adayinmay Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Is that not right enough though?No. LNS found there was no sporting advantage gained because other teams could have used EBT's in just the same way that Rangers did. The recent ruling makes that not the case. The side letters were a separate issue for LNS that he found to be wrong and fined Rangers for it. A fine that has not been payed to this day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daydream Believer Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 There's an emergency meeting of the 9 man board of the SPFL today to discuss the Oldco rangers Ebt ruling from the courts this week. Did anyone hear any more about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 No. LNS found there was no sporting advantage gained because other teams could have used EBT's in just the same way that Rangers did. The recent ruling makes that not the case. The side letters were a separate issue for LNS that he found to be wrong and fined Rangers for it. A fine that has not been payed to this day. So probably fair to say then that "the LNS report judged its sporting integrity based on the evidence of the side letters and NOT on the illegal use of the EBT's and non tax payment on them" I feel like one of us is missing something, no problem with it being me if someone can explain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graves2002 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 The side letters were proof that the SFA had not been informed of players full contracts and hence their registration documents were invalid. 3 Nil win against the Huns for every match where one of those players was involved. That's the rules. It was the Lord Nimmo bigots decision that an improper registration for 10 straight seasons didn't matter that was the worst part of that farce. Not the EBTs. Spartans thrown out of the cup for signing a registration once and not twice. Rangers not punished for over 100 player registrations being fake for a decade. They have to be punished, titles must be lost and the whole league should sue all those responsible for lost earnings. SDM, DCK, PM and the GFA are all liable for costing Hearts and the rest of the SPL clubs Millions. It is the chance to bury rangers for once and all. Ipox sold and demolished, Minty park sold, starting an new rangers in the junior leagues where they belong. It is the most open and shut case against any cheating sports institution in history and yet nobody will take action through fear or some cringing loyalty to a bunch of bigots. WHY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 The side letters were proof that the SFA had not been informed of players full contracts and hence their registration documents were invalid. 3 Nil win against the Huns for every match where one of those players was involved. That's the rules. It was the Lord Nimmo bigots decision that an improper registration for 10 straight seasons didn't matter that was the worst part of that farce. Not the EBTs. Spartans thrown out of the cup for signing a registration once and not twice. Rangers not punished for over 100 player registrations being fake for a decade. They have to be punished, titles must be lost and the whole league should sue all those responsible for lost earnings. SDM, DCK, PM and the GFA are all liable for costing Hearts and the rest of the SPL clubs Millions. It is the chance to bury rangers for once and all. Ipox sold and demolished, Minty park sold, starting an new rangers in the junior leagues where they belong. It is the most open and shut case against any cheating sports institution in history and yet nobody will take action through fear or some cringing loyalty to a bunch of bigots. WHY? We don't know that though, this appeal has only just concluded. There's another level Oldco could appeal to, and to my mind it would make sense to see whether the decision is final or not before action is taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 The side letters were proof that the SFA had not been informed of players full contracts and hence their registration documents were invalid. 3 Nil win against the Huns for every match where one of those players was involved. That's the rules. It was the Lord Nimmo bigots decision that an improper registration for 10 straight seasons didn't matter that was the worst part of that farce. Not the EBTs. Spartans thrown out of the cup for signing a registration once and not twice. Rangers not punished for over 100 player registrations being fake for a decade. They have to be punished, titles must be lost and the whole league should sue all those responsible for lost earnings. SDM, DCK, PM and the GFA are all liable for costing Hearts and the rest of the SPL clubs Millions. It is the chance to bury rangers for once and all. Ipox sold and demolished, Minty park sold, starting an new rangers in the junior leagues where they belong. It is the most open and shut case against any cheating sports institution in history and yet nobody will take action through fear or some cringing loyalty to a bunch of bigots. WHY? You're forgetting the Bryson defence, viz. that a registration could not be expunged after it had been accepted. the most bizarre defence in history and created by the governing body! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Did anyone hear any more about this? http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/spfl-a-million-miles-away-from-deciding-on-rangers-titles-1-3940297#axzz3qoHvA6NC A spokesman for the body would only say: ?The SPFL can confirm that its board held a short conference call this afternoon to allow for a factual update on the recent decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session.? However, a league source revealed that yesterday ?afternoon?s call would be a ?million miles away? from deciding whether Rangers would be subjected to title stripping or other sporting sanctions. The Scottish Premier League, the SPFL?s forerunner, asked Lord Nimmo Smith to investigate the use of EBTs by Rangers and whether they breached league rules two years ago. He ruled the use of side letters to players and staff detailing the EBT payments did break league regulations and fined the oldco ?250,000 as well as ordering it to pay ?150,000 in costs. The Ibrox newco are challenging attempts to force them to pay the fine. However, at the time of Lord Nimmo Smith?s ruling, EBT payments were not considered to have been taxable earnings, a matter which led the Lord Nimmo to rule that Rangers had not received a sporting advantage by making the tax-free payments. Now that the Court of Session has ruled that the payments should have been taxed, the eight-man SPFL board are under pressure to look again at Lord Nimmo Smith?s report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/barry-ferguson-fear-ibrox-war-6785032 - Barry the Crab ... "one day I promise I?ll give me side of that story" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biffa Bacon Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/barry-ferguson-fear-ibrox-war-6785032 - Barry the Crab ... "one day I promise I?ll give me side of that story" t?s not the tax case then it?s the ongoing battle between Mike Ashley and Dave King ? a fight which is now making the Sports Direct boss look ridiculous. Not from where I see it Barry. King is the one that looks like a lying twat. Ashley comes across as a ruthless businessman.... Is he still the manager of Clyde? Not a word about his own club, no come along and support us.....just more sycophantic drivel.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 No. LNS found there was no sporting advantage gained because other teams could have used EBT's in just the same way that Rangers did. The recent ruling makes that not the case. The side letters were a separate issue for LNS that he found to be wrong and fined Rangers for it. A fine that has not been payed to this day. Anybody else would have had sanctions imposed upon them for non payment by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diadora Van Basten Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Was listening to radio Scotland and it is amazing how many non old firm supporting presenters think we should all just carry on as if nothing has happened. It's like looking into the pen in men in black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Was listening to radio Scotland and it is amazing how many non old firm supporting presenters think we should all just carry on as if nothing has happened. It's like looking into the pen in men in black. Davie Farrell (yes, Iknow!) was asked on Off The Ball and he reckoned they should be stripped of their titles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccarton3 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) Listened to Sportsound podcast from Nov 5th and couldn't believe my ears listening to Richard Wilson. He was incredible with his revision of history. He claimed the LNS report judged its sporting integrity based on the evidence of the side letters and NOT on the illegal use of the EBT's and non tax payment on them. He claimed there was no apatite to punish Rangers further as the fans have been through enough!! Incredulous stuff. This is how the media works. Twist details to establish their view as fact and tell us their chosen view is what people want. Again. Why the need for the emotive and irrelevant 'fans have been through enough' nonsense. No appetite for further punitive action from whom? Rangers fans? Wilson himself? By all means state a case by reference to previous investigations but please don't bring it down to pity for fans as some sort of supportive evidence. Edited November 7, 2015 by Riccarton3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skivingatwork Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Was listening to radio Scotland and it is amazing how many non old firm supporting presenters think we should all just carry on as if nothing has happened. It's like looking into the pen in men in black. All following the party line. Look what happened to Jim Spence when he didn't. A disgrace to this day that his colleagues didn't stand by him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcjambo Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I wonder if the recipients of the EBT will be pursued by HMRC and what implications this will have for players' agents. Did the agents negotiate the contracts in their entirety (or did they leave the room conveniently at the appropriate moment) - there must be an argument that they may have been negligent on behalf of their clients is accepting the EBTs and side letters as part of the contractual arrangements. Why has there been no sanctions against them by the football authorities? Will the players pay up then sue the agents and their insurers? This could run for years. I have to say though if I was a recipient of one of these arrangements I'd be getting legal advice ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I wonder if the recipients of the EBT will be pursued by HMRC and what implications this will have for players' agents. Did the agents negotiate the contracts in their entirety (or did they leave the room conveniently at the appropriate moment) - there must be an argument that they may have been negligent on behalf of their clients is accepting the EBTs and side letters as part of the contractual arrangements. Why has there been no sanctions against them by the football authorities? Will the players pay up then sue the agents and their insurers? This could run for years. I have to say though if I was a recipient of one of these arrangements I'd be getting legal advice ASAP. The ruling stated that tax liability is with Oldco, not the recipients, that's why Oldco's debt to hmrc has increased again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxteth O'Grady Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Why would BDO appeal the decision? Their job is to get as much money as possible for the creditors and this case doesn't change the amount available to the creditors. It only affects the distribution of the monies with more of it going to HMRC and less to the other creditors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroon tinted glasses 2 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 IIRC as well as getting booted out of Europe for fielding ineligible players (six I think) did SION not also domestically get a three point deduction for each game where the players played and this was enforced by pressure from UEFA which amounted in quite a lot of points to be wiped. If the contracts were fraudulent based on the wage details being falsified for tax avoidance reasons then the titles MUST be scrubbed from record at the very least. I honestly hope that UEFA are now playing close attention to how this will be dealt with and even more so after all the recent claims of corruption within the sport. AB wanted to get onto the board for the SFA to freshen it up and introduce some of the integrity and ideas she has done for Hearts but was buffed aside, its now down to those people who hold the court to show they have the integrity to do what every Scottish football supporter outwith rangers knows is the right thing to do. Over to you SFA!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Why would BDO appeal the decision? Their job is to get as much money as possible for the creditors and this case doesn't change the amount available to the creditors. It only affects the distribution of the monies with more of it going to HMRC and less to the other creditors. It's not just that but what the media isn't reporting and I think I am correct here but somebody like FF could confirm this. Before BDO could pursue an appeal which would cost a substantial amount of money they would need to get the approval of all the creditors, after all it's the creditors money they are playing with. I know when I was dealing with BDO, I had a vote whether to pursue a case through the High Court in London to try and get money from someone, which would cost a lot of money to do without any guarantee of success or to just let it go and write it off, BDO gave the decision to the creditors of what we wanted to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Lincs Jambo Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 The side letters were proof that the SFA had not been informed of players full contracts and hence their registration documents were invalid. 3 Nil win against the Huns for every match where one of those players was involved. That's the rules. It was the Lord Nimmo bigots decision that an improper registration for 10 straight seasons didn't matter that was the worst part of that farce. Not the EBTs. Spartans thrown out of the cup for signing a registration once and not twice. Rangers not punished for over 100 player registrations being fake for a decade. They have to be punished, titles must be lost and the whole league should sue all those responsible for lost earnings. SDM, DCK, PM and the GFA are all liable for costing Hearts and the rest of the SPL clubs Millions. It is the chance to bury rangers for once and all. Ipox sold and demolished, Minty park sold, starting an new rangers in the junior leagues where they belong. It is the most open and shut case against any cheating sports institution in history and yet nobody will take action through fear or some cringing loyalty to a bunch of bigots. WHY? ^^^^^^ This in spades ^^^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Lincs Jambo Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 From Wikipedia about the Italian cheating scandal from 10 years ago: "The 2004-05 and 2005-06 titles were initially won by Juventus but were rescinded due to the Calciopoli scandal. The 2004-05 title remained unassigned while the 2005-06 scudetto was reassigned to Inter." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Lincs Jambo Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I'm making an assumption that the reason the 05-06 title was reassigned to Inter whilst the 04-05 was not was that it was all concluded before the next season started and immediate and accurate punishment could take place, ie Euro places, relegation etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxteth O'Grady Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 It's not just that but what the media isn't reporting and I think I am correct here but somebody like FF could confirm this. Before BDO could pursue an appeal which would cost a substantial amount of money they would need to get the approval of all the creditors, after all it's the creditors money they are playing with. I know when I was dealing with BDO, I had a vote whether to pursue a case through the High Court in London to try and get money from someone, which would cost a lot of money to do without any guarantee of success or to just let it go and write it off, BDO gave the decision to the creditors of what we wanted to do. The biggest creditor is HMRC so why on earth would they appeal a decision in their favour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 The side letters were proof that the SFA had not been informed of players full contracts and hence their registration documents were invalid. 3 Nil win against the Huns for every match where one of those players was involved. That's the rules. It was the Lord Nimmo bigots decision that an improper registration for 10 straight seasons didn't matter that was the worst part of that farce. Not the EBTs. Spartans thrown out of the cup for signing a registration once and not twice. Rangers not punished for over 100 player registrations being fake for a decade. They have to be punished, titles must be lost and the whole league should sue all those responsible for lost earnings. SDM, DCK, PM and the GFA are all liable for costing Hearts and the rest of the SPL clubs Millions. It is the chance to bury rangers for once and all. Ipox sold and demolished, Minty park sold, starting an new rangers in the junior leagues where they belong. It is the most open and shut case against any cheating sports institution in history and yet nobody will take action through fear or some cringing loyalty to a bunch of bigots. WHY? is it true that LNS was David Murray 's next door neighbour? Not saying he is corrupt but surely he should've excused himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 The biggest creditor is HMRC so why on earth would they appeal a decision in their favour That's my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) is it true that LNS was David Murray 's next door neighbour? Not saying he is corrupt but surely he should've excused himself? It was agreed when LNS was at Murray's dinner party the week before that that wouldn't be a problem, allegedly. Edited November 7, 2015 by Jambo-Jimbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxteth O'Grady Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 That's my point. Cheers bud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Tried to send you a PM mate but couldn't. Maybe your in box is full? Just checked, a load of pm's I hadn't seen. Deleted some old ones so it might work now . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rods Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 King et all need a scapegoat and Ashley is stepping up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcjambo Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 The ruling stated that tax liability is with Oldco, not the recipients, that's why Oldco's debt to hmrc has increased again. Maybe but HMRC have wide degree of discretion when it comes to recovering underpayment of tax. I've seen it mentioned recently in the National press that the players may be personally liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Maybe but HMRC have wide degree of discretion when it comes to recovering underpayment of tax. I've seen it mentioned recently in the National press that the players may be personally liable. They can't both be liable for the same tax and the ruling is very clear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) . Edited November 7, 2015 by Smithee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Don Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Maybe but HMRC have wide degree of discretion when it comes to recovering underpayment of tax. I've seen it mentioned recently in the National press that the players may be personally liable. The press will say anything to keep the sevconians happy and on side. If they tell the truth it would be carnage. The ruling is crystal clear the liability is with Oldco/DM HMRC only use discretion when it will benefit them. They will not use discretion to allow people off with tax and cannot chase someone for tax when the liability is with their employer. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmfcfanyul Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 They can't both be liable for the same tax and the ruling is very clearAh, but they can. Oldco are liable as it was their respomsibility to deduct PAYE. But the players are ultimately liable for the tax. If oldco had deducted the tax and kept it for themselves, they would be liable in the same fashion - failure to submit PAYE - but the players would be able to say "I thought they deducted it, not my fault.". As it is, not only did the clumpany not pay the paye, the players essentially connived at them doing so. No one looked at their income and said "wait-a-minute, how come i didnt pay tax?". HMRC will get their pound of flesh one way or another, if they choose to do so. At least, that's my simple minded understanding. The judgement never said the players were not liable. Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Ah, but they can. Oldco are liable as it was their respomsibility to deduct PAYE. But the players are ultimately liable for the tax. If oldco had deducted the tax and kept it for themselves, they would be liable in the same fashion - failure to submit PAYE - but the players would be able to say "I thought they deducted it, not my fault.". As it is, not only did the clumpany not pay the paye, the players essentially connived at them doing so. No one looked at their income and said "wait-a-minute, how come i didnt pay tax?". HMRC will get their pound of flesh one way or another, if they choose to do so. At least, that's my simple minded understanding. The judgement never said the players were not liable. Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk That is exactly what has been ruled to have happened, and Oldco are liable for the tax they should have paid, no-one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcjambo Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Strange, when I was an employer, although the responsibility to deduct tax rests with the employer it was always the individual's liability as the beneficiary. It seems to me their was a collusion between employee and employer to avoid/ evade in this instance and therefore HMRC would be justified looking for the best means of recovery whether that be employer or employee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Although this might be a big case in Scottish football terms, it's not really much in the HMRC grand scheme of things. It seems fairly obvious this is a test case, a precedent setter, and establishing the football club as 100% the liable party will make things much easier when they turn their attention to the much bigger fish down south. There are clubs down south who've used EBTs to pay players and some of those players have gone abroad - for each club does HMRC really want multiple targets to go after, some of whom aren't even in the country, or do they want to go for the one big target with millions in the bank, the individual clubs? Leaving this where it is in in HMRC's best interests longer term imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Slim Stylee Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) Words fail me....SoS demo. How thick are these tw@ts? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CErPTLxuNSU Edited November 8, 2015 by Big Slim Stylee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboJen Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I like the asterisk idea next to all their tainted trophies. That way they are always reminded when looking at official sites. Also on their own web pages they would have to have the asterisks beside the "wins" as well. Rub their ******* blue noses in it. I am however against redistributing the trophies to the various runners up. I just want an asterisk beside the year. What punishment is it to have their name still there when the main benefit they have derived from their cheating was being able to "afford" superior players who won them titles? Redistributing titles would be a terrible idea, but so would allowing Rangers to keep ones they cheated to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) A firm of accountants suggested this use of EBT's to SDM and/or Rangers - they didn't just dream it up themselves. The company at the heart of this (the firm has since been taken over by another financial company) apparently as part of their contract - may find themselves liable for the problems caused by following their advice. There are 28 days for any appeal against this latest ruling to be lodged, and assuming it's not, then BDO (on behalf of the OldCo creditors) and those handling the Murray Group businesses affected by this, may well choose to go after the firm of accountants in a multi million pound lawsuit. While this might have no direct impact on Der Hun, I've been led to believe it would most likely bankrupt the new owners of the financial business and so will be rigorously defended - which in turn may result in much dirty football laundry being washed in a very public courtroom. This is seemingly making a lot of people very very nervous. Edited November 8, 2015 by The Gasman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 A firm of accountants suggested this use of EBT's to SDM and/or Rangers - they didn't just dream it up themselves. The company at the heart of this (the firm has since been taken over by another financial company) apparently as part of their contract - may find themselves liable for the problems caused by following their advice. There are 28 days for any appeal against this latest ruling to be lodged, and assuming it's not, then BDO (on behalf of the OldCo creditors) and those handling the Murray Group businesses affected by this, may well choose to go after the firm of accountants in a multi million pound lawsuit. While this might have no direct impact on Der Hun, I've been led to believe it would most likely bankrupt the new owners of the financial business and so will be rigorously defended - which in turn may result in much dirty football laundry being washed in a very public courtroom. This is seemingly making a lot of people very very nervous. As David Murray ignored much of the pornographer's advice regarding the administration of the EBTs, I doubt very much that anyone would attempt to sue the scheme's initiator. Besides, it would be very remiss of any tax avoidance scheme practitioner not to ensure he has an iron-clad get-out clause in every contract he initiates. On the other hand, DM might not be sitting too comfortably, for if anyone might be sued over the improper use of EBTs, it is perhaps him and his board! Though I'm not suggesting anyone can, in fact, be sued over the uss of RFC's EBTs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Words fail me....SoS demo. How thick are these tw@ts? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CErPTLxuNSU 6:20 shouting scab at their own supporters who have bought something out of the store. The penny still hasn't dropped that Mike Ashley still gets paid if they buy the merchandise or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Don Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 A firm of accountants suggested this use of EBT's to SDM and/or Rangers - they didn't just dream it up themselves. The company at the heart of this (the firm has since been taken over by another financial company) apparently as part of their contract - may find themselves liable for the problems caused by following their advice. There are 28 days for any appeal against this latest ruling to be lodged, and assuming it's not, then BDO (on behalf of the OldCo creditors) and those handling the Murray Group businesses affected by this, may well choose to go after the firm of accountants in a multi million pound lawsuit. While this might have no direct impact on Der Hun, I've been led to believe it would most likely bankrupt the new owners of the financial business and so will be rigorously defended - which in turn may result in much dirty football laundry being washed in a very public courtroom. This is seemingly making a lot of people very very nervous. I can't see where the firm have done anything wrong tbh. They maybe suggested the use of EBT's to Murray that does not make the firm guilty of anything, EBT's are not illegal as has been mentioned many many times. Murray owns or owned lots of different companies, it is possible he might have used EBT's for some other employees as one off payments (Perfectly legal) Just because someone suggests something doesn't make them guilty or part of the illegal activity by the other person especially when what was being suggested is not illegal when used correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 6:20 shouting scab at their own supporters who have bought something out of the store. The penny still hasn't dropped that Mike Ashley still gets paid if they buy the merchandise or not. The're no very bright are they? Long may it continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutchmul Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Words fail me....SoS demo. How thick are these tw@ts? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CErPTLxuNSU The technology does not yet exist to measure how thick they are. 6:20 shouting scab at their own supporters who have bought something out of the store. The penny still hasn't dropped that Mike Ashley still gets paid if they buy the merchandise or not. Spot on, they also don't realise that ashley doesn't care what they think of him or what they do. A firm of accountants suggested this use of EBT's to SDM and/or Rangers - they didn't just dream it up themselves. The company at the heart of this (the firm has since been taken over by another financial company) apparently as part of their contract - may find themselves liable for the problems caused by following their advice. There are 28 days for any appeal against this latest ruling to be lodged, and assuming it's not, then BDO (on behalf of the OldCo creditors) and those handling the Murray Group businesses affected by this, may well choose to go after the firm of accountants in a multi million pound lawsuit. While this might have no direct impact on Der Hun, I've been led to believe it would most likely bankrupt the new owners of the financial business and so will be rigorously defended - which in turn may result in much dirty football laundry being washed in a very public courtroom. This is seemingly making a lot of people very very nervous. Nope, not correct. Firstly, by having the side letters, rangers did not administer the scheme correctly, that was not the company who advised them's fault. secondly, in all schemes of this nature, the client(rangers) is advised throughout that there is a chance that the scheme will be challenged by hmrc, that tax rules may be changed and that they proceed at their own risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 The penny still hasn't dropped that Mike Ashley still gets paid if they buy the merchandise or not. I don't think that condition applies any more, or their orders match their sales mach more closely. There was no provision for repayment in the accounts published last week, unlike the previous year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alva-Jambo Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Their tainted title years - yes, simply blank these years " officially" at SFA level but dont award these titles to others either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Quality second name that boys got likes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 ....Nope, not correct. Firstly, by having the side letters, rangers did not administer the scheme correctly, that was not the company who advised them's fault. secondly, in all schemes of this nature, the client(rangers) is advised throughout that there is a chance that the scheme will be challenged by hmrc, that tax rules may be changed and that they proceed at their own risk. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) Part 2 (of 3) of that tax expert's musings on the subject ... http://waitingfortax.com/2015/11/08/on-ebts-and-rangers-fc-part-2/ PS hunners of tweet replies to his announcement of it : @JolyonMaugham: On EBTs and Rangers FC ? Part 2 https://t.co/sap0EswJkr https://t.co/9izMuY4QVK Edited November 8, 2015 by jambovambo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4,042
Recommended Posts