Robbo 75 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 OK, from what I can gather Rangers won the case that they didn't owe HMRC ?49million after it was found payments to players were loans and not extra payments and HMRC have nothing to do with it. So, why were they giving players loans to play for them ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munch Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 OK, from what I can gather Rangers won the case that they didn't owe HMRC ?49million after it was found payments to players were loans and not extra payments and HMRC have nothing to do with it. So, why were they giving players loans to play for them ? Exactly guilty as charged for cheating titles must now be stripped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splog Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I think people were expecting an outright winner. i.e. Rangers owe nothing or Rangers owe everything. but as it turns out, it was somewhere in between. Rangers are still due HMRC some of the tax, just nowhere near the ?49m figure originally charged. Hence they "won the appeal". It could still be millions though. The media is confusing matters by being overly simplistic with their reporting. Not that any of it really matters. They still owe HMRC more than they have assets, so the actual effect of the ruling was always going to be nil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 The players are NOT liable due to the side letters. Tax must be paid. The only asset in existence to pay it - Ibrox. Sevco will lose Ibrox and also be liquidated. But it's going to take months. Does anyone care anymore ? Sorry, but I don't think that's any more than wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 The Gasman 1754 Hagar the Horrible 1097 Geoff Kilpatrick 1065 Lovecraft 1003 jambovambo 1003 nortonjambo 979 Socrates 933 Francis Albert 911 Muhammad 815 jamboinglasgow 735 The above must be utterly seething Why? I've really enjoyed these 899 pages. Lot more pleasure to come too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdannyb Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Sorry, but I don't think that's any more than wishful thinking. You're probably right, but since they ended up in the third division, I've ceased to care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcjambo Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Seems that a few players might go bankrupt if this works out the way some are predicting. In turn, I wonder if this has implications for the agents for these players. They can surely sue them for wrongful advice - otherwise what's the point in these people. As agents will be insured, EBT holders may be indemnified for their losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco_Jambo Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Seems that a few players might go bankrupt if this works out the way some are predicting. In turn, I wonder if this has implications for the agents for these players. They can surely sue them for wrongful advice - otherwise what's the point in these people. As agents will be insured, EBT holders may be indemnified for their losses. Don't think it will happen. Too convoluted. All this really says is that rather than being tax cheats in the region of ?50 million it is about ?10 million they owed. Still it was for that reason that they went bust. If they had have paid the ?10 million they definitely owed then they could have continued on rather than ceasing to exist until today. It was still an elaborate scheme of tax avoidance by Murray and the irony is if they hadn't went down that road to use this system then they would still exist. Given the majority verdict and length it took for the decision it is quite clear HMRC made the right decision to chase them for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I'm sorry but where the **** does taking a huge loan from someone that is clearly never going to be repaid whilst accompanied by a side letter that was never disclosed and even blatantly withheld from the governing bodies and the taxman turn out to be legal??? Do they think our heads button up the back? Have I missed something here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Don't think it will happen. Too convoluted. All this really says is that rather than being tax cheats in the region of ?50 million it is about ?10 million they owed. Still it was for that reason that they went bust. If they had have paid the ?10 million they definitely owed then they could have continued on rather than ceasing to exist until today. It was still an elaborate scheme of tax avoidance by Murray and the irony is if they hadn't went down that road to use this system then they would still exist. Given the majority verdict and length it took for the decision it is quite clear HMRC made the right decision to chase them for it. Only if they had also paid the outstanding PAYE and the wee tax case too which, as I say, was the reason Hector binned the CVA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzyonthefence Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 OK, from what I can gather Rangers won the case that they didn't owe HMRC ?49million after it was found payments to players were loans and not extra payments and HMRC have nothing to do with it. So, why were they giving players loans to play for them ? Doesn't a loan mean that there is some sort of requirement to repay it? Did Rangers ever have any intention of calling in these "loans"? I assume not, therefoe, how the feck can they be loans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I note that MIH is considering legal action against Rangers Tax Case. Oh, please do. Even more dirty washing in public Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I'm sorry but where the **** does