money actually went to Murray @ £6 million to directors and to employees of MIH. Kinda makes you laugh at Celtic saying players for 47 million from teh scheme. Errr no they didnt.

Like I said in an earlier post this is now going round and round in circles. Surely time for the thread to close.
 
placeholder said:
How can it possibly be argued that the EBTs didnt lead to a competitive advantage?

I really dont want Rangers stripped of titles or hung out to dry any more than they have been but i cant get my head round the idea that the EBT scheme didnt have a direct benefit to the players that they put on the park.
Click to expand...

EBT's were legal. Every business, thus football club had the opportunity to use them. Every business has the opportunity and right to minimise its outgoings in order to maximise its available resources as long as it is done within the framework of the current laws.

Rangers did so. Their use of EBT's was aggresive and the resultant cloud the brought over Ibrox lead to Lloyds wanting to rid themselves of any potential exposure, thus indirectly lead to the situation that brought about administration/ liquidation - ie the Craig Whyte takeover (which is under an ongoing criminal investigation)

EBT's and their legality was not being investigated here. Simply the disclosure of financial arrangements between the club and the players. The SPL/ SFA had details of all contractual and remuneration between club and player. It simply did not have copies of the relevant paperwork detailing the eligibilty of the employee to gain access from the Murray Group Remuneration Trust. The ammounts were detailed in the clubs yearly audited accounts, so any attempt to claim Rangers were found guilty of hidden payments is quite frankly LYING.

The EBT's have already been found to be non contractual and thus legally defined as loans. Loans are not payments. Rangers problem was the misinterpretation of the SPL rules regarding disclosure since the players had access to the funds as a result of payments from Rangers FC PLC to the MGRT.

Rangers were found guilty of the non disclosure of the details of the EBT's. something which they felt didn't need to be done. An oversight.

I put it like this earlier...

Marty McFly comes along in his DeLorean and goes back to the times of the relevant player registrations and files the relevant paperwork - what effect does that have either on or off the field?

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the opposite is also true and the SPL not having this paperwork also had no effect either on or off the park.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom