The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Strachsuit]

So BDO are appealing, based on their need to get a better deal for their creditors. Oh wait, who's the biggest creditor?... HMRC. 

Don't get it. Surely BDO have to be accountable to a certain %age of the creditors in relation to the values they are owed? Not trying to retain small figures for minimal creditors. I'm sure HMRC won't be happy with the decision to appeal, seeing as BDO are supposed to be representing them.

 

Maybe someone who's a little more qualified than I am can explain!

[davieholt]

As I understand it, they need to get CoS permission to appeal. Even if they get that, the Supreme Court may or may not choose to hear it as they only hear cases of "Of the greatest public or constitutional importance." apparently

[john5698]

As I understand it, they need to get CoS permission to appeal. Even if they get that, the Supreme Court may or may not choose to hear it as they only hear cases of "Of the greatest public or constitutional importance." apparently

FF may know but can HMRC not object to BDO making an appeal?

[Diadora Van Basten]

So BDO are appealing, based on their need to get a better deal for their creditors. Oh wait, who's the biggest creditor?... HMRC.

 

Don't get it. Surely BDO have to be accountable to a certain %age of the creditors in relation to the values they are owed? Not trying to retain small figures for minimal creditors. I'm sure HMRC won't be happy with the decision to appeal, seeing as BDO are supposed to be representing them.

 

Maybe someone who's a little more qualified than I am can explain!

I reckon that report is wishful thinking by Rangers, it is not in the interests of BDO or the creditors to appeal the latest decision in the big tax case.

[Boris]

As I understand it, they need to get CoS permission to appeal. Even if they get that, the Supreme Court may or may not choose to hear it as they only hear cases of "Of the greatest public or constitutional importance." apparently

 

Given the two tribunals ruled in favour, it's possible they do have grounds for appeal.

[The Don]

Given the two tribunals ruled in favour, it's possible they do have grounds for appeal.

 

 

Those two tribunals didn't have all the information. I will be surprised if the CoS grants leave to appeal.

[Footballfirst]

Given the two tribunals ruled in favour, it's possible they do have grounds for appeal.

 

I'm certain that they have grounds to appeal. However I don't know what latitude BDO has to act in the interests of all creditors, i.e. whether it is by value or by number of creditors.

 

The Herald has published a number of heavily pro Rangers articles and speculation over the last year, so I don't know if this is just another one.  At the moment it remains speculation so we will all have to wait until the beginning of December so find out for sure.

 

BDO's six monthly creditors report is also due to be published at any time soon, so that may provide confirmation.

 

I'm personally not fussed whether or not it goes to the Supreme Court. If it does, I think the CoS decision will stand.

[Boris]

Those two tribunals didn't have all the information. I will be surprised if the CoS grants leave to appeal.

 

Perhaps.  I didn't realise there was info missing from the first two.  A handy get out for the legal establishment!

[Unknown user]

Given the two tribunals ruled in favour, it's possible they do have grounds for appeal.

Possible, but at this stage they can only appeal on a point of law I believe

[Footballfirst]

Here's another example of the Herald's pro Rangers propaganda.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/14091689.Rangers_Supporters_Trust_gives_emphatic_backing_to_Ibrox_club_s_special_AGM_resolutions/?ref=twtrec

 

The RST holds just 2.12% of the shares, but gets disproportionate coverage to its voting power.  I don't suppose that MASH will get four times the coverage for their 8.92%, because of their intention to vote against the special resolutions. 

Edited November 20, 2015 by Footballfirst

[RobboM]

I think that the appeal should be heard and hopefully the Rangers EBT case finally established as evasion. I'm sure someone had posted on here earlier that the nature of the earlier successful appeals were different in that they concentrated on the legitimacy of the mechanism whereas the final (latest) decision basically drew it all back to a basic common sense approach of "if it looks, sounds and smells like income" then it needs to be taxed and all the rest is just smoke and mirrors.

[Jamboelite]

Strange one if BDO are appealing here for a couple of reasons

 

1. The cost vs winnable case which will come from the creditors pot

2. HMRC are their biggest creditors who won this

3. The likelihood of the appeal first being allowed to goto CofS appeal and the law in which they feel will win them the case

 

How long is it likely to take Cof S to say yes you can appeal and yes we will hear it are these things done pretty quick in terms of either accepting there is something for the public to review or to throw it out.

 

Appreciate the actual case could take ages to be heard.

 

Just cant see where the appeal is coming from for BDO and why its in the interests of the creditors.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Jamboelite

[Footballfirst]

An alternative view from that of the Herald.

 

Bartin Main?@CarltonBartins 25m25 minutes ago

#UPDATE #MiniBlog | BDO- FURTHER APPEAL UPDATE

[Jambo-Jimbo]

An alternative view from that of the Herald.

 

Bartin Main?@CarltonBartins 25m25 minutes ago

#UPDATE #MiniBlog | BDO- FURTHER APPEAL UPDATE

 

So the Herald article is just wishful thinking as BDO are still to make their mind up.

Unless of course the Herald knows something which BDO are unwilling to make public at this point.

 

I would think it will not be cost effective for BDO to pursue an appeal using considerable amounts of money from the creditors pot, which an appeal would undoubtedly cost.

[Don Dan]

Going back to my earlier post 87382 the more I consider the decision to transfer the membership the more it stinks and it really portrays the people who authorised this as corrupt. How can you transfer a membership from one failed company to another who cannot offer evidence of a stable finacial future. The new Rangers have stumbled along now for three years and only been prevented from the same finacial fate as the previous bunch thanks mostly to loans that they can't pay back.

Hampben needs to answer why this was allowed to happen. We all know why.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Dannie Boy

[Jamboelite]

An alternative view from that of the Herald.

 

Bartin Main?@CarltonBartins 25m25 minutes ago

#UPDATE #MiniBlog | BDO- FURTHER APPEAL UPDATE

For all its creditors?? as you say FF its interesting  how that is defined whether its by volume of creditors wishes or by ??? due for each creditor and who then wants what

[DETTY29]

Theory that HMRC happy for Supreme Court to have a final judgement.

 

No more negotiations for anyone using EBTs as salaries if SC say tgat is what they were.

 

Full bill, full penalties, full interest. Pay up or else....

[YULhmfcfan]

Is it not the case that they had 28 days to give notice they intend to appeal? I seem to recall that when discussing having to get approval from creditors, someone said "they won't have enough time to canvass the creditors before the deadline".

 

Could they be giving notice of intent to appeal, to start the process, but be willing (or have to) back out later if the creditors say "get lost, stop wasting our small pile of cash".

 

the theory that HMRC like the idea of using this test case (as many have said they consider it) to nail down the law once and for all also seems like it has merit.

Edited November 20, 2015 by YULhmfcfan

[Footballfirst]

Another similar statement from BDO

 

Allan Price ?@AllanGPrice 53m53 minutes ago

Full statement from a spokesperson for the joint liquidators on any EBT appeal

[swavkav]

In layman terms what is the point of an appeal by DBO? I get they have to get the best possible return for creditors.

 

Will it have any implications on newco if they win?

 

Will it have any implications on newco if they lose?

[Tasavallan]

In layman terms what is the point of an appeal by DBO? I get they have to get the best possible return for creditors.

 

Will it have any implications on newco if they win?

 

Will it have any implications on newco if they lose?

 

It is a strange decision for BDO to consider challenging the decision of the Judges. Yes,  they were appointed to look after the best interests pf Oldco, but surely getting all the EBT 'loans' repaid would be to their benefit.

[davieholt]

It is a strange decision for BDO to consider challenging the decision of the Judges. Yes,  they were appointed to look after the best interests pf Oldco, but surely getting all the EBT 'loans' repaid would be to their benefit.

 

Not really.

 

Any EBT loans repaid would be repaid to the trustees not oldco.

[Footballfirst]

The decision to appeal or not will be down to the BDO insolvency guys and the Liquidation Committee which is selected from the Creditors representatives. 

 

There are five representatives on the committee. I would expect that HMRC and Ticketus would be two of the reps, another may be a representative of the 6,000 debenture holders and another from the Trade creditors.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Footballfirst

[corryjambo]

Theory that HMRC happy for Supreme Court to have a final judgement.

