The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[CollyWolly]

If the Supreme Court upholds the High Courts decision that Rangers' use of the EBT system was Illegal then surely that would mean that Rangers had not only a Financial Advantage but an Illegal Financial Advantage over everybody else.

This is all water under the bridge folks. No one, not one single person in authority, not one organisation in authority has any desire to re-visit the Rangers EBT case. Its been done to death and its exhausted. Nothing said today is new or changes a damn thing. Even if the Supreme Court upholds the HMRC case they wont touch the old or new Rangers in any way shape or form, it simply gives the green light to pursue much bigger fish.

Edited April 26, 2017 by CollyWolly

[269miles]

This is all water under the bridge folks. No one, not one single person in authority, not one organisation in authority has any desire to re-visit the Rangers EBT case. Its been done to death and its exhausted. Nothing said today is new or changes a damn thing. Even if the Supreme Court upholds the HMRC case they wont touch the old or new Rangers in any way shape or form, it simply gives the green light to pursue much bigger fish.

The  SFA  LNS fiasco is hopefully going to some under scrutiny because LNS ruled on the basis the EBTs weren't illegal.  That was why he said there was no sporting advantage - any club could have used them as they weren't illegal. 

[Jambo 4 Ever]

Is this Findlay as in Donald Findlay who used to work for Rangers too?

[Lovecraft]

Is this Findlay as in Donald Findlay who used to work for Rangers too?

 

 

It sure is.

[Stuart G]

Is this Findlay as in Donald Findlay who used to work for Rangers too?

It is, our supporters club have him as a guest speaker on 28th May at our fund raiser, bang in the middle of the trial

[Lovecraft]

It is, our supporters club have him as a guest speaker on 28th May at our fund raiser, bang in the middle of the trial

 

Is it a march?

[1953]

Is this Findlay as in Donald Findlay who used to work for Rangers too?

Yes it is and I wondered about a conflict of interests but I guess all involved will be beyond reproach!

[Justin Z]

Murray clarifies he had no relationship with Whyte.

 

Findlay then produces ten pages of text messages between them.

 

Let's see a contempt charge.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

Murray clarifies he had no relationship with Whyte.

 

Findlay then produces ten pages of text messages between them.

 

Let's see a contempt charge.

Murray says "I said today I only met him 4 times, I didn't mention texts" Findlay "That's why I'm asking you"

 

 

I thought Murray and Findlay got on well?

[Pans Jambo]

Murray clarifies he had no relationship with Whyte.

 

Findlay then produces ten pages of text messages between them.

 

Let's see a contempt charge.

 The lying snake

[Unknown user]

I wonder if this means we would be awarded the League Cup from 1996 then.........

Finlay was an office bearer till 99 when he got filmed singing the Sash and had to quit btw

[Stuart G]

Is it a march?

Why would a Hearts Supporters Club have a march? He is renowned on the circuit, we have a smoker every season and you have to mix it up with the speakers, we also have Paul Reid the impressionist and Brian McGinlay the former referee, no bigotry, just a blend of speakers to sell tickets

[I.T.K]

 

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman  43s43 seconds ago

More

Murray says if he knew the source of Whyte's funds was Ticketus "categorically we would not have done the deal" #WhyteTrial

 

 

 

Not sure why Murray would concern himself about Whyte would fund the club when hes gone. Just take the pound and run.

[Lovecraft]

Finlay was an office bearer till 99 when he got filmed singing the Sash and had to quit btw

 

 

And singing the naughty version of Hello Hello.

 

And telling jokes about Catholics and nuns.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

This is all water under the bridge folks. No one, not one single person in authority, not one organisation in authority has any desire to re-visit the Rangers EBT case. Its been done to death and its exhausted. Nothing said today is new or changes a damn thing. Even if the Supreme Court upholds the HMRC case they wont touch the old or new Rangers in any way shape or form, it simply gives the green light to pursue much bigger fish.

 

When the decisions were made by the authorities that no sporting advantage was gained was when the use of EBT's was deemed legal, they have now been deemed as illegal and if the Supreme Court upholds that decision then that changes everything, also what is different about today is that for the first time we have had the then Rangers Chairman say that they gained an advantage by affording players they couldn't have otherwise afforded by their use of (or misuse of) the EBT system.  That is a game changer IMO.

 

But I will agree with you that no one in authority wants to re-visit the question of title stripping, they want to avoid that thorny issue, however they may not have a choice in that matter now.

[CollyWolly]

When the decisions were made by the authorities that no sporting advantage was gained was when the use of EBT's was deemed legal, they have now been deemed as illegal and if the Supreme Court upholds that decision then that changes everything, also what is different about today is that for the first time we have had the then Rangers Chairman say that they gained an advantage by affording players they couldn't have otherwise afforded by their use of (or misuse of) the EBT system.  That is a game changer IMO.

 

But I will agree with you that no one in authority wants to re-visit the question of title stripping, they want to avoid that thorny issue, however they may not have a choice in that matter now.

Of course they gained an advantage. Murray has always admitted they did. Gaining an advantage ? That's why they did it FFS. The crux of the matter, and what LNS found/reported was that EBT's were legal. (That is still the position unless HMRC win the supreme court appeal) and therefore could have been used by any club. That being the case their was no unfair advantage gained because it was open to everyone to do it. That view changes of course if HMRC win the appeal. What would you expect or want to happen if they do, and more importantly from a Hearts fan (or any other fan perspective), why the **** does it matter now ?

Edited April 26, 2017 by CollyWolly

[Pans Jambo]

When the decisions were made by the authorities that no sporting advantage was gained was when the use of EBT's was deemed legal, they have now been deemed as illegal and if the Supreme Court upholds that decision then that changes everything, also what is different about today is that for the first time we have had the then Rangers Chairman say that they gained an advantage by affording players they couldn't have otherwise afforded by their use of (or misuse of) the EBT system.  That is a game changer IMO.

 

But I will agree with you that no one in authority wants to re-visit the question of title stripping, they want to avoid that thorny issue, however they may not have a choice in that matter now.

A quick check on the BBC Glasgow news website and there's no mention of him quoting that the EBT scheme allowed Rangers to have players they otherwise would not have been able to afford...no surprise there though eh?

[DETTY29]

@jamesdoleman

Murray shown an email from him to David Horn from 4 May 2011 (2 days before the takeover)

 

"we need to get this over the line...or the chance of stability is gone" there is no realistic alternative..nothing is perfect

"Any hope of future funding is lost....our season ticket and future playing squad details will not make good reading"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So there it is in pretty much black and white.  Without saying as much, the demands Lloyds were putting on Rangers/MG couldn't allow a Murray/MG led business to continue and meet the expectations of their fans.

 

And at that time additional costs would be the WTC and the stadium repairs

Edited April 26, 2017 by DETTY29

[Dallas Green]

Of course they gained an advantage. Murray has always admitted they did. Gaining an advantage ? That's why they did it FFS. The crux of the matter, and what LNS found/reported was that EBT's were legal. (That is still the position unless HMRC win the supreme court appeal) and therefore could have been used by any club. That being the case their was no unfair advantage gained because it was open to everyone to do it. That view changes of course if HMRC win the appeal. What would you expect or want to happen if they do, and more importantly from a Hearts fan (or any other fan perspective), why the **** does it matter now ?

I'm sure the courts found the EBT'S illegal after HMRC appealed and it's BDO who have appealed in the courts against this decision?

[Hagar the Horrible]

Sir David insisted that there was no talk of the side entering administration while he was chairman and that the club's financial problems had been "grossly exaggerated".

 

Then why did Lloyds put their own man on the board to get the debt down to ?18m prior to selling?????  The wee tax case and the stadium repairs were going to cause an event never mind the big tax case, Admin must have been on the cards

[Don Dan]

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman

Last Stacey unhappy the court "Macer" is having to operate the overhead projector

(The Macer is the person who carries in the Mace)

4m

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman

Lady Stacey says agreement at pre-trial was documents be available on computer.

Findlay says "I don't do electronics"

 

 

nobody cares, justice is a shambles at times.

[DETTY29]

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman

Last Stacey unhappy the court "Macer" is having to operate the overhead projector

(The Macer is the person who carries in the Mace)

4m

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman

Lady Stacey says agreement at pre-trial was documents be available on computer.

