The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Mysterion]

I will be very interested in an independent or judicial review.

 

I can accept the statement today provided there is a clear plan to identify and record the failings of the SFA/SPFL in the last 20yrs.

 

I still view the registration of players as a problem and something deliberately done which should lead to a retrospective set of actions (title stripping or asteriskGainst titles)..

 

We must no longer be able to accept teams dressing up account accounts etc. There must be a push for financial rules to determine pre agreed budgets and where necessary re agreed levels of debt.

[Stuart Lyon]

Both footballing authorities saying there is nothing legal they can do to address the cheating by the former club Rangers which implies they acknowledge what was done was wrong. The game in Scotland is run by the corrupt for the corrupt.

[The Real Maroonblood]

Or more to the point, imagine Hearts fans being ok with watching their team cheated every time they played rangers for 10 years in league games & cup finals. Can't help but think if it were Celtic instead of the Huns they'd be foaming at the mouth though. [emoji6]

Exactly.

[Stuart Lyon]

This has resurfaced on Twitter

 

 

 

On 15 July 2008, Bain was elected to the Scottish Premier League's board of directors for a second term.^[3]

 

^{He is now at Sunderland AFC}

[gashauskis9]

Both footballing authorities saying there is nothing legal they can do to address the cheating by the former club Rangers which implies they acknowledge what was done was wrong. The game in Scotland is run by the corrupt for the corrupt.

Game's a bogie. If the footballing authorities can't punish cheats then what's the point of the sport existing?

 

Can't legally punish a club for cheating but will happily fine a club for late wages and player administration. They can all **** off imo.

[kila]

What happened to the rumour that one of the EBTs was for a referee?

 

Wouldn't surprise me if some of the EBTs went to corrupt nuts at SFA and SPL too! Getting the impression our football authorities really want to white wash all this and move on... wonder why.

[Justin Z]

What happened to the rumour that one of the EBTs was for a referee?

 

That was rubbished fairly quickly. 

[buzzbomb1958]

That was rubbished fairly quickly.

Would not surprise me one little bit if people in positions of power in Glasgow were bribed after all it's only one step up from cheating.It seems to me with the carpet sweeping and statements of gobledygook which mean no sense it's another Watergate,I would like to think one day these cheats and crooks will get their just desserts we can but live in hope that nothing remains hidden forever

[corryjambo]

Why don't you and a few others who feel so passionately set up a group to do just that ?

 

Or is the reality you (and them) don't really care enough about it to do anything other than post your gripes on a fans message board ?

 

The fake outrage over something that is over and done with is showing more and more as the 'cause'(I think that's how the Celtic fans would put it) becomes more and more irrelevant

 

Well done the footballing authorities and the sooner this ends the better

 

I cannot for one minute believe that anyone outside of a rabid Rangers supporter would contemplate typing that out on a laptop.

 

You come on here and accuse others of being gullible and listening to "celtic minded" people and then post a piece of blatant Rangers propaganda  that beggars belief.

 

I can assure you that I am neither gullible or "celtic minded" but only want our football authorities to act fairly in the governance of our game. You on the other hand obviously want this whole matter swept under the carpet and then we can all sit back and watch the two clubs run Scottish football for their exclusive benefit with the willing compliance of Reagan and Doncaster.

 

It really is time for Scottish football clubs to waken up before it is too late and the damage done by those two individuals becomes irreparable.

[Ray Gin]

Or more to the point, imagine Hearts fans being ok with watching their team cheated every time they played rangers for 10 years in league games & cup finals. Can't help but think if it were Celtic instead of the Huns they'd be foaming at the mouth though. [emoji6]

 

There's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this would be the case.

[hurdie]

Out of interest, can anyone tell me what Law would be broken should the SPFL strip Rangers of the titles won during the 'EBT years'?

[jambovambo]

This has resurfaced on Twitter

 

 

 

On 15 July 2008, Bain was elected to the Scottish Premier League's board of directors for a second term.^[3]

 

^{He is now at Sunderland AFC}

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Out of interest, can anyone tell me what Law would be broken should the SPFL strip Rangers of the titles won during the 'EBT years'?

 

Absolutely none which is why all the pages of legalese in the SPFL statement and subsequent interviews are little more than deflection. Sporting sanctions are believe it or not the responsibility of the sporting bodies not the courts.

 

PS I notice the hordes working themselves into a frenzy over the use of the term unlawful in regards to the operation of their EBT scheme. I can put their minds at rest. The unlawful (or also illegal) part was when the payments were made without deduction of payroll taxes. As confirmed by the Supreme Court a few weeks ago. The difference between the words unlawful and illegal are mostly semantic with illegal referring more commonly to breaches of criminal law and unlawful referring more commonly to breaches in civil law. 

[Unknown user]

I've kept out of this til the frenzy died down a bit as I'd rather discuss than shout.

 

On one hand I get where the SPFL are coming from, but I think they're being exceptionally blinkered. Let's just say that they're right, there is no mechanism for stripping titles or punishing further - why stop there?

 

Before the final result of the rangers case was confirmed it seemed that most fans would have been satisfied with an asterisk of shame in the record books to say that rangers acted illegally in winning these titles. Why the digging in of heels, the "nope, we can't do a single thing"? Can't they pass a rule that says it's OK to put an asterisk next to dodgy wins and give the fans something to work with?

[jambovambo]

Was the statement yesterday even mentioned on Sportssound last night ? I listened to about the first twenty mins and it wasn't.

[Deevers]

Was the statement yesterday even mentioned on Sportssound last night ? I listened to about the first twenty mins and it wasn't.

 

No surprise. It's become little more that a lickspittal show for the Old Firm.

[Mikey1874]

Did Rangers pay (or money deducted from prize money) the ?250,000 fine?

[moonraker]

Absolutely none which is why all the pages of legalese in the SPFL statement and subsequent interviews are little more than deflection. Sporting sanctions are believe it or not the responsibility of the sporting bodies not the courts.

 

PS I notice the hordes working themselves into a frenzy over the use of the term unlawful in regards to the operation of their EBT scheme. I can put their minds at rest. The unlawful (or also illegal) part was when the payments were made without deduction of payroll taxes. As confirmed by the Supreme Court a few weeks ago. The difference between the words unlawful and illegal are mostly semantic with illegal referring more commonly to breaches of criminal law and unlawful referring more commonly to breaches in civil law. 

...and I thought Illegal was a sick bird of prey

[Tasavallan]

This is an issue for the SFA not the SPFL.  The SPFL was only formed in 2013 and has no jurisdiction over the past actions of a club that went defunct in 2012 and was never a member.  

 

Of course, the SFA will fluster and do nothing. 

[reaths17]

Did Rangers pay (or money deducted from prize money) the ?250,000 fine?

the fine was to rangers, sevco agreed to pay all footballing debts (5way agreement) so as to be shoehorned into the league for admin/liquidation penalties. they have since disputed this, saying its rangers and not sevcos fine and still not paid.

 

that statement was a lot of legal mumbojumbo and never mentions the deliberate false registration of players, which has never been subject to any recognition from splaf and sfa in association of penalties. mis-registration of players in the recent past due to clerical errors have always resulted in the perpetrators being ejected from the tournament.

Edited July 27, 2017 by reaths17

[Wilson]

I've kept out of this til the frenzy died down a bit as I'd rather discuss than shout.

 

On one hand I get where the SPFL are coming from, but I think they're being exceptionally blinkered. Let's just say that they're right, there is no mechanism for stripping titles or punishing further - why stop there?

 

Before the final result of the rangers case was confirmed it seemed that most fans would have been satisfied with an asterisk of shame in the record books to say that rangers acted illegally in winning these titles. Why the digging in of heels, the "nope, we can't do a single thing"? Can't they pass a rule that says it's OK to put an asterisk next to dodgy wins and give the fans something to work with?

I am with you . The frenzy around EBT is I think misguided . They were not illegal at the time . There was doubt as to whether tax should be paid not resolved until a Supreme Court decision later . Those agitating for action should of concentrate on the back letters and their non disclosure when registering players - a clear breach - and why SFA evidence to LNS was that this was "imperfect " - a clear lie/fudge.

 

Concentrating on EBT is like being charged today for speeding at 30 mph in 2001 in what is now 20 mph zone .