 

No more negotiations for anyone using EBTs as salaries if SC say tgat is what they were.

 

Full bill, full penalties, full interest. Pay up or else....

 

That is indeed a very reasonable theory, however as they are a Scottish company and this is of course being heard under Scots Law I wonder what effect this would have if an English company or Premier League team were to take this to court in England.

 

Would the decision of the Court of Session or indeed the Supreme Court have any bearing in that case or would it start from scratch again?

Edited November 20, 2015 by corryjambo

[I P Knightley]

In layman terms what is the point of an appeal by DBO? I get they have to get the best possible return for creditors.

 

Will it have any implications on newco if they win?

 

Will it have any implications on newco if they lose?

I don't think it has any implication on the newco. BDO are scrabbling to realise value from the remnants of the oldco and that's that. 

 

As far as I can tell, a successful appeal would simply redistribute the proceeds they get from the liquidated assets. Let's say for the sake of argument that they're able to raise ?20m.

 

If they leave it with no appeal, that will be divvied (again, I don't have the numbers to my fingertips but let's say): ?15 million to HMRC; ?5 million to other creditors.

 

If they pursue an appeal, HMRC's slice of the pie shrinks and other creditors get more so the distribution would be something like: HMRC ?10 million; ?9 million among other creditors. (BDO have incurred more chargeable hours and expenses in pursuing the appeal).

[Footballfirst]

That is indeed a very reasonable theory, however as they are a Scottish company and this is of course being heard under Scots Law I wonder what effect this would have if an English company or Premier League team were to take this to court in England.

 

Would the decision of the Court of Session or indeed the Supreme Court have any bearing in that case or would it start from scratch again?

 

Tax law is universal across the UK and precedents from both sides of the border tend to have the same weight when used by either side in a tribunal.

 

If an EPL side chose to fight an HMRC assessment, it would initially go to a FTTT, where I'm sure the HMRC lawyers would be quick to use the Rangers CoS judgement or a Supreme Court judgement (if it goes there) to support their case.

 

There have already been a number of Supreme Court decisions on EBT type arrangements that haven't gone in HMRC's favour and are quoted by companies' legal teams.      

[Jambo66]

There is no way HMRC will want this to go to the Supreme Court. The law is rarely black and white and the appeal might succeed. That would be a disaster for HMRC.

 

As things stand, any similar case is now likely to go the way of HMRC at least to Court of Session level or the Court of Appeal in England. That is where the precedent level sits.

 

HMRC will now rely on this case and demand payment of tax and penalties from any company which has used EBTs in the same way as Rangers. It will be for the company concerned to go to court and know that they are unlikely to win at any stage short of the Supreme Court unless the can persuade a lower court to distinguish their case from the Rangers case.

 

As far as the difference between Scots law and English law is concerned, I believe this case has been decided broadly on the interpretation of tax law. That is UK wide (at the moment). We're it to have been decided on a trust law point, the decision would, at best, be persuasive in England. Even then, I would not be at all surprised if the EBT used by Rangers was subject to English law anyway.

[Footballfirst]

I see that the Herald has made a subtle change to the wording of their online article on BDO making an appeal to the Supreme Court.  I guess that someone at the Herald has finally got in touch with BDO for a comment.
 
Original text
 

THE LIQUIDATORS of Rangers oldco are set to launch a legal challenge against the taxman's victory in the long-running 'Big Tax Case' to the highest appeal court in the land.
 
BDO, are expected to announce its move to a final appeal to the Supreme Court next week and are in touch with former Rangers owner David Murray over the case.
 
The move will make the liquidators the prime movers in the challenge of the decision by three judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh that Rangers' use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) broke tax rules.

 
Updated text
 

THE LIQUIDATORS of Rangers oldco are expected to launch a legal challenge against the taxman's victory in the long-running 'Big Tax Case' to the highest appeal court in the land.
 
While BDO say a final decision has not yet been made, the Herald understands that a move to a final appeal to the Supreme Court is favoured.
 
Contact has been made with former Rangers owner David Murray over the case.

I wonder by whom an appeal is "favoured" ....... The Herald? Rangers fans groups? or the ones who will actually make the decision?