Findlay says "I don't do electronics"

 

 

nobody cares, justice is a shambles at times.

How long does it take to scan, download and reference 8000 artefacts though?

 

And that's just from Whyte alone.

 

Edit -  a lot quicker than photocopying mind.

Edited April 26, 2017 by DETTY29

[Don Dan]

How long does it take to scan, download and reference 8000 artefacts though?

 

And that's just from Whyte alone.

 

Edit - a lot quicker than photocopying mind.

No idea, but why agree to it in the first place at pre trial. Findlay must have been there along with the others.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DETTY29]

Cute answering?

 

'Not when I was chairman but others may have discussed it'

 

So follow up questions should be about being aware, provided with board minutes, read them, did Lloyds mention it as part of wider MG/Murray Sports/Rangers reviews.

 

 Excluding the BTC, they potentially could have ridden it out but at what cost?

 

Making agents aware top 6 -10 players were up for sale?  At any price?

Sir David insisted that there was no talk of the side entering administration while he was chairman and that the club's financial problems had been "grossly exaggerated".

 

Then why did Lloyds put their own man on the board to get the debt down to ?18m prior to selling?????  The wee tax case and the stadium repairs were going to cause an event never mind the big tax case, Admin must have been on the cards

[DETTY29]

No idea, but why agree to it in the first place at pre trial. Findlay must have been there along with the others.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Does seem a bit unprofessional.

[Zico]

.

[Armageddon]

Donald Finlay roasting Murray!

[graygo]

I'm sure the courts found the EBT'S illegal after HMRC appealed and it's BDO who have appealed in the courts against this decision?

 

That's my understanding too which makes his defence of his west coast darlings a steaming pile of shit.

[JJ1984]

Will Donald be receiving a Rangers Christmas Card this year? Perhaps not.

 

One of the tainted now.

 

Depends if Craig Whyte gets back into control  

[kingdannyb]

Just seen Murray admitting Dead Rangers cheated.

 

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman  6h6 hours ago

More

Murray on EBTs: "Gave us the opportunity to get players we otherwise couldn't afford"

[Jambo-Jimbo]

The crux of the matter, and what LNS found/reported was that EBT's were legal. (That is still the position unless HMRC win the supreme court appeal)

 

HMRC won the court of appeal case and it's BDO who are trying to get it overturned in the Supreme Court and that's what makes a massive difference, because Rangers' use of EBT's have already been declared illegal by the courts, which makes what David Murray said today all the more significant. 

The LNS decision is at this moment in time not worth the paper it's written on, mind it never was because LNS didn't have all of the information.

[Footballfirst]

SDM revealed in court that he believed that, as a result of recent law changes, if the Supreme Court decision goes in HMRC's favour (expected in July), then HMRC will be pursuing the individual EBT recipients for the tax and not the Oldco, which would only be liable for NICs.  He said that the tax due would be assessed in the tax year 2018/19 and therefore be payable by the individuals in January 2020.

 

That came as as surprise to me and many in the court.

 

I have never seen anything in that regard from any legal source, although I do know that, regardless of the Supreme Court decision, HMRC intends pursuing anyone involved in similar schemes who doesn?t repay their loan back to the trust before April 2019, as they will at that point treat the loan as income.

 

I don?t know if pursuit of such EBT holders would negate the claim against the club as double taxation, but I think SDM has confused the issue by his interpretation of the change in rules about unpaid loans.  Basically we are talking about the same thing. 

 

It could be that SDM has been contacted by HMRC, personally as an EBT recipient, and indicated what will happen if he doesn?t repay the loan.  If SDM?s ?6m was grossed up because it was deemed a net figure, then he would be the recipient of a ?4m PAYE bill himself.  If HMRC deem the ?6m as the gross figure, then he would be liable for 40% of that, or ?2.4m.

[upgotheheads]

3 or 4 years before it all went pearshaped Murray floated a 50 million pound share issue on the market. This was underwritten by a subsidiary of his own empire so that when the share price collapsed he was able to book it as a loss and tax write-off.

 

So the tax payer took a hit for around 40 percent of his losses.