[Footballfirst]

RTC has been tweeting docs that suggest that Rod McKenzie and the SFA have been misleading us for years.

 

Rangers Tax-Case? @rangerstaxcase 3h3 hours ago

 

Is Rod McKenzie, SPFL lawyer, suggesting neither SFA nor SPL were made aware of a major investigation into Rangers by HMRC? He's full of it!

 

Rangers Tax-Case? @rangerstaxcase 3h3 hours ago

Replying to @rangerstaxcase

 

Here is absolute proof that the SFA knew of the tax investigation. They were served a Sched 26 notice to produce all RFC contracts in 2009.

 

Rangers Tax-Case? @rangerstaxcase 3h3 hours ago

Replying to @rangerstaxcase

McKenzie's attempts to defend the indefensible are shameful, but to get something this basic so wrong? That is something else.

 

Rangers Tax-Case? @rangerstaxcase 3h3 hours ago

The SFA and SPL both knew that a major investigation of Rangers' tax affairs was underway at least as far back as 2009. What did they do?

 

Rangers Tax-Case? @rangerstaxcase 3h3 hours ago

Those asking for publication of the FTT transcripts- I can't do that. There are still court restrictions on the publication of some names.

 

Rangers Tax-Case? @rangerstaxcase 3h3 hours ago

Replying to @rangerstaxcase

Leave the documented proof that the SFA knew aside, between 2003 - 2015 one of the SFA's own office bearers was a participant in the scam!!

Edited July 27, 2017 by Footballfirst

[Mikey1874]

the fine was to rangers, sevco agreed to pay all footballing debts (5way agreement) so as to be shoehorned into the league for admin/liquidation penalties. they have since disputed this, saying its rangers and not sevcos fine and still not paid.

 

that statement was a lot of legal mumbojumbo and never mentions the deliberate false registration of players, which has never been subject to any recognition from splaf and sfa in association of penalties. mis-registration of players in the recent past due to clerical errors have always resulted in the perpetrators being ejected from the tournament.

 

The reason I ask about (non) payment of the ?250,000 is its being mentioned by the SPFL eg Neil Doncaster today as the key sanction taken, the 'most they could do'. If the SPFL didn't even get the money...

[hawaii]

It's very simple - the LNS verdict was the verdict everyone in the SPFL boardroom wanted. They gave him such a narrow field to investigate it was laughable. The verdict was based on the premise that EBT's were legal. The SFA guy in charge of player registration even gave LNS a way to say the side letters didn't matter. LNS was a whitewash and to try and use it as a way to say there's nothing we can do now is a scandal.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

What happened to the rumour that one of the EBTs was for a referee?

 

Wouldn't surprise me if some of the EBTs went to corrupt nuts at SFA and SPL too! Getting the impression our football authorities really want to white wash all this and move on... wonder why.

Did they say which referee?

[ZeroHour]

Absolutely none which is why all the pages of legalese in the SPFL statement and subsequent interviews are little more than deflection. Sporting sanctions are believe it or not the responsibility of the sporting bodies not the courts.

 

PS I notice the hordes working themselves into a frenzy over the use of the term unlawful in regards to the operation of their EBT scheme. I can put their minds at rest. The unlawful (or also illegal) part was when the payments were made without deduction of payroll taxes. As confirmed by the Supreme Court a few weeks ago. The difference between the words unlawful and illegal are mostly semantic with illegal referring more commonly to breaches of criminal law and unlawful referring more commonly to breaches in civil law.

What about the Court of Arbitration for Sport?

[CMc]

Would still be very interested to hear from the SPFL board who they thought might would sue them and why.

 

Fans of the liquidated club for emotional distress?

 

The board of NewCo who had nothing to do with winning any cup or title for... loss of earnings on merchandise?

 

There is no group left who could evidence a legitimate claim - unless the SPFL knows the 5 way agreement is enough of a catch all get out of jail card that NewCo could sue for breach of contract.

[Seymour M Hersh]

That was rubbished fairly quickly. 

 

Probably true then! 

[ZeroHour]

Did they say which referee?

Hugh Dallas. Was remuneration for his hospital bill getting his foreheed stitched up.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Out of interest, can anyone tell me what Law would be broken should the SPFL strip Rangers of the titles won during the 'EBT years'?