Edited November 20, 2015 by Footballfirst

[i wish jj was my dad]

I see that the Herald has made a subtle change to the wording of their online article on BDO making an appeal to the Supreme Court.  I guess that someone at the Herald has finally got in touch with BDO for a comment.

 

Original text

 

 

Updated text

 

I wonder by whom an appeal is "favoured" ....... The Herald? Rangers fans groups? or the ones who will actually make the decision?

Our MSM really are beneath contempt.

[The Future's Maroon]

I said near the start of the Sevco turning into Newco, (while I was working for Hector and the very department which brought about the original action against them - just throwing that in to assure folk I am not just second guessing), that I believed that they were operating under a Phoenix Company....I stand by these thoughts to this day, and hopefully this will be confirmed in coming weeks or months ;-)

[JamboAl]

I see that the Herald has made a subtle change to the wording of their online article on BDO making an appeal to the Supreme Court.  I guess that someone at the Herald has finally got in touch with BDO for a comment.

 

Original text

 

 

Updated text

 

I wonder by whom an appeal is "favoured" ....... The Herald? Rangers fans groups? or the ones who will actually make the decision?

I cannot see an appeal succeeding.  It has long been established in Tax Law, and long before EBTs were thought about, that any sums paid to an employee to which he has a contractual right, are regarded as pay/salary/remuneration/emoluments of the office and therefore liable to tax.  How the Tribunals found otherwise is baffling to say the least.

[RobNox]

I cannot see an appeal succeeding.  It has long been established in Tax Law, and long before EBTs were thought about, that any sums paid to an employee to which he has a contractual right, are regarded as pay/salary/remuneration/emoluments of the office and therefore liable to tax.  How the Tribunals found otherwise is baffling to say the least.

From my reading of the CoS judgement, it seems that the Tribunals got themselves wrapped up in the mechanism through which the players received payment (i.e. via a loan from the EBT).  Whereas the CoS view was that it didn't matter how the payment ultimately found its way to the player, it was clear to them that the initial payment into the EBT was in return for services rendered therefore was an emolument and subject to tax and NI at that point.

[Maroon tinted glasses 2]

I said near the start of the Sevco turning into Newco, (while I was working for Hector and the very department which brought about the original action against them - just throwing that in to assure folk I am not just second guessing), that I believed that they were operating under a Phoenix Company....I stand by these thoughts to this day, and hopefully this will be confirmed in coming weeks or months ;-)

Funny thing is if HMRC do actually decide that they want to pursue the phoenix route then it would mean the current board would need to finally admit they are not the same club history and all.

[RobNox]

Funny thing is if HMRC do actually decide that they want to pursue the phoenix route then it would mean the current board would need to finally admit they are not the same club history and all.

Please, let this happen!

[The Don]

I said near the start of the Sevco turning into Newco, (while I was working for Hector and the very department which brought about the original action against them - just throwing that in to assure folk I am not just second guessing), that I believed that they were operating under a Phoenix Company....I stand by these thoughts to this day, and hopefully this will be confirmed in coming weeks or months ;-)

 

 

I said the same way back then as well, you will obviously know who I know then If you worked in that department. 

 

I've also said several times since Newco was formed that HMRC were not finished there is a lot more to come, and still is. I don't always know exact details as much of things Im told is told in code or by wry smiles etc when I ask questions due to the OSA But its been entertaining so far so pull up a chair and get the popcorn ready for the next instalment lol 

[Jamdub]

WATP getting it dry from Her Majesty has a certain lovely word the Yanks never understand, IRONY.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

One thing the events of the last weeks, since the announcement of the COS outcome, has shown is the true colours of the sports media in Scotland.

 

Article after article dismissing the possibility of sporting sanctions against their beloved RFC.

 

And having seen Forsyth has just jumped on the today's bandwagon (we understand an appeal will be lodged next week) it makes me just want to throw up.

[Jambo66]

One thing the events of the last weeks, since the announcement of the COS outcome, has shown is the true colours of the sports media in Scotland.

 

Article after article dismissing the possibility of sporting sanctions against their beloved RFC.

 

And having seen Forsyth has just jumped on the today's bandwagon (we understand an appeal will be lodged next week) it makes me just want to throw up.