taking a huge loan from someone that is clearly never going to be repaid whilst accompanied by a side letter that was never disclosed and even blatantly withheld from the governing bodies and the taxman turn out to be legal??? Do they think our heads button up the back? Have I missed something here? That's the thing rangers thought they were doing something dodgy and tried to hide it. But the EBT payment documents stand up as 'loans'. It actually seems to me that HMRC dropped a bollock with their advocate agreeing that these loans were not a 'sham' - but I don't know the devil of the detail for that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco_Jambo Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Only if they had also paid the outstanding PAYE and the wee tax case too which, as I say, was the reason Hector binned the CVA. Yes I know. I've said that is the reason they went bust as well, the outstanding roughly ?10 million. But the result of using the EBT was that they had it hanging over for them for a while and meant Murray wanted rid ASAP and Whyte knew he was totally up the creek when Rangers lost the European income streams. Not using it wouldn't have prevented them from going bust as they did this year but it may have meant that their would have been more interest in buying Rangers when Murray flogged it for ?1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Yes I know. I've said that is the reason they went bust as well, the outstanding roughly ?10 million. But the result of using the EBT was that they had it hanging over for them for a while and meant Murray wanted rid ASAP and Whyte knew he was totally up the creek when Rangers lost the European income streams. Not using it wouldn't have prevented them from going bust as they did this year but it may have meant that their would have been more interest in buying Rangers when Murray flogged it for ?1. Indeed. A delicious irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 So when it goes to the Upper Tier, assuming Hector appeals, will that be held in camera too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossmor38 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 No - they were part of the contract. They were derived from and were part of the contract as I understand it. Players could choose to get payments for certain bonuses by PAYE or EBT. What part of the tax case verdict that says these loans were non contractural do you not understand? The tax case verdict stated that the players had no legal right to these loans and this makes them non contractural. Thus they were not part of any contract as you have to have a legal right to that payment to make it contractural so no dual contracts can exist. Also because of the way the loans were structured they do not need to recovered straight away. They can even be recovered from the borrowers estate upon their death. I think people on here just have to realise that today was a massive victory for Rangers and many people on this thread have been and it seems continue talking crap for months about something they obviously know nothing about. I doubt HMRC will appeal because to appeal they'd need some new evidence and it would need to be in the public interest. HMRC have now squandered many millions of pounds from the public purse in losing high profile tax cases against Rangers, Harry Redknapp and Milan Manderic. Will they be allowed to spend more just to lose again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossmor38 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Indeed. A delicious irony. you're a desperate man desperately clutching at straws. Unlucky, Geoff. It look like your life's work has been utterly ruined today. Maybe though you can actually go back to posting about Hearts rather than obsessing over Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Yes I know. I've said that is the reason they went bust as well, the outstanding roughly ?10 million. But the result of using the EBT was that they had it hanging over for them for a while and meant Murray wanted rid ASAP and Whyte knew he was totally up the creek when Rangers lost the European income streams. Not using it wouldn't have prevented them from going bust as they did this year but it may have meant that their would have been more interest in buying Rangers when Murray flogged it for ?1. Yep, It's hardly a great victory. And if MIH had never touched the EBT scheme, where would they be now? A league or a cup down on Celtic? Be interesting how MSM report this. SevCo fans real ire should still be towards Murray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 What part of the tax case verdict that says these loans were non contractural do you not understand? The tax case verdict stated that the players had no legal right to these loans and this makes them non contractural. Thus they were not part of any contract as you have to have a legal right to that payment to make it contractural so no dual contracts can exist. Also because of the way the loans were structured they do not need to recovered straight away. They can even be recovered from the borrowers estate upon their death. I think people on here just have to realise that today was a massive victory for Rangers and many people on this thread have been and it seems continue talking crap for months about something they obviously know nothing about. I doubt HMRC will appeal because to appeal they'd need some new evidence and it would need to be in the public interest. HMRC have now squandered many millions of pounds from the public purse in losing high profile tax cases against Rangers, Harry Redknapp and Milan Manderic. Will they be allowed to spend more just to lose again? You're making things up here The EBT payments were discretionary and there was no entitlement to payment from