The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

Metalface Mark · 25 May 2012 at 12:49

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?

For playing activities

Metalface Mark · 25 May 2012 at 12:52

The differences is

Rangers used EBT to supplement their basic weekly wages for dozens of players and staff (it seems)

Celtic used one EBT to payoff a player.

I would love for Celtic to get kicked out of Scottish football as much as Rangers but there is just no comparing the two.

jamesy505 · 25 May 2012 at 13:06

Metalface Mark said:
The differences is

Rangers used EBT to supplement their basic weekly wages for dozens of players and staff (it seems)

Celtic used one EBT to payoff a player.

I would love for Celtic to get kicked out of Scottish football as much as Rangers but there is just no comparing the two.

And Celtic paid tax on the EBT.

steve1873 · 25 May 2012 at 13:23

Metalface Mark said:
The differences is

Rangers used EBT to supplement their basic weekly wages for dozens of players and staff (it seems)

Celtic used one EBT to payoff a player.

I would love for Celtic to get kicked out of Scottish football as much as Rangers but there is just no comparing the two.

LOL, so it is ok to cheat as long as you are only cheating a wee bit eh!

That is what you are saying. The "payoff" is part of the players contract as it was paying off the remainder of his playing contract, so there is zero difference.

What about the cases of Bellamy and the Keane's? And Niculae? All were reportedly having their wages supplemented via a third party. Worthy of investigation, no?

steve1873 · 25 May 2012 at 13:26

jamesy505 said:
And Celtic paid tax on the EBT.

Yes, subsequently they did. Makes no difference - the fact they used a trust at all is the point, since the payment was not declared in the players contract registered with the SFA/SPL.

Rangers will also pay the tax due on the EBT's subsequently if a liability is found to exist... or they will pay a proportion of it via the CVA in accordance with insolvency laws.

Makes no difference to the case against the club regarding undeclared payments. Nor does the fact Celtic paid the tax after the fact make a difference to any case against them.

Gav · 25 May 2012 at 15:45

Looks like the BBC have been caught evading tax as well.... Wonder how much it hurt falling off their high horse..

The BBC was last night under intense pressure to reveal how many of its stars are channelling their pay through private companies.
MPs accused the corporation yesterday of paying senior figures ‘off-payroll’ – meaning they can potentially cut their tax bills by thousands of pounds a year.
Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, yesterday revealed that more than 2,400 civil servants have been paid through a private company.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...ure-reveal-stars-exploiting-tax-loophole.html

Metalface Mark · 25 May 2012 at 15:50

steve1873 said:
LOL, so it is ok to cheat as long as you are only cheating a wee bit eh!

That is what you are saying. The "payoff" is part of the players contract as it was paying off the remainder of his playing contract, so there is zero difference.

What about the cases of Bellamy and the Keane's? And Niculae? All were reportedly having their wages supplemented via a third party. Worthy of investigation, no?

I dont know the ins and outs of it, but in any case, Celtic did at least pay the tax, if he did have two contracts or payments were made outside of his contract, then yes, all games he was in (11) should be 0-3 just as all games where any Rangers player had an EBT should be the same and titles adjusted accordingly and given to whoever should rightfully have them along with a redistribution of prize money for the years.

I dont know anything about Bellamy Keane and Niculae or any other player, I dont think there is any suggestion that they had EBT's is there? I dont know if you are confusing having someone like Desmond pay his wages out his own pocket, so long as the contract states that he's being paid x amound and is not paid y amount, there is no problem.

Metalface Mark · 25 May 2012 at 15:53

Gav said:
Looks like the BBC have been caught evading tax as well.... Wonder how much it hurt falling off their high horse..

Its not really the same at all though is it? Its just people being paid as a company rather than as a person, its extremely commonplace and legal.

V F · 25 May 2012 at 16:04

Gav said:
Looks like the BBC have been caught evading tax as well.... Wonder how much it hurt falling off their high horse..

The whole system is rife.

Gav · 25 May 2012 at 16:07

Metalface Mark said:
Its not really the same at all though is it? Its just people being paid as a company rather than as a person, its extremely commonplace and legal.

EBT's were commonplace and legal until they closed the loophole..

Metalface Mark · 25 May 2012 at 16:09

Gav said:
EBT's were commonplace and legal until they closed the loophole..

Yeah they were, but they were not meant to be used to pay peoples wages, or did you miss that bit?

steve1873 · 25 May 2012 at 16:21

Metalface Mark said:
I dont know the ins and outs of it, but in any case, Celtic did at least pay the tax, if he did have two contracts or payments were made outside of his contract, then yes, all games he was in (11) should be 0-3 just as all games where any Rangers player had an EBT should be the same and titles adjusted accordingly and given to whoever should rightfully have them along with a redistribution of prize money for the years.

I dont know anything about Bellamy Keane and Niculae or any other player, I dont think there is any suggestion that they had EBT's is there? I dont know if you are confusing having someone like Desmond pay his wages out his own pocket, so long as the contract states that he's being paid x amound and is not paid y amount, there is no problem.

'No payment for his playing activities may be made to the player through a third party.'

Doesn't matter what his contract states, by being paid a penny of his wages via Desmond then they are contravening said rule... unless using some kind of a loophole. But those aren't allowed to be used though :rolleyes:

steve1873 · 25 May 2012 at 16:22

Metalface Mark said:
Yeah they were, but they were not meant to be used to pay peoples wages, or did you miss that bit?

And they weren't... or at least not yet proven!

Metalface Mark · 25 May 2012 at 16:28

steve1873 said:
'No payment for his playing activities may be made to the player through a third party.'

Doesn't matter what his contract states, by being paid a penny of his wages via Desmond then they are contravening said rule... unless using some kind of a loophole. But those aren't allowed to be used though

You are confusing "through a third party" with "by a third party".

Its commonplace for big earners to have their wages paid by other people, to put it in simple terms, at the moment Rangers have that guy from Arsenal on loan, part of his wages are paid by Arsenal and part by Rangers, the way you say it that wouldnt be allowed.

Metalface Mark · 25 May 2012 at 16:29

steve1873 said:
And they weren't... or at least not yet proven!

Which we both know is a formality. We know the guys that had them and the sums involved.

steve1873 · 25 May 2012 at 16:41

Metalface Mark said:
Which we both know is a formality. We know the guys that had them and the sums involved.

Yet it has taken a tribunal of judges close to 2 years to make a decision. Ever considered a career change?

Metalface Mark · 25 May 2012 at 16:43

steve1873 said:
Yet it has taken a tribunal of judges close to 2 years to make a decision. Ever considered a career change?

From what?

If you are talking about the big tax case, you must know that Rangers have already lost that and its being appealed?

steve1873 · 25 May 2012 at 16:45

Metalface Mark said:
You are confusing "through a third party" with "by a third party".

Its commonplace for big earners to have their wages paid by other people, to put it in simple terms, at the moment Rangers have that guy from Arsenal on loan, part of his wages are paid by Arsenal and part by Rangers, the way you say it that wouldnt be allowed.

No that is not the same. Loan deals where an agreed percentage of a salary is paid by the loaning club are commonplace.

"by a third party" and "through a third party" are the same in this instance. Tell me what the rule is in place to prevent?

You know, for a St. Mirren fan you don't half argue in defence of a certain other club an awful lot.

Metalface Mark · 25 May 2012 at 16:47

steve1873 said:
No that is not the same. Loan deals where an agreed percentage of a salary is paid by the loaning club are commonplace.

"by a third party" and "through a third party" are the same in this instance. Tell me what the rule is in place to prevent?

You know, for a St. Mirren fan you don't half argue in defence of a certain other club an awful lot.

Haha, here we go. Im not arguing in defence of Celtic one bit, have you ever considered though that while Im impartial, you might just be the teensiest wee bit biased and that is altering your viewpoint?

Ive made my thoughts heard on Celtic many times, for the record, just like Rangers we are best served without them both.

steve1873 · 25 May 2012 at 16:47

Metalface Mark said:
From what?

If you are talking about the big tax case, you must know that Rangers have already lost that and its being appealed?

Really? When was this announced, or are you taking everything that comes from the RTC site as the truth?

Rangers were issued with liabilities at the start of this process, which they disputed. The FTT is the appeal. We have not lost that, or it certainly hasn't been announced.

What you are saying is that we have lost the appeal, but are appealing!