This is what I don't get though.  What possible reason could Rangers have had for doing what they did if it wasn't to get a sporting advantage?

[Phage]

They should never have been allowed to start a new club called Rangers. Could I start a club in the third division called Hearts? If i could i shouldn't be allowed to.

 

Total phoenix... as soon the the appeal process is finished, either after 28 days or the supreme court appeal process has been concluded, the very next day an eye watering tax bill lands on a desk near the marble staircase.

 

Then we are back to where we started, someone will have to photocopy the five way agreement and shoe them into the league again.

 

Anyway my phoenix tidbit comes from someone i trust;

a) wouldnt lie about it

is in a position to have an informed opinion on the matter

[The Future's Maroon]

I said the same way back then as well, you will obviously know who I know then If you worked in that department. 

 

I've also said several times since Newco was formed that HMRC were not finished there is a lot more to come, and still is. I don't always know exact details as much of things Im told is told in code or by wry smiles etc when I ask questions due to the OSA But its been entertaining so far so pull up a chair and get the popcorn ready for the next instalment lol 

 

 

I guess you will, or maybe its me you know?!

 

The fact is, people have forgot about 'Hector' until recently....I know for a fact he has been watching very closley for a long time.

[Dirty Deeds]

I guess you will, or maybe its me you know?!

 

The fact is, people have forgot about 'Hector' until recently....I know for a fact he has been watching very closley for a long time.

So they're not the same team and they let their club die but they should pay the debt of the team they're not.

 

It's not only Rangers fans that want it both ways.

[Rick Grimes]

So it only impacts on the gruesome twosome. Cant see that ever coming in.

Quite right too, it would be massively unfair. All or nothing.

[The Future's Maroon]

So they're not the same team and they let their club die but they should pay the debt of the team they're not.

 

It's not only Rangers fans that want it both ways.

 

Its a lot more complicated than that....not far off though!

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

So they're not the same team and they let their club die but they should pay the debt of the team they're not.

It's not only Rangers fans that want it both ways.

I got the impression that the poster meant that HMRC might send a bill to TRFC and tell them to either pay up, OR cease calling themselves 'Rangers'; not that they would have to pay up AND cease calling themselves by the name of a club in liquidation.

[Footballfirst]

From a post on Follow Follow.

 

?Michael Ashley fails in legal bid to interfere with Rangers AGM
Mike Ashley made a late bid this week to obtain an interdict to stop three resolutions going before the Rangers AGM.Today in the Court of Session in Edinburgh two of his arguments were thrown out and the third, and least important, was continued to a later date.

 

Essentially resolutions 9, 10 and 11 set out to give the Rangers Board power to issue new shares, to convert loans from wealthy fans into shares and to remove Ashley?s voting rights as he already has a considerable interest in another European club, namely Newcastle United. As this issue also involved the SFA is it likely to run and run.

 

By leaving the legal challenge so late, Ashley?s representatives have continued in a long campaign that suspiciously looks like an attempt to wear down the club and directors by issuing legal complaint after legal complaint ? costing the club hundreds of thousands of pounds and having the threat of personal liability hanging over the directors.

 

This latest humiliation for Ashley is unlikely to be the last attempt to browbeat Rangers but must surely make his advisors and shareholders in Sports Direct question the sanity of allowing such an embarrassing farce to continue as it increasingly looks like ego rather than business sense is the motivating factor.?

[CJGJ]

Mike Ashley seems to have suffered a blow in his continuing saga with the current board

 

 

Some of the arguements made re stopping resolutions at the upcoming AGM were thrown out of court in Edinburgh with just one still left under consideration at a later date.

[Don Dan]

From a post on Follow Follow.

 

?Michael Ashley fails in legal bid to interfere with Rangers AGM

Mike Ashley made a late bid this week to obtain an interdict to stop three resolutions going before the Rangers AGM.Today in the Court of Session in Edinburgh two of his arguments were thrown out and the third, and least important, was continued to a later date.

 

Essentially resolutions 9, 10 and 11 set out to give the Rangers Board power to issue new shares, to convert loans from wealthy fans into shares and to remove Ashley?s voting rights as he already has a considerable interest in another European club, namely Newcastle United. As this issue also involved the SFA is it likely to run and run.