 

Actually an old SFA law that a team occupying Ibrox or Parkhead (no matter what incarnation it is) must never be genuinely punished. Lip service only to the diddy teams and their supporters.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Seymour M Hersh

[Seymour M Hersh]

No surprise. It's become little more that a lickspittal show for the Old Firm.

 

Become Deevers? It's always been that.

[Seymour M Hersh]

I cannot for one minute believe that anyone outside of a rabid Rangers supporter would contemplate typing that out on a laptop.

 

You come on here and accuse others of being gullible and listening to "celtic minded" people and then post a piece of blatant Rangers propaganda  that beggars belief.

 

I can assure you that I am neither gullible or "celtic minded" but only want our football authorities to act fairly in the governance of our game. You on the other hand obviously want this whole matter swept under the carpet and then we can all sit back and watch the two clubs run Scottish football for their exclusive benefit with the willing compliance of Reagan and Doncaster.

 

It really is time for Scottish football clubs to waken up before it is too late and the damage done by those two individuals becomes irreparable.

 

I truly believe we are well past the point of no return and this whole saga just underpins that.

[reaths17]

its been well documented that the assets, history etc was purchased by Charlie green. never ever in any sport has the achievements of others been purchasable. there is no rule, regulation, law anywhere in the world that can force the SFA/SPLAF to recognise these achievements.

 

there is no phoenix, liquidation happened.

 

whats to stop somebody who decides to buy third lanarks history demanding a place in the league. the rules are still the same as in the sevco shenanigans, they cant LEGALLY refuse going by what their now saying.

[Footballfirst]

I am with you . The frenzy around EBT is I think misguided . They were not illegal at the time . There was doubt as to whether tax should be paid not resolved until a Supreme Court decision later . Those agitating for action should of concentrate on the back letters and their non disclosure when registering players - a clear breach - and why SFA evidence to LNS was that this was "imperfect " - a clear lie/fudge.

 

Concentrating on EBT is like being charged today for speeding at 30 mph in 2001 in what is now 20 mph zone .

It is not misguided in the slightest.

 

EBTs are not and never have been illegal.  It's how Rangers used them by depositing untaxed income in them that was unlawful.

 

From the FTTT

• Baxendale-Walker was investigated and suspended by the Law Society in 2003.  His clients were subsequently investigated.
• HMRC's investigation into RFC's use of EBTs started in January 2004
• Rangers were obstructive and would not cooperate with HMRC, leading to them denying the existence of side letters in 2005
• Side letters were found during a police raid in connection with another inquiry in 2007.
• HMRC requested further documents be supplied in 2008.
• First assessments issued in 2008
• The last of the documents were not handed over until 2009
• Further assessments issued in 2010
• The FTTT started in 2010 and didn't complete until 2012. 

Had Rangers co-operated with HMRC in 2004, then the matters would have been dealt with swiftly and any liability would have been met without unduly affecting their finances. But Rangers being Rangers thought they were above the law and continued to make payments to players via the trust for a further 6 years and in doing so failed to advise the SFA and SPL of what were contractual payments.  They would have been as well handing over brown envelopes full of cash.

 

I'd suggest that Rangers were deliberately dishonest in their dealings with HMRC and the Football Authorities and knew that there was every chance of their scheme being flawed.  Why else would they not cooperate with HMRC and hide documents if they truly believed that all was above board.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Footballfirst

[jambovambo]

https://stripthetitles.wordpress.com/2017/07/27/time-to-unite-around-one-banner/

 

Strange statement from the Stripthetitles people just now.

 

All goes well until the last two paras. Getting ripped remorselessly on Twitter by knuckle draggers.

[Wilson]

It is not misguided in the slightest.

 

EBTs are not and never have been illegal. It's how Rangers used them by depositing untaxed income in them that was unlawful.

 

From the FTTT

• Baxendale-Walker was investigated and suspended by the Law Society in 2003. His clients were subsequently investigated.
• HMRC's investigation into RFC's use of EBTs started in January 2004
• Rangers were obstructive and would not cooperate with HMRC, leading to them denying the existence of side letters in 2005
• Side letters were found during a police raid in connection with another inquiry in 2007.
• HMRC requested further documents be supplied in 2008.
• First assessments issued in 2008
• The last of the documents were not handed over until 2009
• Further assessments issued in 2010
• The FTTT started in 2010 and didn't complete until 2012.

Had Rangers co-operated with HMRC in 2004, then the matters would have been dealt with swiftly and any liability would have been met without unduly affecting their finances. But Rangers being Rangers thought they were above the law and continued to make payments to players via the trust for a further 6 years and in doing so failed to advise the SFA and SPL of what were contractual payments. They would have been as well handing over brown envelopes full of cash.

 

I'd suggest that Rangers were deliberately dishonest in their dealings with HMRC and the Football Authorities and knew that there was every chance of their scheme being flawed. Why else would they not cooperate with HMRC and hide documents if they truly believed that all was above board.

 

I understand fully the obstructions by Rangers . My point really is if this is to be challenged it is far more likely to be successful if the Registering of players is examined rather than a tax scheme only now declared illegal...

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Or more to the point, imagine Hearts fans being ok with watching their team cheated every time they played rangers for 10 years in league games & cup finals. Can't help but think if it were Celtic instead of the Huns they'd be foaming at the mouth though. [emoji6]

 

Nah mate nothing would happen, remember we're all supposed to be Celtic minded.

[Mikey1874]

The side letters affect on validity of the registration of players and the process by which the new Rangers were allowed into League 2 are the two main areas I'd like to see investigated.

 

On the first maybe that should at least lead to a relaxation of registration penalties (eg expulsion from Cups) in general.

 

On the second the process and its deviation from existing rules. I.e. at that time I thought Spartans were quoted as next in line to be admitted but they and other interested clubs never even got the chance to state their case.

[Deevers]

Become Deevers? It's always been that.

It was a bit better when Jim Spence was there, but these days it's little more than a mutual back slapping club for all things West Coast.

 

T

[Escobar PHM]

that statement was a lot of legal mumbojumbo and never mentions the deliberate false registration of players, which has never been subject to any recognition from splaf and sfa in association of penalties. mis-registration of players in the recent past due to clerical errors have always resulted in the perpetrators being ejected from the tournament.

Sorry if I am wrong here but wasn't that offence the one that attracted the fine of ?250,000 ? So, not ignored but in fact fully dealt with and punishment, however inadequate, handed out. This is the whole reason they wont re-open the case, because the one and only offence against the football regs, as they were at that time, has already been dealt with.

[The Gasman]

Truly dreadful statement from the SPFL full of half truths, distractions and deflections.

 

Nobody is particularly interested in the legal standing of all of this. Legally Rangers were found liable to tax on a large percentage of their employee remunerations over quite a few years (> 10). Also legally speaking Rangers collapsed into insolvency with a short period of administration followed by the ongoing liquidation process. That's about the start and end of the legal perspective.

 

What is needed is a correction to the sporting record taking into consideration the information deliberately and willfully withheld from the Sporting authorities. Either RFC gained an unfair sporting advantage via their failed and flawed use of a tax avoidance scheme or they didn't. Nobody needs to take any further statements as the controlling shareholder at the time (Murray) and at least one of the managers (McLeish) has said the whole object of the exercise was to attract players to Ibrox who couldn't be afforded if they simply offered them an equivalent gross package subject to PAYE.

 

So what the likes of Doncaster and Regan need to explain is why, in their views, the improper and ultimately unlawful operation of a remuneration scheme designed to attract players that wouldn't have signed on at Ibrox if they'd been paid conventionally, lawfully and correctly via PAYE did not afford an unfair sporting advantage to RFC.

 

Expect masses of deflection and distraction over the next few days as these two desperately try to avoid addressing this question.

Nail. On. Head.

 

[reaths17]

Sorry if I am wrong here but wasn't that offence the one that attracted the fine of ?250,000 ? So, not ignored but in fact fully dealt with and punishment, however inadequate, handed out. This is the whole reason they wont re-open the case, because the one and only offence against the football regs, as they were at that time, has already been dealt with.

no....it was to do with admin/liquidation which is why sevco are disputing whether its a football penalty or not. they agreed to pay all footballing debts, transfer fees(lee Wallace, Dundee utd laddie) shared attendance money(think Dundee utd and Dunfermline were due money). they are saying this debt belongs to THE COMPANY not the club and as such oldco

Edited July 27, 2017 by reaths17

[jambovambo]

Truly dreadful statement from the SPFL full of half truths, distractions and deflections.