them. Payments that were made from them were not remuneration But only employees of Oldco were entitled to this benefit. This benefit was contractual. FFS EBT stands for "Employee Benefits Trust" and is only available to employees by virtue of their fecking employment CONTRACT. Take your blue/orange goggles of sevcorconian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 you're a desperate man desperately clutching at straws. Unlucky, Geoff. It look like your life's work has been utterly ruined today. Maybe though you can actually go back to posting about Hearts rather than obsessing over Rangers. Still claiming the CVA is inevitable? I am not clutching at anything. If all these payments were "loans" why were the side letters deliberately hidden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 you're a desperate man desperately clutching at straws. Unlucky, Geoff. It look like your life's work has been utterly ruined today. Maybe though you can actually go back to posting about Hearts rather than obsessing over Rangers. Still claiming the CVA is inevitable? I am not clutching at anything. If all these payments were "loans" why were the side letters deliberately hidden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Still claiming the CVA is inevitable? I am not clutching at anything. If all these payments were "loans" why were the side letters deliberately hidden? All the payments werent loans Sevcorconian has neglected to acknowledge that some of these payments have been found to be illegal.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 You're making things up here The EBT payments were discretionary and there was no entitlement to payment from them. Payments that were made from them were not remuneration But only employees of Oldco were entitled to this benefit. This benefit was contractual. FFS EBT stands for "Employee Benefits Trust" and is only available to employees by virtue of their fecking employment CONTRACT. Take your blue/orange goggles of sevcorconian And the case itself comments on the side letters, those awkward things it took Strathclyde's finest to hand over to Hector. My only "fear" now is this being swept under a dirty carpet at Hampden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 All the payments werent loans Sevcorconian has neglected to acknowledge that some of these payments have been found to be illegal.... Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco_Jambo Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) What part of the tax case verdict that says these loans were non contractural do you not understand? The tax case verdict stated that the players had no legal right to these loans and this makes them non contractural. Thus they were not part of any contract as you have to have a legal right to that payment to make it contractural so no dual contracts can exist. Also because of the way the loans were structured they do not need to recovered straight away. They can even be recovered from the borrowers estate upon their death. I think people on here just have to realise that today was a massive victory for Rangers and many people on this thread have been and it seems continue talking crap for months about something they obviously know nothing about. I doubt HMRC will appeal because to appeal they'd need some new evidence and it would need to be in the public interest. HMRC have now squandered many millions of pounds from the public purse in losing high profile tax cases against Rangers, Harry Redknapp and Milan Manderic. Will they be allowed to spend more just to lose again? I agree partly with what your saying but it's hardly a massive victory. They still died by cheating HMRC of tax. Not to the extent that a lot of people thought and over as many years. I'm not bothered about that as one of the main reasons for my attitude to Rangers is the amount and period of alleged tax evasion. Since they haven't done that then thats good as a taxpayer we haven't been scammed of all that money but HMRC still done for about ?10 million. How have people been talking crap? It was a 2-1 majority verdict clearly there was a case for this system being contrary to tax law and like tax avoidance adopted by Starbucks people struggle to understand why such things are legal. Not sure how exactly they squandered tax payers money doing this. There job is to get people to pay tax bills. They felt Rangers owed this and they billed then Rangers appealed. It sounds like they had reason to believe this should be paid. I think the case could also be the same for Hearts given the system we have used to bring players in on loan. Edited November 20, 2012 by Rocco_Jambo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 The Gasman 1754 Hagar the Horrible 1097 Geoff Kilpatrick 1065 Lovecraft 1003 jambovambo 1003 nortonjambo 979 Socrates 933 Francis Albert 911 Muhammad 815 jamboinglasgow 735 The above must be utterly seething To be fair, you're spot on. I'm ******* raging tho that's more to do with the presence of infidel military bases on the holy lands... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Rossmor, just one more question on your fleeting visit. Should Crazy Chuck reintroduce EBT's at Sevco given this "vindication"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzyonthefence Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Rossmor, just one more question on your fleeting visit. Should Crazy Chuck reintroduce EBT's at Sevco given this "vindication"? As long as he remembers to tell the players they have to be paid back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 That's the thing rangers thought they were doing something dodgy and tried to hide it. But the EBT payment documents stand up as 'loans'. It actually seems to me that HMRC dropped a bollock with their advocate agreeing that these loans were not a 'sham' - but I don't know the devil of the detail for that argument. I actually think (from my layman's point of view) rather than dropping a bollock, HMRC have actually been quite clever here. There's no money in going after OldCo, so now they've aimed their sights on individuals. By agreeing it's a "real" loan, these players will have to have some facility to pay it back, or to pay any Tax and NI on it. If they don't, they're "admiring" they received an illegal payment. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. We'll also now see the previous silence and solidarity disappear, as they all scramble to look after their own personal interests. Even without an appeal to the HTT (which I think HMRC will go for) Hector will be able to pursue the individual beneficiaries, as well as OldCo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 The Gasman 1754 Hagar the Horrible 1097 Geoff Kilpatrick 1065 Lovecraft 1003 jambovambo 1003 nortonjambo 979 Socrates 933 Francis Albert 911 Muhammad 815 jamboinglasgow 735 The above must be utterly seething 4= eh? Must try harder. Seething ? No. Only wanting justice to be done. This is not over yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I note that MIH is considering legal action against Rangers Tax Case. Oh, please do. Even more dirty washing in public RTC, Phil McGlanagiignign, Mark Daly all looking like fannys now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 RTC, Phil McGlanagiignign, Mark Daly all looking like fannys now. orwell prize winner, soaring book sales, vindicated on side letters. meanwhile, rangers are in the third division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyJenkins Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 RTC, Phil McGlanagiignign, Mark Daly all looking like fannys now. Not really eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 RTC, Phil McGlanagiignign, Mark Daly all looking like fannys now. The expert speaks... No matter whether legal or not - schemes that allow wealthy individuals to pay next to nothing in tax are morally wrong. Rangers benefitted from this scheme as did many football players. Round 1 went to HMRC, Round 2 went to Rangers - Round 3 will be the knockout blow when the "legend" get tax bills and then squeal. I for one can't wait. Ding ding.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieholt Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 RTC, Phil McGlanagiignign, Mark Daly all looking like fannys now. Interesting take on proceedings. Wrong of course . . but interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Tomo from some time ago : http://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-the-payments-that-may-lead-to-rangers-downfall Includes "Martin Bain writing to Rangers Chairman John McClelland, says that his contract letter from McClelland, would be destroyed, shredded, by a female official at MIH - the company which owned Rangers. Martin Bain wrote: "at the end of the meeting I gave her back the letter addressed to me from you that stated my contractual increase for her to shred." Not the actions of someone who thinks their arrangement is legal, at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munch Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 So from what i can figure out they got liquidated and could have avoided it they easily could have flogged a couple of players to cover the wee tax bill, and they had cleard their main creditor with the ticketus money they paid the duffers about 6 million and ended up with crazy chuck running the show which all could have been avoided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccoist355 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Oh look... Rangers won the tax case, RTC, MacGioaloihlaoihaliaoabhain, Paul "Albion Rovers" McConville, Alex "daleks" Thomson... all looking like fools.. Here's an idea, Do you think the Rangers-obsessed jambos will now remove their heads from the arses of the Celtic-loving bloggers??? Talk about sleeping with the enemy. They must feel dirty now the "Tax-Case" has been ruled legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco_Jambo Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 RTC, Phil McGlanagiignign, Mark Daly all looking like fannys now. RTC, Phil McGlanagiignign, Mark Daly all looking like fannys now. I've not followed the first two but saying Mark Daly now looks a ###### makes you look like a total muppet. He had a programme which outlined evidence being presented at the case and detailed the amount people were paid through EBTs and that if the tax case goes against them they could be liable for the total amount in unpaid tax. The tribunal has decided that the majority of Rangers EBT use was legal but some weren't and that they do have a tax liability for there use of EBT but substantially less than the figure HMRC had calculated. Even regardless of the smaller illegal amounts of EBT I don't see how he is a ###### for investigating a very controversial scheme which allows multi millionaires to avoid tax given the current climate. It's a bit like calling journalists who have done Panorama specials/reports on tax avoidance by Stabucks or Jimmy Carr etc. ******s. It's clearly in the public interest for the hard working tax payers to know who is using perfectly legal but highly distasteful tax avoidance schemes when Joe Public has no option but to pay his tax bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Do you think the Rangers-obsessed jambos will now remove their heads from the arses of the Celtic-loving bloggers??? Feeling brave today... ? No matter how you dress it up Rangers won a tax case where they and their staff avoided paying millions to the taxman. If you think it is ok for big business/some people on huge wages to pay less tax than you then you are a moron. Rangers FC - The nations disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Oh look... Rangers won the tax case, RTC, MacGioaloihlaoihaliaoabhain, Paul "Albion Rovers" McConville, Alex "daleks" Thomson... all looking like fools.. Here's an idea, Do you think the Rangers-obsessed jambos will now remove their heads from the arses of the Celtic-loving bloggers??? Talk about sleeping with the enemy. They must feel dirty now the "Tax-Case" has been ruled legit. 