[Mikey1874]

A quick check on the BBC Glasgow news website and there's no mention of him quoting that the EBT scheme allowed Rangers to have players they otherwise would not have been able to afford...no surprise there though eh?

Murray prepared a story and he's answering to that. Note he said players were to due to pay the money back. Never aside from HMRC going to court.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Mikey1874

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Id imagine his friends in high legal circles must have given him the heads up on this.

 

Entirely possible, just a pity his friends in the business & financial circles didn't warn him about Craig Whyte.

[Paolo]

SDM revealed in court that he believed that, as a result of recent law changes, if the Supreme Court decision goes in HMRC's favour (expected in July), then HMRC will be pursuing the individual EBT recipients for the tax and not the Oldco, which would only be liable for NICs. He said that the tax due would be assessed in the tax year 2018/19 and therefore be payable by the individuals in January 2020.

 

That came as as surprise to me and many in the court.

 

I have never seen anything in that regard from any legal source, although I do know that, regardless of the Supreme Court decision, HMRC intends pursuing anyone involved in similar schemes who doesn?t repay their loan back to the trust before April 2019, as they will at that point treat the loan as income.

 

I don?t know if pursuit of such EBT holders would negate the claim against the club as double taxation, but I think SDM has confused the issue by his interpretation of the change in rules about unpaid loans. Basically we are talking about the same thing.

 

It could be that SDM has been contacted by HMRC, personally as an EBT recipient, and indicated what will happen if he doesn?t repay the loan. If SDM?s ?6m was grossed up because it was deemed a net figure, then he would be the recipient of a ?4m PAYE bill himself. If HMRC deem the ?6m as the gross figure, then he would be liable for 40% of that, or ?2.4m.

If the case, can the employees then perhaps sue their former employer?

[buzzbomb1958]

If the case, can the employees then perhaps sue their former employer?

I'd imagine because they benefitted personally they will be liable when the piper wants paid,serves the greedy *******s right

[Mikey1874]

Sdm knew all about Whyte & by the looks of things & actually conned him by hiding things from him prior to the sale in order to be rid of rangers going by court evidence. [emoji1]

Nice cosy texts

[Victorian]

Murray seeing the inside of a court room at last. Sadly not in the correct role.

[Blackford Hearts]

SDM revealed in court that he believed that, as a result of recent law changes, if the Supreme Court decision goes in HMRC's favour (expected in July), then HMRC will be pursuing the individual EBT recipients for the tax and not the Oldco, which would only be liable for NICs.  He said that the tax due would be assessed in the tax year 2018/19 and therefore be payable by the individuals in January 2020.

 

That came as as surprise to me and many in the court.

 

I have never seen anything in that regard from any legal source, although I do know that, regardless of the Supreme Court decision, HMRC intends pursuing anyone involved in similar schemes who doesn?t repay their loan back to the trust before April 2019, as they will at that point treat the loan as income.

 

I don?t know if pursuit of such EBT holders would negate the claim against the club as double taxation, but I think SDM has confused the issue by his interpretation of the change in rules about unpaid loans.  Basically we are talking about the same thing. 

 

It could be that SDM has been contacted by HMRC, personally as an EBT recipient, and indicated what will happen if he doesn?t repay the loan.  If SDM?s ?6m was grossed up because it was deemed a net figure, then he would be the recipient of a ?4m PAYE bill himself.  If HMRC deem the ?6m as the gross figure, then he would be liable for 40% of that, or ?2.4m.

As I understood it, it was always going to be the individuals (players and employees) who were pursued. The company may be liable as well but individuals will be the ones going bankrupt unless they've set aside a few ???'s from their kids inheritance

[Riccarton3]

Who is paying for this 'trial' (?) as I assume Whyte has claimed bankruptcy.

[1971fozzy]

SDM revealed in court that he believed that, as a result of recent law changes, if the Supreme Court decision goes in HMRC's favour (expected in July), then HMRC will be pursuing the individual EBT recipients for the tax and not the Oldco, which would only be liable for NICs. He said that the tax due would be assessed in the tax year 2018/19 and therefore be payable by the individuals in January 2020.

 

That came as as surprise to me and many in the court.

