The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Fort Vallance]

And this is just one of the reasons why there needs to be a full independent investigation into this affair starting with the SFA/SPL/SPFL/Rangers, Sir David Murray and the whole lot of cheating bar stewards.

 

For far to many years honest hard working football players and us the cash strapped fans have been cheated in a game which was loaded and fixed in one teams favour and the authorities who should oversee fair play and sporting integrity for all were at worst complicit in or at best turned a blind eye to the cheating, either way the people running our game should be brought to book equally as much as Rangers should be.  

That's a point that hasn't really been highlighted. Players with provincial clubs running their **** off every week to pay their mortgage. Trying to compete against already overpaid prima donna's who fiddled more in tax each week than most of these guys were earning. If I had been a player during that period and finding that out I would be raging. 

[berrasbraw]

I don't see the relevance of your question in response to my post re Doncaster's blog.

 

FFP was nothing to do with Rangers being fined ?250K for non disclosure of payments to players.

 

In answer to your question, the ?250K fine was imposed by an SPL commission so should have been paid by the Oldco to the SPL, However, for reasons I don't fully understand (maybe related to the 5 Way agreement) the SPFL are seeking payment by the Newco.  Newco has appealed it and the tribunal held at the end of last month has yet to deliver a verdict.

No,sorry I was just asking who the money went to,as I never knew.

[jambovambo]

@JolyonMaugham: If your life won't be complete without hearing an English lawyer on Scottish football listen in to #BBCSportsound with @bbckennymac: 6.30pm.

 

(Ha ha just found I'm blocked by Chris Graham on Twitter but he's saying "finally some sense being talked ..."

Edited November 10, 2015 by jambovambo

[jambovambo]

@JolyonMaugham: @HenrikVegetable I'll be putting On EBTs and Rangers FC - Part 3 up tomorrow morning.

[269miles]

I am not an advocate of the honours system in the UK but surely if Lester Piggot was stripped of his OBE for evading personal tax then Murray should have his knighthood removed for orchestrating mass tax evasion.

Good point. But old Lester was a repeat offender.

[269miles]

F.F would know better but,

We know players contracts/salaries are registered with the Sfa, but I doubt club chairmen/directors etc have to be as well tbh. It's in the clubs accounts but wether it's broken down as precise as players for the Sfa's benefit is doubtful..

 

Sdm took a salary & an Ebt like the players did. Like them I'd imagine he's also liable for unpaid tax on it, it's up to Hmrc wether or not to pursue him for it though.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just to be clear - I'm only talking about SDM being lawful/legal in the eyes of HMRC, I appreciate there is no footballing context re SDM & SFA etc.

 

But cheers anyway.

[reaths17]

Good point. But old Lester was a repeat offender.

how many players are in that list, they weren't all purchased at the same time so i would say that was repeat on a grander scale than ole lester.

[Unknown user]

 

I thought HMRC treated the ?48m as the net figures after tax and NIC had been deducted? Wouldn't that make Rangers sporting advantage greater than ?25m?

48 was the amount they actually paid to EBTs, they had that money. The 25 million is the tax etc they should have paid on top of that, so they essentially spent 73 when they only had 48

[jim747]

He knew...

[RobboM]

 

 

48 was the amount they actually paid to EBTs, they had that money. The 25 million is the tax etc they should have paid on top of that, so they essentially spent 73 when they only had 48

 

Thanks Smithee but tax at the 40% rate on the ?73m would be ?29.2 and then you've got NIC due on the amount as well so the sporting advantage of the net ?48m is upwards of ?30m?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

That's a point that hasn't really been highlighted. Players with provincial clubs running their **** off every week to pay their mortgage. Trying to compete against already overpaid prima donna's who fiddled more in tax each week than most of these guys were earning. If I had been a player during that period and finding that out I would be raging. 

 

Such as the 2008 Scottish Cup Final against Queen of the South.

Rangers won 3-2 and had 5 EBT players in that game, Cuellar, Papac, Ferguson, Boyd & Davies and to rub salt into the wounds Boyd scored a double.  

[john5698]

Good point. But old Lester was a repeat offender.

And he paid his liability from an account the then inland Revenue did not know about.

[Footballfirst]

 

48 was the amount they actually paid to EBTs, they had that money. The 25 million is the tax etc they should have paid on top of that, so they essentially spent 73 when they only had 48

 

I think there is still a question whether or not HMRC's assessments use the grossing figure or not. 

 

e.g. Ignoring NIC's for the moment to keep the grossing up calculation simple:

Steven Davis received ?600,000 via his EBT.  If the sum he received was deemed to be the taxable amount, then the tax due by Davis would be calculated as 40% of  ?600K, or ?240,000.  However if HMRC deem the ?600K to be the net figure received by Davis, then the gross figure required to provide a net ?600K would have been ?1M, with Rangers having wrongly retained the ?400,000 in PAYE tax.  Employers NIC would have added a further ?128K.

 

What we do know is that Rangers only had ?48M available to pay into the trust.  Had they paid their employees that amount via PAYE, then Rangers would have been liable to pay Employers NIC and PAYE tax amounting to approx ?25M  .......... so ?25M of "sporting benefit" accrued.

 

Grossing up on the ?48M would have meant that Rangers would have needed a pay pot of approx ?92M to use PAYE and NIC to achieve the same net amounts to their employees.  Using the grossing up process then you could argue that Rangers received ?44M of "sporting benefit".

 

Whatever calculation you use, Rangers received a substantial benefit by being able to pay their players, coaches and directors more than they could otherwise afford.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Footballfirst

[jambovambo]

I think there is still a question whether or not HMRC's assessments use the grossing figure or not.

 

e.g. Ignoring NIC's for the moment to keep the grossing up calculation simple:

Steven Davis received ?600,000 via his EBT. If the sum he received was deemed to be the taxable amount, then the tax due by Davis would be calculated as 40% of ?600K, or ?240,000. However if HMRC deem the ?600K to be the net figure received by Davis, then the gross figure required to provide a net ?600K would have been ?1M, with Rangers having wrongly retained the ?400,000 in PAYE tax. Employers NIC would have added a further ?128K.

 

What we do know is that Rangers only had ?48M available to pay into the trust. Had they paid their employees that amount via PAYE, then Rangers would have been liable to pay Employers NIC and PAYE tax amounting to approx ?25M .......... so ?25M of "sporting benefit" accrued.

 

Grossing up on the ?48M would have meant that Rangers would have needed a pay pot of approx ?92M to use PAYE and NIC to achieve the same net amounts to their employees. Using the grossing up process then you could argue that Rangers received ?44M of "sporting benefit".

 

Whatever calculation you use, Rangers received a substantial benefit by being able to pay their players, coaches and directors more than they could otherwise afford.

Not sure if the last four words are accurate.

 

They might have been able to afford it.

 

The question is whether others could have.

[Footballfirst]

Kirk Broadfoot on Rangers being awarded the the 2008 UEFA Cup (article from 2014)

 

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/468746/EXCLUSIVE-Kirk-Broadfoot-thinks-Rangers-should-be-awarded-UEFA-Cup

 

 

 

FORMER Rangers defender Kirk Broadfoot believes they should be named 2008 UEFA Cup winners if Zenit St Petersburg are found guilty of match-fixing.

 

Broadfoot played a major role in helping Walter Smith?s side to the final before they fell 2-0 to the big-spending Russians ? who were managed by Dick Advocaat.

Express Sport revealed yesterday that UEFA have launched an investigation into Zenit after their former defender, Erik Hagen ? who was at the club from 2005 to 2008 ? claimed his team had bribed a referee before a European tie, while also suggesting there had been further dodgy dealings during his time in St Petersburg.

Broadfoot said: ?When you hear these sort of claims from one of their own players, it begins to cast doubt over their achievements.

 

?If they?ve cheated and are found guilty, they don?t deserve to have their name down in the history books as winners, even if it happened in the previous seasons, because if that was the case then they would have been banned for the 2007-8 UEFA Cup.

?It?s not often a Scottish team gets to a European football and, if we?ve been denied by a team that has cheated, that would be hard to take.

?They are only allegations at this stage. But if they are found guilty and stripped of their UEFA Cup win then surely it should go to us as the runners-up?

 

?You?d prefer to win the competition on the pitch but if they?ve cheated then surely we should get the trophy and the medals? But we?ll have to see what happens.?

[Unknown user]

Thanks Smithee but tax at the 40% rate on the ?73m would be ?29.2 and then you've got NIC due on the amount as well so the sporting advantage of the net ?48m is upwards of ?30m?

Sorry, halfarsed post, wasn't really paying attention

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

Such as the 2008 Scottish Cup Final against Queen of the South.

Rangers won 3-2 and had 5 EBT players in that game, Cuellar, Papac, Ferguson, Boyd & Davies and to rub salt into the wounds Boyd scored a double.

To be fair, all clubs outside Edinburgh are provincial clubs.

 

Doesn't add to anything.

[jambovambo]

Right old Twitter-spat between @STVGrant and @TheTributeAct ongoing ...

[Malinga the Swinga]

Kirk Broadfoot on Rangers being awarded the the 2008 UEFA Cup (article from 2014)

 

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/468746/EXCLUSIVE-Kirk-Broadfoot-thinks-Rangers-should-be-awarded-UEFA-Cup

What Broadfoot means is that is other clubs cheated against Rangers, the cheating clubs should be punished and Rangers rewarded. If Rangers cheated, then a line in the sand should be drawn and we should move on and forget about it. This is of course because it is good for Scottish football, not just because they are a bunch of cheating filth.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

To be fair, all clubs outside Edinburgh are provincial clubs.

 

Doesn't add to anything.

 

Well yes I know that, forget the word provincial then, as the point being made was many, indeed most of the QOS players were playing in their first and only Scottish Cup Final probably for most the biggest game of their career's only to lose it to a team with 5 players in it who were receiving payments through an Illegal payment scheme, so I think that for some or most of those QOS players it would leave a sour taste in their mouths.

So it most certainly adds to the argument I would think.

[Currahee!]

He knew...

 

 

Spot on Jimmy. 

[Alva-Jambo]

Here is the topic yet again on Scottish Sportsound.  To be fair, English just said  " well there are lots of Scottish flootball supporters who could not give a damn about this"

and he is spot on, but sadly that isnt the way the program will be allowed to develop. 

 

The compair guy said  "  well, everyone is polarised about this issue strongly for or against"  ( not many of us, and I am not) So, news to you, you are not to have no view! 

You are either a Ranger or a Cellic.  We  all live in Gesga  .

 

Well said T  English .  He knows he is going to have to get dragged into it. 

Stuff and flippin nonsense, a wast of half an hour of Sportsound. 

[Don Dan]

Right old Twitter-spat between @STVGrant and @TheTributeAct ongoing ...

They don't like their dirt washing being aired on a public area. Especially when it stinks to high heaven.

[jambovambo]

@TheClumpany: Tomorrow on @BBCSportsound: "Campbell Ogilvie: A Tribute To Scottish Football's Greatest Hero"

 

Arf

[meister]

We're my ears playing tricks on me when wee Roger Mitchell was on Sportsound ??

 

Did anyone else hear it ?

 

Getting right on his high (ish) horse and saying everyone should just move on and forget about it because there are worse things happening in Russia and the IAAF ??

 

What planet is/was that we cretin on ?

[jambovambo]

We're my ears playing tricks on me when wee Roger Mitchell was on Sportsound ??

 

Did anyone else hear it ?

 

Getting right on his high (ish) horse and saying everyone should just move on and forget about it because there are worse things happening in Russia and the IAAF ??

 

What planet is/was that we cretin on ?

Talk about "yesterday's man" !

[meister]

Talk about "yesterday's man" !

No half but he seemed on the verge of mania while he was on. "When Juventus were stripped they just ignored this and included the titles on their new stadium design so why bother ??"

 

"Rangers fans will just look at this new ruling and say "well it's still 2-1 to us so we're still ahead after three rounds"......."

 

That was just epic to listen to, a complete car crash of an interview.

 

He actually rubbished the idea of QC involvement and said we should leave the last word to Martin O'Neill and Paul Lambert !!!

Edited November 10, 2015 by meister

[Maroon tinted glasses 2]

Well yes I know that, forget the word provincial then, as the point being made was many, indeed most of the QOS players were playing in their first and only Scottish Cup Final probably for most the biggest game of their career's only to lose it to a team with 5 players in it who were receiving payments through an Illegal payment scheme, so I think that for some or most of those QOS players it would leave a sour taste in their mouths.

So it most certainly adds to the argument I would think.

I think more to the point is that because those players were receiving the dodgy (unregistered) payments and because those payments were not included in the player registration documentation then the players should not have been playing for rangers and relevant sanctions should apply as where any single game that had one of those unregistered players competing needs to be awarded to the opposing team.

[Spellczech]

I think there is still a question whether or not HMRC's assessments use the grossing figure or not.

 

e.g. Ignoring NIC's for the moment to keep the grossing up calculation simple:

Steven Davis received ?600,000 via his EBT. If the sum he received was deemed to be the taxable amount, then the tax due by Davis would be calculated as 40% of ?600K, or ?240,000. However if HMRC deem the ?600K to be the net figure received by Davis, then the gross figure required to provide a net ?600K would have been ?1M, with Rangers having wrongly retained the ?400,000 in PAYE tax. Employers NIC would have added a further ?128K.

 

What we do know is that Rangers only had ?48M available to pay into the trust. Had they paid their employees that amount via PAYE, then Rangers would have been liable to pay Employers NIC and PAYE tax amounting to approx ?25M .......... so ?25M of "sporting benefit" accrued.

 

Grossing up on the ?48M would have meant that Rangers would have needed a pay pot of approx ?92M to use PAYE and NIC to achieve the same net amounts to their employees. Using the grossing up process then you could argue that Rangers received ?44M of "sporting benefit".

 

Whatever calculation you use, Rangers received a substantial benefit by being able to pay their players, coaches and directors more than they could otherwise afford.

As far as I understand it, at least one of the players' agent questioned the EBT, saying it seemed iffy. He was told in no uncertain circumstances that the deal was off if his player refused to be paid this way. Ergo, the party making the saving was Rangers, and the players were paid net figures, with Rangers FC being the tax evaders.

 

The whole premise of taxation at source dictates that the employer is responsible for the calculation and remittance of income tax. That's why income tax is Pay As You Earn.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Spellczech

[jambovambo]

Sfm blog : http://www.sfm.scot/whose-assets-are-they-anyway/comment-page-20/?cid=22038

[Malinga the Swinga]

that interview must go down as one of the most ridiculous ever to have been aired in the history of radio broadcasting in Scotland. Juventus ignored the official stripping of their titles therefore we should just ignore Rangers tax offences. The 2-1 for Rangers statement sounded something like a Rangers supporter would come out with, but only a Rangers supporter who had no intelligence, which would account for most of them.

 

In reply to post 86442, It was Thomas Buffel and his agent who thought the EBT process was dodgy.

[Spellczech]

that interview must go down as one of the most ridiculous ever to have been aired in the history of radio broadcasting in Scotland. Juventus ignored the official stripping of their titles therefore we should just ignore Rangers tax offences. The 2-1 for Rangers statement sounded something like a Rangers supporter would come out with, but only a Rangers supporter who had no intelligence, which would account for most of them.

In reply to post 86442, It was Thomas Buffel and his agent who thought the EBT process was dodgy.

thanks. Had a quick Google but couldn't find the old article.

[skabala]

I would be quite happy if oldco kept their titles, newco who still claim to be oldco (but only when it suits them!) to be docked 5 points for every year they cheated, 8 year providing a 40 point deduction. Players become totally demoralised, relegation into the first. Hubs then take poll position, but don't worry lads, Stubbs will do what Stubbs does best. Bottle it and end up in playoff carnage again..... Whoop whoop

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited November 10, 2015 by skabala

[CJGJ]

Explanation of why current Rangers are due the money............or not depending upon arbitration.

 

Rangers are awaiting the outcome of a tribunal which will rule on whether the Ibrox club has to pay an outstanding amount of ?400,000.

The ?250,000 fine, plus costs of ?150,000, relates to a charge brought against Rangers oldco by the SPL in relation to the use of undisclosed payments to players in the form of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) over a period of 11 years.

A commission set up by the SPL, headed by Lord Nimmo Smith, ruled that the league?s rules had been breached and the fine was levied against the oldco, which is now in liquidation.

The Scottish Professional Football League, created as a result of the merger between the SPL and the Scottish Football League, pursued Rangers newco for payment.

Rangers admit under the terms of the ?Five Way Agreement?, which allowed them to participate in Scottish football through entry to the bottom tier, the newco would be responsible for any sanctions imposed on the oldco by Scottish football?s governing bodies.

But they claim the subsequent actions of the SPFL mean they ?waived all and any right it may have had to insist upon payment under the clause.? The SPFL dispute that accusation.

As a result, the Scottish Football Association was asked to convene an Arbitral Tribunal to rule on the matter.

The tribunal sat on October 29 and 30 to consider the matter but no decision was reached immediately. Members of the panel will now consider the matter and return a verdict at a later date, though no timescale has been set for a decision to be reached.

The SPFL rules allow for any outstanding fines or payments due to the league to be deducted from payments that are routinely made to member clubs. The SPFL Board had already intimated to Rangers that they intended to withhold payment of the outstanding fine, prompting Rangers to take the step of asking for arbitration.

 

All of the above comes from below ....published a couple of years ago

 

 

The Commission found that The Rangers Football Club plc issued letters to players relating to the EBT scheme and these should have been disclosed under the rules of the SPL and the SFA, even though the existence of the scheme was a matter of public record having been disclosed annually in the company?s accounts and professional advice had been obtained by the Murray Group.

The payments to players were themselves found not to be irregular or in breach of SPL and SFA rules, but breach of disclosure rules required a penalty to be imposed on The Rangers Football Club plc, now in liquidation (Oldco).

In their findings, the Commission, headed by Lord Nimmo Smith, stated: ?Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed on Rangers FC.?

The Commission imposed a ?250,000 fine on Oldco .

Edited November 10, 2015 by CJGJ

[Spellczech]

Explanation of why current Rangers are due the money............or not depending upon arbitration.

 

Rangers are awaiting the outcome of a tribunal which will rule on whether the Ibrox club has to pay an outstanding amount of ?400,000.

The ?250,000 fine, plus costs of ?150,000, relates to a charge brought against Rangers oldco by the SPL in relation to the use of undisclosed payments to players in the form of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) over a period of 11 years.

A commission set up by the SPL, headed by Lord Nimmo Smith, ruled that the league?s rules had been breached and the fine was levied against the oldco, which is now in liquidation.

The Scottish Professional Football League, created as a result of the merger between the SPL and the Scottish Football League, pursued Rangers newco for payment.

Rangers admit under the terms of the ?Five Way Agreement?, which allowed them to participate in Scottish football through entry to the bottom tier, the newco would be responsible for any sanctions imposed on the oldco by Scottish football?s governing bodies.

But they claim the subsequent actions of the SPFL mean they ?waived all and any right it may have had to insist upon payment under the clause.? The SPFL dispute that accusation.

As a result, the Scottish Football Association was asked to convene an Arbitral Tribunal to rule on the matter.

The tribunal sat on October 29 and 30 to consider the matter but no decision was reached immediately. Members of the panel will now consider the matter and return a verdict at a later date, though no timescale has been set for a decision to be reached.

The SPFL rules allow for any outstanding fines or payments due to the league to be deducted from payments that are routinely made to member clubs. The SPFL Board had already intimated to Rangers that they intended to withhold payment of the outstanding fine, prompting Rangers to take the step of asking for arbitration.

 

All of the above comes from below ....published a couple of years ago

 

 

The Commission found that The Rangers Football Club plc issued letters to players relating to the EBT scheme and these should have been disclosed under the rules of the SPL and the SFA, even though the existence of the scheme was a matter of public record having been disclosed annually in the company?s accounts and professional advice had been obtained by the Murray Group.

The payments to players were themselves found not to be irregular or in breach of SPL and SFA rules, but breach of disclosure rules required a penalty to be imposed on The Rangers Football Club plc, now in liquidation (Oldco).

In their findings, the Commission, headed by Lord Nimmo Smith, stated: ?Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed on Rangers FC.?

The Commission imposed a ?250,000 fine on Oldco .

Don't mean to be rude but is this not "Old news"? And was Lord Nimmo Smith not also Sir David Murray's neighbour? He should've excused himself at the least if so...

[Hartford]

I wouldn't strip any titles for financial wrongdoings. Messing with referees like Italian clubs, or doping players, or buying games, that's a different matter.

[CJGJ]

Don't mean to be rude but is this not "Old news"? And was Lord Nimmo Smith not also Sir David Murray's neighbour? He should've excused himself at the least if so...

Hardly old news as the arbitration process is underway after meetings at the end of October 2015.

 

It was one of the points being discussed on the latter part of this thread so it was posted to inform those who may be interested....it also shows what was said by Lord Smith at the time.......... that in his opinion no sporting advantage was gained from the EBT's so 'no sporting sanction or penalty should follow.'....just to be clear his words not mine.

 

I had thought that might be of interest even more so than the fact Lord Smith was a neighbour of David Murray.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

I wouldn't strip any titles for financial wrongdoings. Messing with referees like Italian clubs, or doping players, or buying games, that's a different matter.

Two of the three reasons you give for not punishing Newco are financial wrongdoings.