148. In the course of their enquiry there had been concealment from HMRC of many relevant documents. In footballer employment files volunteered 5 to HMRC sideletters had been removed apparently. However, in files seized unexpectedly from the Club side-letters were present. No records had been produced in relation to the approval of executives? bonuses. This was highly relevant, Mr Thomson stressed, particularly as the onus of proof lay on the taxpayers. Mr Red and Rangers had not been forthcoming in providing all relevant documentation, he suggested. p36. The actions of an innocent party ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco_Jambo Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 So from what i can figure out they got liquidated and could have avoided it they easily could have flogged a couple of players to cover the wee tax bill, and they had cleard their main creditor with the ticketus money they paid the duffers about 6 million and ended up with crazy chuck running the show which all could have been avoided. So from what i can figure out they got liquidated and could have avoided it they easily could have flogged a couple of players to cover the wee tax bill, and they had cleard their main creditor with the ticketus money they paid the duffers about 6 million and ended up with crazy chuck running the show which all could have been avoided. They still would have had to find the ?14 million in unpaid tax since Whyte came in and would have had to make up for a ?1million monthly shortfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccoist355 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Feeling brave today... ? No matter how you dress it up Rangers won a tax case where they and their staff avoided paying millions to the taxman. If you think it is ok for big business/some people on huge wages to pay less tax than you then you are a moron. Rangers FC - The nations disgrace. Bottom line - it was legal, they were within their rights. Come out of your fairytale world and face the facts: - No-one pays more tax than they need to. - Rangers didn't need to pay that tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco_Jambo Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Bottom line - it was legal, they were within their rights. Come out of your fairytale world and face the facts: - No-one pays more tax than they need to. - Rangers didn't need to pay that tax. The majority of EBT use was legal. They still failed to pay tax which they were due through EBT use. They had still used an illegal tax system in the 'wee' tax case and they still evaded ?14 million in tax in their last couple of seasons. Are you genuinely trying to take the moral high ground by saying you all called us tax cheats to the tune of 100 millions of pound but you were wrong we are only tax cheats to tens of millions of pound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amjam Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Bottom line - it was legal, they were within their rights. Come out of your fairytale world and face the facts: - No-one pays more tax than they need to. - Rangers didn't need to pay that tax. Must be doubly frustrating that they got liquidated and no longer exist then, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Oh look... Rangers won the tax case, RTC, MacGioaloihlaoihaliaoabhain, Paul "Albion Rovers" McConville, Alex "daleks" Thomson... all looking like fools.. Here's an idea, Do you think the Rangers-obsessed jambos will now remove their heads from the arses of the Celtic-loving bloggers??? Talk about sleeping with the enemy. They must feel dirty now the "Tax-Case" has been ruled legit. It's all a Celtic conspiracy mate. That Alex Thomson bloke is god father to Neil Lennon''s weans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munch Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 They still would have had to find the ?14 million in unpaid tax since Whyte came in and would have had to make up for a ?1million monthly shortfall. With proper leadership i still reckon they could have avoided Admin and Liquidation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 - No-one pays more tax than they need to. - Rangers didn't need to pay that tax. What about the other tax bills that were not paid... ? I encourage you to come out of your fairytale world too - Rangers football club are tax cheats who were put into administration for non payment of tax during 2011-2012 and were then liquidated. The current incarnation of Rangers FC was established in 2012 and has assumed the history of a club that is now dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Bottom line - it was legal, they were within their rights. Come out of your fairytale world and face the facts: - No-one pays more tax than they need to. - Rangers didn't need to pay that tax. But as Rangers haven't paid the tax, the individuals now have to pay it, or repay the "loan" they got through the EBT scheme. Do you think the affected ex-players will be happy at your old Club's "victory", or do you think they'll e speaking to their Agents and Lawyers, because they think they were duped into accepting these contracts under false pretences..? Do you think the fact that even if legal, these payments were in breach of SPL and SFA rules, should be ignored..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts