The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Dutchmul]

My understanding from what I was told, was that following the original suggestion by the porn star, a firm of accountants were appointed to administer the scheme on Rangers behalf, it was not the Club themselves doing that.

 

If any changes in tax rules / tax legislation had resulted in Rangers (as the employer) becoming liable then I agree that would just have been tough luck, as you suggest.

 

As this current situation is (apparently) based on incorrect advice and actions taken by the firm of accountants acting for Rangers, not on changes to tax rules (again, just my understanding of what I was told) the company are very likely to find themselves legally or professionally liable under any challenge.

 

The key point about EBT's is they have to be discretionary and not part of an employees remuneration, the side letters blow that out of the water, also players would only sign on at rangers after being told that they would get sizeable tax free lump sums(on top of their salaries) from the trusts which made the "loans" to the employees. that wasn't done by an accountancy firm or advisor, that was contractual between the club and the player/agent.

 

If there was any issue with the actions of a company that was advising rangers re these trusts, BDO  would already have initiated a claim on their indemnity insurance in the same way they nailed collyer bristow, that hasn't happened, therefore it's my opinion that the side letters where put in place by rangers at the insistence of players/agents so they knew exactly what they where getting paid and that is exactly why the court ruling on thursday found in favour of HMRC as the ebt payments where clearly part of the players remuneration and not discretionary. 

[The Don]

Re the first part of your post;

 

Being negligent is not the same as deliberately and knowingly breaking the law. You can be guilty of negligence just by not doing your work to an acceptable standard, resulting in your client losing out.

 

People who were party to the details can talk to other people, it happens all the time.

 

....and Re the second part of your post;

 

I'm not sure who you think is clutching at what straws, as regardless, OldCo are still liable as per the past week's ruling - this would have no impact on that at all.

 

Your assumption was well wide of the mark, the friend is an accountant himself, and been a Hearts share holder and season ticket holder for many years..!

 

Anyway, I was just passing on information I felt was pertinent to the thread.

My posts were not intended to be argumentative towards you, however what you were saying as info passed to you was/is coming across as an attempt to pass the blame to somehow let sevco wriggle off the hook from possible punishment/stripping of titles.

 

I understand however people do speak. I would find it difficult to believe someone would talk about something that could have huge consequences for them or their company. In this case accountants admitting negligence or someone from Oldco basically admitting they cheated.

 

I am very confident there will never be any implication that DM or Oldco were duped or given negligent information. I think the side letters are enough proof.

 

Anyway apologies if my posts came over the wrong way.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited November 8, 2015 by Rudi-Mental

[MacDonald Jardine]

While any credible sporting association would now be preparing to strip the culprits of any honours during the period of cheating the GFA and MSM will just brush it under the carpet as usual. Without wishing to give Richard Wilson, Chic and Speirs any comfort I'm kind of resigned to that but I'd much rather a light was shone on the reptiles at the GFA like Taylor, Smith and Ogilvie who colluded with Murray and his assorted lamb munchers. And Regan is equally guilty by taking no retrospective action after it all came to light.

 

Time for the torches and pitchforks.

 

Torches and pitchforks

The media in particular should answer for their failure to address this. As ever they won't.

 

I do think it's not as straightforward as assuming you can take Rangers out and the rest would be as they were.

Their overspending changed the way other clubs behaved. Without that I doubt we would have been at the stage of having to sell Tynecastle.

Similarly I doubt we would have had Romanov.

 

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[i wish jj was my dad]

The media in particular should answer for their failure to address this. As ever they won't.

 

I do think it's not as straightforward as assuming you can take Rangers out and the rest would be as they were.

Their overspending changed the way other clubs behaved. Without that I doubt we would have been at the stage of having to sell Tynecastle.

Similarly I doubt we would have had Romanov.

 

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

The point of my post is that Rangers/Murray's cheating isn't the main story.  Nor is the weegia's toadying and munching of lamb with the disgraced former chairman, his successors and their business partners at Celtic. That's what they do.

 

I'd much rather we focused on rooting out the corruption inside the GFA.  Maybe if we had authorities who were actually running the game for the benefit of all its members rather than maintaining a status quo then we might someday get back to seeing credible performances in Europe and qualifying for tournaments again.  

Edited November 8, 2015 by i wish jj was my dad

[Jamboelite]

The ifs, buts and maybes are an irrelevance in respect to what would have happened had Rangers not had a 40% increase on their budget thanks to avoiding tax.

 

The underlying issue is they initiated a scheme that has been proved to be tax evasion. History in other sports lends the punishment to be the removal of honours but i feel our governing body will be found wanting.

 

I would let them keep all the honours if we could clean slate the SFA and start again.

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

The point of my post is that Rangers/Murray's cheating isn't the main story. Nor is the weegia's toadying and munching of lamb with the disgraced former chairman, his successors and their business partners at Celtic. That's what they do.

 

I'd much rather we focused on rooting out the corruption inside the GFA. Maybe if we had authorities who were actually running the game for the benefit of all its members rather than maintaining a status quo then we might someday get back to seeing credible performances in Europe and qualifying for tournaments again.

This. The SFA/SPL aided and abetted Rangers in this. We know side letters to the players existed (I think we've seen some of them) but do we know what the contracts submitted to the authorities said? Are we really to believe someone logged, for example, "eh, ok, Chris Sutton ?30,000, Gary Bollan ?1,700, Barry Ferguson ?5,000" and thought it was totally legit not worthy of mentioning to anybody ever? Edited November 8, 2015 by Diana Prince

[davieholt]

The ifs, buts and maybes are an irrelevance in respect to what would have happened had Rangers not had a 40% increase on their budget thanks to avoiding tax.

The underlying issue is they initiated a scheme that has been proved to be tax evasion. History in other sports lends the punishment to be the removal of honours but i feel our governing body will be found wanting.

I would let them keep all the honours if we could clean slate the SFA and start again.

Tax evasion and withholding information on contracts from the SFA. It's the latter which is the real title-killer.

[Footballfirst]

Tax evasion and withholding information on contracts from the SFA. It's the latter which is the real title-killer.

 

I think it's the other way round.

 

According to LNS the latter was only worthy of a fine.

 

It was the assessment of the tax arrangements as being "lawful" (after the FTTT verdict) and available to other teams that ensured that no sporting sanction was applied.  The failure to hear evidence about the Wee Tax Case probably aided that decision.

[Deevers]

Tax evasion and withholding information on contracts from the SFA. It's the latter which is the real title-killer.

 

But only if the SFA grow a set and act. I won't hold my breath.

[King of the North]

The media in particular should answer for their failure to address this. As ever they won't.

 

I do think it's not as straightforward as assuming you can take Rangers out and the rest would be as they were.

Their overspending changed the way other clubs behaved. Without that I doubt we would have been at the stage of having to sell Tynecastle.

Similarly I doubt we would have had Romanov.

 

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

This is why the titles won during that period should be marked as void.

 

How many other Scottish clubs stretched their budgets, spent beyond their means, nearly went to the wall trying to compete with this illegally funded behemoth? What damage was done to those clubs, some of which are only now recovering?

 

I agree that the complicity of the SFA in allowing this to happen is a big story and needs investigating - but they could start to redeem themselves by taking back the titles won during the tax evasion years. That should be a simple, straightforward decision

[Footballfirst]

This is why the titles won during that period should be marked as void.

 

How many other Scottish clubs stretched their budgets, spent beyond their means, nearly went to the wall trying to compete with this illegally funded behemoth? What damage was done to those clubs, some of which are only now recovering?

 

I agree that the complicity of the SFA in allowing this to happen is a big story and needs investigating - but they could start to redeem themselves by taking back the titles won during the tax evasion years. That should be a simple, straightforward decision

 

Re the argument about tainted titles for those clubs which spent to excess during the last 20 years or so.

 

You can probably categorise the clubs in five different ways.

1) Those who have never been in debt ? who?

2) Those who have been in debt but have managed it without issue ? Celtic, St Johnstone, ICT, Ross Co. Hamilton etc.

3) Those who have been in debt to excess but have agreed a reduced settlement with their lenders, allowing then to continue relatively unscathed.- Aberdeen, Dundee Utd, Kilmarnock, Hibs  

4) Those who have been in debt to excess and have been unable to pay their bills resulting in administration, but have achieved a CVA. ? Motherwell, Dundee, Livingston, Hearts, Dunfermline. ? All received points penalties (except Motherwell whose Administration predated points penalties) 

5) Those who have been in debt to excess and have been unable to pay their bills resulting in Administration, but have not achieved a CVA and have subsequently been Liquidated.  Airdrieonians, Gretna, Rangers ? The latter two both received points penalties while all three lost their league place following liquidation.

 

All the above sanctions seem reasonable and proportionate to me.

 

Another group for consideration for tainted titles are those clubs whose tax arrangements could be determined as illegal.

 

1) Celtic?s involvement with the Juninho EBT resulted in Celtic voluntarily settling the debt with HMRC.

2) Hearts paid some loan players a proportion of their wages in Lithuania between 2007-09, rather than the UK. HMRC argued that as the income was earned in in the UK, tax should be paid in the UK. Hearts agreed a repayment settlement with HMRC in 2012, although administration intervened in 2013 before the amount was paid off.       

3) Rangers employed two separate tax avoidance schemes involving EBTs, the first of which was deemed illegal in 2011 but with no attempt made to repay the debt. The second has just been declared as illegal on appeal to the CoS. The ?club? still disputes its liability.  Furthermore, the non disclosure of associated contract details resulted in a fine of ?250K (still unpaid), with no sporting advantage deemed on the basis of the tax avoidance scheme(s) being lawful.

 

What are the appropriate sanctions for each of the above?

Edited November 8, 2015 by Footballfirst

[davieholt]

I think it's the other way round.

 

According to LNS the latter was only worthy of a fine.

 

It was the assessment of the tax arrangements as being "lawful" (after the FTTT verdict) and available to other teams that ensured that no sporting sanction was applied.  The failure to hear evidence about the Wee Tax Case probably aided that decision.

I accept all of this FF. But LNS must have realised that the reason these were not reported to the SFA was the same as the reason they tried to deny the existence of side letters. They had to maintain the pretence that the trusts were genuinely discretionary with the trustees calling the shots independently of RFC.

 

The fact that the EBTs were set up and administered wrongly to gain unfair financial advantage is bad enough. But to wilfully withold the info from the governing body and then lie about it is, to me, what puts them beyond the pale. The players were improperly registered and there is ample precident for the logical outcome of that. LNS's ramblings are a side show - and newco still haven't coughed up anyway!

[The Don]

Re the argument about tainted titles for those clubs which spent to excess during the last 20 years or so.

 

You can probably categorise the clubs in five different ways.

1) Those who have never been in debt ? who?

2) Those who have been in debt but have managed it without issue ? Celtic, St Johnstone, ICT, Ross Co. Hamilton etc.

3) Those who have been in debt to excess but have agreed a reduced settlement with their lenders, allowing then to continue relatively unscathed.- Aberdeen, Dundee Utd, Kilmarnock, Hibs

4) Those who have been in debt to excess and have been unable to pay their bills resulting in administration, but have achieved a CVA. ? Motherwell, Dundee, Livingston, Hearts, Dunfermline. ? All received points penalties (except Motherwell whose Administration predated points penalties)

5) Those who have been in debt to excess and have been unable to pay their bills resulting in Administration, but have not achieved a CVA and have subsequently been Liquidated. Airdrieonians, Gretna, Rangers ? The latter two both received points penalties while all three lost their league place following liquidation.

 

All the above sanctions seem reasonable and proportionate to me.

 

Another group for consideration for tainted titles are those clubs whose tax arrangements could be determined as illegal.

 

1) Celtic?s involvement with the Juninho EBT resulted in Celtic voluntarily settling the debt with HMRC.

2) Hearts paid some loan players a proportion of their wages in Lithuania between 2007-09, rather than the UK. HMRC argued that as the income was earned in in the UK, tax should be paid in the UK. Hearts agreed a repayment settlement with HMRC in 2012, although administration intervened in 2013 before the amount was paid off.

3) Rangers employed two separate tax avoidance schemes involving EBTs, the first of which was deemed illegal in 2011 but with no attempt made to repay the debt. The second has just been declared as illegal on appeal to the CoS. The ?club? still disputes its liability. Furthermore, the non disclosure of associated contract details resulted in a fine of ?250K (still unpaid), with no sporting advantage deemed on the basis of the tax avoidance scheme(s) being lawful.

 

What are the appropriate sanctions for each of the above?

 

Under point 2 of your second group for consideration. I could be wrong here but was it not the case that we/Romanov denied any wrong doing and were prepared to fight however as the penalties for losing were so severe and winning was obviously not a guarantee it was decided that agreeing a settlement would be the best option. I believe and again correct me if I'm wrong again here that Romanovs defense was the players HQ was in Lithuania. Yes I know it sounds daft but it was an argument along the Starbucks, boots etc line that if the employers HQ is in another country then no UK tax has to be paid. He argued that they were employed through his company in Lithuania but registered to play with Hearts.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Footballfirst]

I accept all of this FF. But LNS must have realised that the reason these were not reported to the SFA was the same as the reason they tried to deny the existence of side letters. They had to maintain the pretence that the trusts were genuinely discretionary with the trustees calling the shots independently of RFC.

 

The fact that the EBTs were set up and administered wrongly to gain unfair financial advantage is bad enough. But to wilfully withold the info from the governing body and then lie about it is, to me, what puts them beyond the pale. The players were improperly registered and there is ample precident for the logical outcome of that. LNS's ramblings are a side show - and newco still haven't coughed up anyway!

 

I agree with you but LNS' hands were tied by the way the commission was set up (changing the start date of period under investigation), and Bryson's explanation of eligibility which went unchallenged, despite there being nothing in the SPL articles or Rules, nor any precedents to support his stance. It was a sham from the off. 

[MacDonald Jardine]

Under point 2 of your second group for consideration. I could be wrong here but was it not the case that we/Romanov denied any wrong doing and were prepared to fight however as the penalties for losing were so severe and winning was obviously not a guarantee it was decided that agreeing a settlement would be the best option. I believe and again correct me if I'm wrong again here that Romanovs defense was the players HQ was in Lithuania. Yes I know it sounds daft but it was an argument along the Starbucks, boots etc line that if the employers HQ is in another country then no UK tax has to be paid. He argued that they were employed through his company in Lithuania but registered to play with Hearts.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not quite the same though.

Following that through no Starbucks employee would have to pay income tax in the UK.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[The Don]

Not quite the same though.

Following that through no Starbucks employee would have to pay income tax in the UK.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

Im not saying he was right or that was exactly the argument he was using, i just vaguely remember it was something like that. In the end he felt it wasn't worth the gamble. 

[MacDonald Jardine]

Im not saying he was right or that was exactly the argument he was using, i just vaguely remember it was something like that. In the end he felt it wasn't worth the gamble.

I think that was the argument.

Looking back it doesn't bear much scrutiny.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Footballfirst]

Under point 2 of your second group for consideration. I could be wrong here but was it not the case that we/Romanov denied any wrong doing and were prepared to fight however as the penalties for losing were so severe and winning was obviously not a guarantee it was decided that agreeing a settlement would be the best option. I believe and again correct me if I'm wrong again here that Romanovs defense was the players HQ was in Lithuania. Yes I know it sounds daft but it was an argument along the Starbucks, boots etc line that if the employers HQ is in another country then no UK tax has to be paid. He argued that they were employed through his company in Lithuania but registered to play with Hearts.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

We certainly denied any wrongdoing, which is part of the reason it took three years to reach a settlement.  I don't know what the Hearts case for the defence was but we took advice that we would lose any appeal and settled accordingly.  The time to pay deal wasn't unrealistic either.

 

The history of it coming to light was as follows:

The case was first mentioned by Hearts as a contingent liability in the 2009 accounts (signed off in April 2010). 

The 2010 accounts (signed off in March 2011) restated that there was an ongoing investigation

 The 2011 accounts (signed off in March 2012) gave the first indication that the club had received assessments

 

I was first alerted to a bit more of the substance of it by a well known blogger in November 2011, although he understood the sums to be involved were much higher than what they actually were. He initially believed that the case would end up at an FTT in the spring of 2012.    

 

I raised the issue with a senior club employee a few days later who spoke to the Executive, who gave an assurance that it was all under control and there would be no liability.

[RobNox]

BOOM.?? The clubs who were cheated.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dhAk4K4f1aaWIZScFH9QpCXx1W8a-802o60kS3BEOwI/htmlview

Had a look, after Celtic it appears we were the next biggest victims.  They have 10 entries, we have 9.

[The Don]

We certainly denied any wrongdoing, which is part of the reason it took three years to reach a settlement. I don't know what the Hearts case for the defence was but we took advice that we would lose any appeal and settled accordingly. The time to pay deal wasn't unrealistic either.

 

The history of it coming to light was as follows:

The case was first mentioned by Hearts as a contingent liability in the 2009 accounts (signed off in April 2010).

The 2010 accounts (signed off in March 2011) restated that there was an ongoing investigation

The 2011 accounts (signed off in March 2012) gave the first indication that the club had received assessments

 

I was first alerted to a bit more of the substance of it by a well known blogger in November 2011, although he understood the sums to be involved were much higher than what they actually were. He initially believed that the case would end up at an FTT in the spring of 2012.

 

I raised the issue with a senior club employee a few days later who spoke to the Executive, who gave an assurance that it was all under control and there would be no liability.

Thanks for that FF

 

I remember some of it mainly the contingency of liability in the accounts part. Again memory is hazy but I think at the time on here everyone was talking about it and wondered wtf it was. As with a lot of our accounts there wasn't total transparency or understanding of everything.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Angus Young]

So lets get this they are oldco when it comes to history and tainted titles but not oldco when they are due any money if any one comes and asks for money they then become newco and it is nothing to do with them. It is clear we are dealing with 2 completely different entities here oldco ( now dead which must include all history ) and newco which is a newly formed entity with no history and not liable for any previous debt due by oldco.

 

oldco should be stripped of tainted titles as they were won via cheating, newco which have no history can continue if they admit they have no history or they pay all debts off and revert to oldco, the trouble they have is king is potless and has no money to invest.

Edited November 8, 2015 by munch2

[RobNox]

Here's one Rangers fan who's contrite:

 

@CarltonBartins: #BartysMiniBlog | GUEST BLOG- A RANGERS FAN SPEAKS OUT ON EBT'S https://t.co/D2yiUO4rE4

mmm...  guy who traveled from Belfast to watch the huns now wants us to believe he watches Glentoran?  I trust he doesn't indulge in any of his old party songs.

[jambovambo]

Wasn't there something in the five-way agreement about title-stripping?

[Big Slim Stylee]

There are two dividends reported in the accounts, one of ?300K and another of ?87K reported in the accounts.  I believe that these were pre and post the date of the SD Loan   There was also a dividend of ?1.61M declared prior to 27 Jan 2015. Rangers share of that dividend would have been ?821K.  However, Rangers were billed ?620K towards the costs of closing the unprofitable stores at the Airport and in Belfast.

 

From the AIM notice about the SD Loan arrangement

RRL will declare a dividend of a total of GBP 1,610,000 prior to the Transfer. The Club will use the proceeds of its share of this dividend, inter alia, to repay sums owing to SD in respect of the cessation of onerous leases on unprofitable stores entered into by a previous Rangers management team.

 

My calculation would be that Rangers received total dividends of ?1.007M (?300K + ?620K + ?87K), but the net cash was only ?387K. Calculating an accurate return on each ?10 spent is not possible because Rangers and SD/RRL have different year end dates and we don't know the periods of revenue that relate to the dividend distribution..  

 

The SoS figure of 50p came from the net benefit after the dividend and costs, while the ?2.60 came from RRL's declared profits (not dividends).

 

Taking the figure of ?821K received as a dividend in January, that was based on Rangers having a 51% share of RRL.   If that level of dividend was maintained as an annual one, but the current 25%, share was used, then Rangers would only receive ?403K.  The difference of ?418K would effectively the be the cost of not repaying the ?5M loan. It is the equivalent to SD charging an 8.4% interest rate on the ?5M. 

 

Completely agree with that.  My point was more towards future release of monies to RIFC more than historical.  It is not the derisory deal or an "onerous contract" as painted by King and his acolytes.  There are certain terms such as the onus on the club to take all the risk on the frankly ludicrous independent retail outlets.  

 

But going forward, there is no pressure on the board of RRL to pay or more importantly release any sort of dividend to RIFC if they so decide - a board effectively controlled by SD.  Am I correct in that, mate?

Edited November 8, 2015 by Big Slim Stylee

[Footballfirst]

But going forward, there is no pressure on the board of RRL to pay or more importantly release any sort of dividend to RIFC if they so decide - a board effectively controlled by SD.  Am I correct in that, mate?

 

That's correct, particularly with Mike Ashley being appointed to the RRL board last week, giving SD a 3-2 majority.

 

However the complaints by the Rangers fans groups would have more credence if RRL didn't declare a dividend and their banners proclaimed "Whaur's oor Divi", rather than "Wir only gettin 5p in the pund", when the calculation is deliberately misleading and based on incomplete information.

[Big Slim Stylee]

Theres a huge difference between "living beyond your means" and cheating/illegal behaviour.

 

I might spend more at the bar friday night than i earned friday day. I was "living beyond my means" on Friday. But if I were reaching behind the bar to nick beer, that wouldn't be the same at all. For one I would have a personal consequence of having less cash Saturday morning (and a sore head). The other, if the barman or bouncer saw me, it'd be more than my head was sore.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

 

No there isn't.  We spent other people's money that wasn't actually there.  They spent money that wasn't actually there as well.  Makes no difference just because you can lay your hands on it.

[jambovambo]

The Clumpany blog (Hearts content):

 

https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/dick-dastardly-he-never-stood-a-chance/

[Big Slim Stylee]

That's correct, particularly with Mike Ashley being appointed to the RRL board last week, giving SD a 3-2 majority.

 

However the complaints by the Rangers fans groups would have more credence if RRL didn't declare a dividend and their banners proclaimed "Whaur's oor Divi", rather than "Wir only gettin 5p in the pund", when the calculation is deliberately misleading and based on incomplete information.

 

Thanks, chap.  I have no doubt that that recent Ashley move will trigger precisely that scenario.  If King doesn't resolve it, no merchandising money at all will reach RIFC going forward while that loan and this dispute remains unresolved.  That's a big hit.

[Footballfirst]

No there isn't.  We spent other people's money that wasn't actually there.  They spent money that wasn't actually there as well.  Makes no difference just because you can lay your hands on it.

 

I disagree.  Both Hearts and Rangers over-borrowed which they ultimately couldn't repay once their lenders faced their own financial crises, Hearts via Ukio/Ubig and Rangers via MIH/LLoyds.  Both clubs went into administration for being unable to pay their bills. One achieved a CVA, the other failed and was liquidated. (the non EBT debt held by HMRC was sufficient to block a CVA in any event)

 

Last week's CoS decision re "illegal" tax arrangements engaged in by Rangers are a separate matter, and merits separate review.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Footballfirst

[Big Slim Stylee]

I disagree.  Both Hearts and Rangers over-borrowed which they ultimately couldn't repay once their lenders faced their own financial crises, Hearts via Ukio/Ubig and Rangers via MIH/LLoyds.  Both clubs went into administration for being unable to pay their bills. One achieved a CVA, the other failed and was liquidated. (the non EBT debt held by HMRC was sufficient to block a CVA in any event)

 

Last week's CoS decision re "illegal" tax arrangements engaged in by Rangers are a separate matter, and merits separate review.

I don't see the difference, mate.  As you yourself point out, EBTs were used by a number of clubs.  Evasive taxation tactics were also used by a number of clubs, ourselves included.  On EBTs, Rangers got hammered where others escaped with a settlement.  I think it's all semantics, tbh.  Nobody "cheated", just tried to use the system and fell foul of it to varying degrees.

[Sidsnot]

much as that's an interesting read I don't think it's quite as simple as that - even without EBT's they would still have been operating with a budget far in excess of our own and therefore in all probability would still have outperformed those clubs in that period..

It's still a decking disgrace, I'm not sure whether removing titles would help or not - I don't think it'd make much difference to me personally. It won't change the money pissed up against the wall following a bent league

That's a very good point,having said that,it goes to show how much they were desperate to win the league and cups back then.

[Unknown user]

I don't see the difference, mate.  As you yourself point out, EBTs were used by a number of clubs.  Evasive taxation tactics were also used by a number of clubs, ourselves included.  On EBTs, Rangers got hammered where others escaped with a settlement.  I think it's all semantics, tbh.  Nobody "cheated", just tried to use the system and fell foul of it to varying degrees.

The frenzied use of shredders at Ibrox would suggest otherwise

[Big Slim Stylee]

That's a very good point,having said that,it goes to show how much they were desperate to win the league and cups back then.

 

It's still essential to being "The People."  Apparently they'll walk the Premiership next season.  Looking forward to them getting torn apart at Ross County next season:)

[Big Slim Stylee]

The frenzied use of shredders at Ibrox would suggest otherwise

 

 They're so going mad about it.  Meanwhile back in the real world, nobody's that arsed.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Big Slim Stylee

[Sidsnot]

Had a look, after Celtic it appears we were the next biggest victims.  They have 10 entries, we have 9.

My cousin is Rangers daft,(sorry),he made me laugh earlier when he showed me his Google + and a picture of Boots chemists whe set up a tax haven in Switzerland saving them ?1.2 billion.

He said and I quote 'Look,there ye go man,HMRC want tae hammer us yet dinny gie a monkeys about that mob.'

[Pistol1874]

They're so going mad about it. Meanwhile back in the real world, nobody's that arsed.

I'm both in the real world and arsed. I doubt I'm the only one. For me, every title they won in that period should simply be replaced with '*' in record books and their name removed from the trophies.

[SUTOL]

I don't see the difference, mate.  As you yourself point out, EBTs were used by a number of clubs..

 

As far as is known only two clubs in Scotland operated EBT's to pay employees, Celtic and Rangers.

Celtic as far as we know, when investigated agreed to pay the tax due, or a settlement amount agreed by HMRC.

Rangers didn't and further investigations have found that the way they operated their EBT schemes was in a way which meant they weren't EBT's but tax evasion. They also had incorrectly registered players and their remuneration arrangements. 

[Sidsnot]

It's still essential to being "The People."  Apparently they'll walk the Premiership next season.  Looking forward to them getting torn apart at Ross County next season:)

I don't know if you watched that game earlier,County could easily have scored 4 goals with any luck at all.

Btw,yon fella Bryce would do a good job for the Jambos in my opinion.

[Sidsnot]

I'm both in the real world and arsed. I doubt I'm the only one. For me, every title they won in that period should simply be replaced with '*' in record books and their name removed from the trophies.

Now that's a common sense approach but when did the SFA ever have any sense?

[Big Slim Stylee]

My cousin is Rangers daft,(sorry),he made me laugh earlier when he showed me his Google + and a picture of Boots chemists whe set up a tax haven in Switzerland saving them ?1.2 billion.

He said and I quote 'Look,there ye go man,HMRC want tae hammer us yet dinny gie a monkeys about that mob.'

"

 He's got a point but really...who cares?  Only them, seemingly.  The "hard-done-by-everyone's out to get us MSM-mhedia" etc. etc.  

 

Personally, it's magnificent entertainment seeing them all boil over with rage.

[Big Slim Stylee]

I'm both in the real world and arsed. I doubt I'm the only one. For me, every title they won in that period should simply be replaced with '*' in record books and their name removed from the trophies.

 

Maybe one of a few, then.  We've all misbehaved to some extent.  I can't get worked up about it, tbh.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Maybe one of a few, then.  We've all misbehaved to some extent.  I can't get worked up about it, tbh.

 

 

There is a massive difference between overspending/tax avoidance and tax fraud.

 

Rangers were guilty of the latter and used the illegal activity to gain a sporting advantage.

 

If you want to keep your head in the sand it's up to you.

[tcjambo]

No there isn't.  We spent other people's money that wasn't actually there.  They spent money that wasn't actually there as well.  Makes no difference just because you can lay your hands on it.

 People had the choice to invest or deposit funds with UBIG/ UKIO, who held the vast bulk of our debt. In theory they could have made a profit out of us if it hadn't been so badly mismanaged.They gambled, lost and ultimately took the hit.

 

Rangers funded their overspending by evading a legal obligation to deduct the correct amount of tax. I can't see that these are in any way comparable.

Edited November 8, 2015 by tcjambo

[Footballfirst]

 Nobody "cheated", just tried to use the system and fell foul of it to varying degrees.

 

The CoS decision mirrored the view of Dr Poon's dissenting decision in the original FTTT

 

Here is an extract of what she had to say about Murray Group's Tax specialist (Mr Red, aka McMillan)  .................   I think it was most definitely "cheating"

 

 

 

The Enquiry by HMRC

24. The enquiry commenced in January 2004 and it was not until April 2008 when sufficient information became available (but not through the Appellants? disclosure) for prior year assessments to be raised. The protracted and chequered course of the enquiry was largely due to a lack of candour and co-operation from Mr Red, who was the chief officer dealing with the enquiry. Key documents such as the side-letters, calculations of figures of contributions, emails and memorandums related directly to the trust?s operation were not disclosed, despite repeated requests and statutory demands for information. From the enquiry correspondence, the tone in Mr Red?s response suggests a degree of hostility, and his remarks were at times aggressive.With his background as a former Inspector of Taxes, and with his professional knowledge as a Chartered Tax Adviser, it is judicious to infer that Mr Red?s attitude and his non-disclosure of key documents did not spring from a lack of understanding of what was being requested, but was informed by a wish to withhold documents which might implicate the operation of remuneration trust as falling outwith the legitimate scope even by his own understanding. It was informative that Mr Red refused any meetings with HMRC in the course of the enquiry, for the likely reason that face-to-face interviews could lead more readily to unintended evidence being divulged.

 

25. Central to the enquiry was the question regarding the basis of determining the amounts contributed to the main Trust and the sub-trusts. It was a question repeatedly raised by HMRC in the enquiry correspondence, and repeatedly met with evasive and disingenuous answers. When asked ?what projections or calculations have been produced to allow the magnitude of contributions to be matched with the expected future bonuses or benefits? (14/47), the reply was: ?there are no projections or calculations produced specifically for this purpose? (14/51). To subsequent questions on any link between amounts of contribution to the Trust and the granting of loans, it was replied that there was: ?no trigger for the chain of events that led to an employee being told that they could apply for a loan from the Trust?; ?The loan amount was not specified? (14/119); ?the Board were not made aware of the way in which the trustees had used the funds?; ?The company has no control over the funds in the Trust and could not communicate wishes as to how they would like the Trustees to consider using their discretionary powers to apply the funds contributed to the Trust? (14/120); ?Your remark that sufficient funds are paid to the trust to cover the full amount of the loan request is simply incorrect?; and ?We continue to reject the view that there is a clear link between the amounts ?paid? to the Trust and the loans to the employees. Once you accept that there is no control by the Company of either the Trust, the Trustees or Deepwater, it will become self-evident that there can be no link between the contributions to the Trust and loans to the employees?; that the comments were ?nonsensical and have no basis in fact? (14/143-146). Each of these assertions will be discussed in turn against other sources of evidence that emerged.

 

26. Unable to elicit the requested information by correspondence, HMRC had served statutory notices under paragraph 27 Schedule 18 FA 1998 on 21 September 2007 to request the administration files for Mr Purple (sub-trust 13), Mr Skegness (sub-trust 38), and Mr Berwick (sub-trust 63). Only Mr Purple?s and Mr Skegness?s files were handed over at the time as Mr Berwick?s had been seized by police. Significantly, neither files handed over contained the side-letters, which were later recovered. It was highly probable, as the Respondents submit, that Mr Red, who was directly involved in handing over the files, had deliberately removed the side-letters germane to the players? administration files.

 

27. The impasse in procuring the necessary documents for the enquiry was broken only by the separate enquiry conducted by the City of London Police (COLP) in the autumn of 2007, when a search warrant on Rangers secured various documents and crucially image copies of computer hard drives. The COLP consulted HMRC Criminal Investigation Section on the material seized from Ibrox, and allowed HMRC?s investigating officer to have the first sighting in October 2007 of a side letter in Mr Berwick?s file that was seized. It was then that the Respondents became privy to information, hitherto unavailable, on how the trust scheme was being used within Rangers. Following application to the General Commissioners, two S20 TMA70 notices were issued on 6 June 2008. These notices were replied to on 18 July 2008 (14/201-4), wherein Mr Red asserted: ?your belief in the existence of documents demonstrating how amounts contributed to the Trust are determined is irrational and unfounded. I cannot help with your fantasies and the production of a S20 makes no difference to this?.