[Jammy T]

tax evasion is illegal

 

screwing yourself over with too much debt isnt

[Big Slim Stylee]

tax evasion is illegal

 

screwing yourself over with too much debt isnt

 

For the UK, yes.  But why's it any different when there's deliberate fraud on a massive scale outside the UK jurisdiction?  We can't claim we didn't know. Of course we did.  I still would rather the whole thing went away and we got on with life.  I don't like this "title stripping" at all.  I'm happy for them to dig their own graves again and again which they seem to be doing effortlessly well.  If they can scrape through, it will seriously take them years to persuade and acquire the quality of players they'll need to dominate Scottish football.  Without overspending massively again:)

[Doc Rob]

There's a large unanswered question here, namely 'If Rangers gained no competitive advantage from their use of illegal EBTs, then why the festering hell were they using them?'

[Spellczech]

Hardly old news as the arbitration process is underway after meetings at the end of October 2015.

 

It was one of the points being discussed on the latter part of this thread so it was posted to inform those who may be interested....it also shows what was said by Lord Smith at the time.......... that in his opinion no sporting advantage was gained from the EBT's so 'no sporting sanction or penalty should follow.'....just to be clear his words not mine.

 

I had thought that might be of interest even more so than the fact Lord Smith was a neighbour of David Murray.

You do know that Nimmo Smith was a 70 year old who retired from being a judge in 2009 though? Knowing senior judges he probably snoozed through most of the SFA enquiry...

[Hartford]

Two of the three reasons you give for not punishing Newco are financial wrongdoings.

 

In my opinion, there's a difference though. Do you really not see any difference between fixing games in a sporting competition and cheating the taxman?

Edited November 10, 2015 by Hartford

[Hartford]

There's a large unanswered question here, namely 'If Rangers gained no competitive advantage from their use of illegal EBTs, then why the festering hell were they using them?'

 

Maybe he means that football is full of dirty money anyway, so, no competitive advantage. 

[Sheriff Fatman]

In my opinion, there's a difference though. Do you really not see any difference between fixing games in a sporting competition and cheating the taxman?

 

No. not if the reason you are cheating the tax man is so you can afford better players than you otherwise would be able to and thus gain an unfair sporting advantage,

[Spellczech]

In my opinion, there's a difference though. Do you really not see any difference between fixing games in a sporting competition and cheating the taxman?

I prefer the arguments whereby "other clubs could've also used EBTs" and thus be just as defunct as Rangers are now, or that the EBTs were not secrets as they were disclosed in the accounts, or in other words that is exactly how the tax authorities found out about Murray's shenanigans...

[Hartford]

No. not if the reason you are cheating the tax man is so you can afford better players than you otherwise would be able to and thus gain an unfair sporting advantage,

 

In my opinion, they deserved a big tax case and a liquidation / bankruptcy. Stripping titles just seems insincere to me. We have Abramovichs gaining billions from bribes and pooring into football, Mansours torturing business partners and common citizens to solidify financial power, heck, Romanovs robbing poor Lithuanian persioners of their bank savings and then spending on football. Rangers situation is different formally, since their owner went and involved them directly into his financial crimes, while others used third companies, but practical result is the same, football teams constantly get doped by dirty money.

 

So I'd rather just leave it to the government deal with it and punish people and companies for crimes. I wouldn't want football leagues to strip any titles. Sure, there's a formal uniqueness to the Rangers situation, but ultimately lots of teams use dirty money to get players that they couldn't afford without dirty money.

[Jammy T]

As I tried to point out in 2 lines above, it is simple.

 

Whilst a member of the SFA Rangers undertook illegal practices and didn't fully disclose them to the governing body.

 

They committed significant breaches not only of SFA rules but also UK law.

 

 

How on earth can, and why on earth should, this just be ignored?

Edited November 11, 2015 by Jammy T

[Sidsnot]

Back page of The S**,Mike Ashley to sue the SFA for claiming TGASL was a fit and proper person.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Sidsnot

[Hartford]

I prefer the arguments whereby "other clubs could've also used EBTs" and thus be just as defunct as Rangers are now, or that the EBTs were not secrets as they were disclosed in the accounts, or in other words that is exactly how the tax authorities found out about Murray's shenanigans...

 

I just don't know nearly enough about UK taxes to have an opinion about that side. It did seem like it wasn't a clearcut case, just considering that different judges came to different conclusions. But like I said, not enough know how for me to judge.