 

By leaving the legal challenge so late, Ashley?s representatives have continued in a long campaign that suspiciously looks like an attempt to wear down the club and directors by issuing legal complaint after legal complaint ? costing the club hundreds of thousands of pounds and having the threat of personal liability hanging over the directors.

 

This latest humiliation for Ashley is unlikely to be the last attempt to browbeat Rangers but must surely make his advisors and shareholders in Sports Direct question the sanity of allowing such an embarrassing farce to continue as it increasingly looks like ego rather than business sense is the motivating factor.?

If this claim has any substance then why was/is it not all over the msm. A court judgement like this would have been trumpeted in bold headlines the minute it had been rubber stamped. Not even a muted peep from the lamb munchers.

[Hartford]

I got the impression that the poster meant that HMRC might send a bill to TRFC and tell them to either pay up, OR cease calling themselves 'Rangers'; not that they would have to pay up AND cease calling themselves by the name of a club in liquidation.

 

They already paid for the right to call themselves Rangers and all the intelectual property, some of that money will go to HMRC via liquidators.

[Hartford]

Mike Ashley seems to have suffered a blow in his continuing saga with the current board

 

 

Some of the arguements made re stopping resolutions at the upcoming AGM were thrown out of court in Edinburgh with just one still left under consideration at a later date.

 

They may pass their resolutions, but when they apply the last one to Ashley specifically and make his shares worthless in terms of voting power, there will be a new lawsuit, and Ashley will probably win that.

[Sidsnot]

A lot of angry Zombies on ZombieZombie today I'd imagine,and this is the guy who brought in millions to their dead club,he's now seen like a leper to them,Hugh Adam.

 

https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.c...re-undeclared/

 

Hugh Adam is the man who made a huge success of Rangers Pools, and who served Rangers loyally for over thirty years. In 2002, he sold his shares in Rangers and at the same time rang warning bells about the direction of Rangers under Sir David Murray.

 

He warned of bankruptcy to come if the course of the good ship Rangers was not changed. He was ignored by almost all at the time, and as Rangers continued winning trophies and bringing star players to Ibrox he was seen as a Cassandra. However, Cassandra?s curse was never to be believed, but always to be right.

 

Mr Adam?s 2002 interview is still floating around on the web.

 

In 2009 he was again written about in the Herald.

 

This time, on the news that Lloyds Bank controlled the purse strings at Ibrox, he repeated his warnings of seven years previously, telling the paper:-

 

?When I made those comments seven years ago I was ridiculed by some. We [David Murray and he] got on fine in the beginning, but, with David, it gets to the stage that if you do not agree with him he casts you aside.

 

?I did not agree with the way ?he operated and I told him that. ?It doesn?t give me any satisfaction to see the situation as it is but I did raise concerns at the time and was ridiculed for raising them.

 

?David was a salesman, a super-salesman. I have enormous respect for him for the adversity he overcame but when I would express my concerns to him ? as I did various times ? he would nod, but I knew he wasn?t listening to me. He was entitled to ignore me but I wasn?t for sitting about like a dummy.

 

?Even if I had the money I wouldn?t buy Rangers just now. Would you?

 

?If anything, I would rather buy Celtic now because they are run more prudently by good, strong people. Television revenue is not going to increase, fans are not buying into it any more and there is no prospect of England on the horizon. For guys like Abramovich at Chelsea, the television money is there, while his own commitment is relatively loose change.

 

?I am 84, so it is a bit late in the day for me to come up with a business plan but what I would do is lobby the Dutch, Portuguese and Scandinavians regularly to champion the cause for an Atlantic League.?

 

Mr Adam was 84 then and it might have been thought that the book had closed on his involvement with Rangers.

 

However today in the Daily Mail, he comes back, and is the first former director of the Club to speak openly and, for Rangers, negatively, about the EBT issue which makes up the ?Big Tax Case?.

 

John McGarry?s piece deserves to be read thoroughly, but a couple of points can be highlighted.

 

Mr Adam states, when discussing alleged ?secretive payments to players which were not in their contracts:-

 

?They weren?t included in the contracts. They definitely weren?t. That was the whole point of them.