 

28. It was not until 7 May 2009, almost a year after the issue of the S20 notices, and five and a half years since the enquiry commenced, that the Appellants eventually provided the majority of the documents that were admitted as evidence for this Hearing. A notice under Schedule 36 FA2008 was issued on 11 June 2009 with the Appellants? approval, enabling the police to hand over the data and documents seized. It could be adduced from the sequence of events that the COLP investigation had acted as a trigger to the eventual disclosure of additional documents.

 

29. The conduct of the Murray Group in general, and Mr Red in particular, in the course of HMRC?s enquiry went beyond the description of ?a lack of candour?. It would be judicial to conclude that it had been obstructive and obscurantist, and there is evidence of active concealment of documents, as the Respondents submit. Equally, to describe Mr Red as ?somewhat defensive? in giving his sworn testimony (para 10 MD) would be an understatement. On more than one occasion, Mr Red had attempted to mislead the Tribunal.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Footballfirst

[Big Slim Stylee]

 They also had incorrectly registered players and their remuneration arrangements. 

 

Loads of EPL clubs used them.  Loads in every walk of business have used them.

 

But if I'm honest, that's the bit that gets me.  When you see the penalties applied to others for minor non-registration failures.  Our supposed governing bodies are a joke.

 

Can't be bothered with hindsight.  They're still digging their own graves spectacularly well over at Ibrox.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Loads of EPL clubs used them.  Loads in every walk of business have used them.

 

But if I'm honest, that's the bit that gets me.  When you see the penalties applied to others for minor non-registration failures.  Our supposed governing bodies are a joke.

 

Can't be bothered with hindsight.  They're still digging their own graves spectacularly well over at Ibrox.

 

The Rangers case was a test case for HMRC, now they have a guilty verdict they can go after other clubs/companies.

 

I have to agree with your second line, they have shown themselves to be a second rate comedy group from the beginning. No leadership and no spine

[Big Slim Stylee]

The Rangers case was a test case for HMRC, now they have a guilty verdict they can go after other clubs/companies.

 

I have to agree with your second line, they have shown themselves to be a second rate comedy group from the beginning. No leadership and no spine

 

For those that couldn't reach a settlement, though.  Most, to my knowledge, did.  They've been equally tenacious in the arts industry and that is actually way more serious sums. Rangers seem to think they're some sort of special case.  They're not really.  They tried to play hardball and got hammered.  Really stupid move.

[Unknown user]

They're so going mad about it. Meanwhile back in the real world, nobody's that arsed.

You misunderstand me, although I wasn't that clear to be fair.

 

As word got out at ibrox that they were to be raided, employees set about hurriedly shredding certain documents.

 

Only some EBT side letters remained- of course, no one can prove what was shredded but I know a giant stinking shite on the carpet when I see one, I don't need to wait for the lab results.

 

That's the big thing that proves cheating for me- they knew and they shit themselves

[Footballfirst]

The Currant Bun has a story on footballers investing in a dodgy film tax avoidance scheme

 

 

Premier league footballers face financial ruin over dodgy investments Stars stung by ?appalling misselling? of investments

SCORES of football stars face being stung for an estimated ?100million over film schemes and property ventures, it was reported last night.

 

Ex-Manchester United aces Rio Ferdinand and Andy Cole are said to be among more than 100 retired players caught up in the crisis

Former Arsenal and Everton striker Kevin Campbell, who invested in five film schemes, faces losses of up to ?7million, said The Sunday Times.

Campbell claims he and other footballers are the victims of ?appalling misselling?, and is now at the centre of bankruptcy proceedings.

He said: ?When I see the paperwork, it?s horrendous. I am not bitter but ?7million is a lot.?

At least 100 players were reportedly advised by David McKee and Kevin McMenamin.

The Sun exclusively revealed in January that Match of the Day pundit Danny Murphy had been clobbered with a ?2.5million bill after investing in a tax break scheme.

We also told how his fellow BBC pundit Martin Keown was ordered to pay an HMRC debt. Craig Short, former Blackburn Rovers captain, is reported to have lost ?2.6million.

He said players were ?aggrieved, they feel duped, anger, humiliation really. It?s wrong, totally wrong.?

A spokesman for McKee and McMenamin issued a strong denial and said that ?without exception? clients were advised on the risks of each scheme.

Film schemes involved footballers? money being supplemented by bank loans.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Footballfirst

[Big Slim Stylee]

The Currant Bun has a story on footballers investing in a dodgy film tax avoidance scheme

 

Scores of us that invested in cos. such as Ingenious, tbh:(