 

I have never seen anything in that regard from any legal source, although I do know that, regardless of the Supreme Court decision, HMRC intends pursuing anyone involved in similar schemes who doesn?t repay their loan back to the trust before April 2019, as they will at that point treat the loan as income.

 

I don?t know if pursuit of such EBT holders would negate the claim against the club as double taxation, but I think SDM has confused the issue by his interpretation of the change in rules about unpaid loans. Basically we are talking about the same thing.

 

It could be that SDM has been contacted by HMRC, personally as an EBT recipient, and indicated what will happen if he doesn?t repay the loan. If SDM?s ?6m was grossed up because it was deemed a net figure, then he would be the recipient of a ?4m PAYE bill himself. If HMRC deem the ?6m as the gross figure, then he would be liable for 40% of that, or ?2.4m.

Beautiful. I'd imagine that long list of those individuals will be having sleepless nights from now. A lot of moving money around will be happening and it will end up costing an absolute fortune. Great news

[Footballfirst]

As I understood it, it was always going to be the individuals (players and employees) who were pursued. The company may be liable as well but individuals will be the ones going bankrupt unless they've set aside a few ???'s from their kids inheritance

 

HMRC want their cake and eat it too, so they are attacking the issue from both sides.

 

The employer is always liable for PAYE because it is their responsibility for deducting the Tax at source and submitting it to HMRC.  It is also the reason that HMRC is claiming ?72m in respect of the big tax case as a creditor of the oldco.

 

It is a new initiative that they also want the ability to pursue the recipients individually

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Murray seeing the inside of a court room at last. Sadly not in the correct role.

 

Patience my friend, patience.

 

I still get the feeling that Craigy boy has an ace or two up his sleeve, his type usually do.

[Blackford Hearts]

HMRC want their cake and eat it too, so they are attacking the issue from both sides.

 

The employer is always liable for PAYE because it is their responsibility for deducting the Tax at source and submitting it to HMRC.  It is also the reason that HMRC is claiming ?72m in respect of the big tax case as a creditor of the oldco.

 

It is a new initiative that they also want the ability to pursue the recipients individually

Didn't know that so thanks for update. Hopefully HMRC are successful. The players and Rangers knew what they were doing, David Murray confirmed that today. Just a shame that Rangers are no longer around to take the hit, and SEVCO will claim its nothing to do with them, whilst keeping the history of course!

[Mikey1874]

Patience my friend, patience.

 

I still get the feeling that Craigy boy has an ace or two up his sleeve, his type usually do.

Donald Findlay isn't finished yet either.

 

A wee bit history there perhaps as well.

[Alfred]

Didn't know that so thanks for update. Hopefully HMRC are successful. The players and Rangers knew what they were doing, David Murray confirmed that today. Just a shame that Rangers are no longer around to take the hit, and SEVCO will claim its nothing to do with them, whilst keeping the history of course!

Ah.... But. But... They're the same club!

 

So who did the players play for?

 

If they ARE the SAME club then things could be a wee bit "interesting"!

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Blackford Hearts]

Ah.... But. But... They're the same club!

 

So who did the players play for?

 

If they ARE the SAME club then things could be a wee bit "interesting"!

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Think that's for a future court case, but we all (except GFA) know what really happened

[Spellczech]

HMRC want their cake and eat it too, so they are attacking the issue from both sides.

 

The employer is always liable for PAYE because it is their responsibility for deducting the Tax at source and submitting it to HMRC.  It is also the reason that HMRC is claiming ?72m in respect of the big tax case as a creditor of the oldco.

 

It is a new initiative that they also want the ability to pursue the recipients individually

Is the money not held in trusts at the moment, so effectively like they put all their salary in their pension, but rather than waiting until age 65 the trusts will pay out sooner? Thus the nice big pots of cash that will be smaller when they get taxed...

[Footballfirst]

Is the money not held in trusts at the moment, so effectively like they put all their salary in their pension, but rather than waiting until age 65 the trusts will pay out sooner? Thus the nice big pots of cash that will be smaller when they get taxed...

Unless anyone has repaid their loans recently, then the sub trusts will all have a zero balance, as in virtually all cases the EBT recipients took all the cash out their individual sub trusts.  That information came out in the First Tier Tribunal.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Footballfirst