 

?If they?d been included in the contracts, they would have had to have paid tax on them.

 

?I don?t think a lot of the other directors knew an awful lot about it. David Murray kept everything to himself.

 

?When I was on the board, I knew all about them. I just didn?t know the details of them. They became accepted. The revenue were seriously challenging them at that point when I was a director.

 

?All the directors heard about them but didn?t take them seriously because they didn?t appear in the books. People didn?t want to know about them. There was a lot of that (EBTs) going on at the time (I was there).

 

?You knew it was cheating but some of them not only hoped but believed it was above board. It was just something that crept up. It was considered important but not crucial. The fans didn?t give a damn one way or another.

 

?When I was asked for my opinion on the way the club had been run, I said it was quite obvious how it had got into trouble. They were doing things they shouldn?t have been doing.

 

?They (EBTs) were always regarded in my time as a bit of a joke. They were getting away with it but nobody really thought they?d get away with it forever. ?

 

?The players were very naive. Few of them were the Brain of Britain, of course. If they get the money, they don?t give a damn where it?s coming from.?

 

Mr Adam?s statements may well be challenged by Sir David Murray and by other directors of Rangers, both past and present. However his comments appear to be an admission of secret payments being made, over an extended period, to payers which did not comply with SFA and SPL rules about payments. This would, potentially, render many of the players ineligible and create a nightmare for the football authorities in Scotland to deal with.

 

The position as regards the players? contracts is as follows. The contracts require to be in a standard form, and submitted to the SPL where they are retained confidentially.

 

The scenarios, as I see them, are as follows.

 

A Rangers payments to players that were not in the contracts were not for football related matters. As far as football is concerned, the issue is closed. The taxman might still be interested mind you!

 

 

 

B Rangers were making payments to players for footballing activities. In that event, there were two possibilities.

 

B1 Rangers told the football authorities this and they disregarded it. This was either:-

 

B1(a) Because the authorities misunderstood what they were being told, and therefore failed to notice the breach of its own rules, or

 

B1( Because they deliberately disregarded the information despite its own rules. If so, it makes Mr Whyte?s alleged mis-deeds pale into insignificance.

 

 

 

B2 Rangers did not tell the authorities about the payments. In which case there are the following possibilities:-

 

B2(a) Rangers deliberately misled them by way of false documents for the purpose of deceiving them to their financial advantage. If so, this is a police matter, over and above footballing issues.

 

B2( Rangers innocently misled them either by making innocent errors in their paperwork or by declaring that the full documentation had been produced under a misapprehension as to the true legal and factual position.

 

 

 

As I said, if the answer is found in para A, then the matter is over.

 

If in para B1, then Rangers cannot be faulted but there would need to be an inquiry into the handling of these matters by the football hierarchy to determine whether this was a mistake or a deliberate act.

 

If para B2(a) applies, then, as suggested, it is a police matter. For the avoidance of doubt I am not suggesting that that scenario took place. It is merely one of as number of options.

 

If we are in the realms of para B2(, then, as with a mistaken SFA/SPL view, questions will be asked, but these matters are complex, and errors can be made.

 

I am sure the official stance will be that all rules were complied with, but one wonders if the Nimmo Smith enquiry might be widened to cover these allegations.

 

What Mr Adam has done, in advance of the imminently expected EBT case judgment is to offer a smoking gun in relation to allegations that, for many years, illicit payments were being made, perhaps under a mis-apprehension as to the law, which had the effect of reducing tax.

 

However, it is not correct to say that these payments did not show in the books. Over a number of years Rangers? accounts recorded how much the Club aid into the EBT?s if not how much players took out.

 

And the revelation in the Sun on Sunday of alleged ?second contracts? suggests that perhaps agents thought that they could not trust Rangers as times became harder and their clients needed written comfort.

 

In any event, Mr Adam?s comments are another huge blow to the credibility of Rangers over the last 15-20 years.

 

It also renders Mr Ogilvie?s position at the head of the SFA untenable as he would have been party to at least some of the meetings at Rangers during his tenure there when this would have been discussed.

 

We await more news and developments with anticipation.