 

Nobody is particularly interested in the legal standing of all of this. Legally Rangers were found liable to tax on a large percentage of their employee remunerations over quite a few years (> 10). Also legally speaking Rangers collapsed into insolvency with a short period of administration followed by the ongoing liquidation process. That's about the start and end of the legal perspective.

 

What is needed is a correction to the sporting record taking into consideration the information deliberately and willfully withheld from the Sporting authorities. Either RFC gained an unfair sporting advantage via their failed and flawed use of a tax avoidance scheme or they didn't. Nobody needs to take any further statements as the controlling shareholder at the time (Murray) and at least one of the managers (McLeish) has said the whole object of the exercise was to attract players to Ibrox who couldn't be afforded if they simply offered them an equivalent gross package subject to PAYE.

 

So what the likes of Doncaster and Regan need to explain is why, in their views, the improper and ultimately unlawful operation of a remuneration scheme designed to attract players that wouldn't have signed on at Ibrox if they'd been paid conventionally, lawfully and correctly via PAYE did not afford an unfair sporting advantage to RFC.

 

Expect masses of deflection and distraction over the next few days as these two desperately try to avoid addressing this question.

Agreed, great post but I'd say this bit should be "would have cost Rangers much more if they'd signed on"

 

Don't think we can say they wouldn't have signed if paid the same amount, but "conventionally" as in like you and me.

[Footballfirst]

Sorry if I am wrong here but wasn't that offence the one that attracted the fine of ?250,000 ? So, not ignored but in fact fully dealt with and punishment, however inadequate, handed out. This is the whole reason they wont re-open the case, because the one and only offence against the football regs, as they were at that time, has already been dealt with.

That fine was determined on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful.

[Alex MacDonald]

This was a huge opportunity for the SPFL to correct countless wrongs, and win back some respect for our game in Scotland.

But no, they've blown it, and they'll lose 1000's of supporters who've followed their team for decades as a result, including me.

Our game is obscenely Glasgow-centric, with both governing bodies and the MSM doing everything they can to distract, confuse and cover-up their own corruption. We've never had a level playing field, there's a separate rule book for 2 clubs in Glasgow, and I can't accept that. I love my club, I'll continue to donate via FOH, but as long as Rangers go unpunished for blatant cheating, I've watched my last game.

[Billybuffjaw]

This was a huge opportunity for the SPFL to correct countless wrongs, and win back some respect for our game in Scotland.

But no, they've blown it, and they'll lose 1000's of supporters who've followed their team for decades as a result, including me.

Our game is obscenely Glasgow-centric, with both governing bodies and the MSM doing everything they can to distract, confuse and cover-up their own corruption. We've never had a level playing field, there's a separate rule book for 2 clubs in Glasgow, and I can't accept that. I love my club, I'll continue to donate via FOH, but as long as Rangers go unpunished for blatant cheating, I've watched my last game.

Why would anyone stop watching their own club over what is a non Hearts issue? Strip them of titles or not, it won't stop me nor anyone I know following Hearts .

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

This was a huge opportunity for the SPFL to correct countless wrongs, and win back some respect for our game in Scotland.

But no, they've blown it, and they'll lose 1000's of supporters who've followed their team for decades as a result, including me.

Our game is obscenely Glasgow-centric, with both governing bodies and the MSM doing everything they can to distract, confuse and cover-up their own corruption. We've never had a level playing field, there's a separate rule book for 2 clubs in Glasgow, and I can't accept that. I love my club, I'll continue to donate via FOH, but as long as Rangers go unpunished for blatant cheating, I've watched my last game.

Have you told the club this?

[ZeroHour]

That fine was determined on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful.

 

 

Here's how I remember it;

 

Even the FTT which ruled in favour of the murray group, still classified the payments to the player's trusts as remuneration for their services as footballers - it then ruled that the payments were loans which could technically be recalled, therefore not taxable.

 

Wether they were, or were not, taxable loans/payments, was beyond the scope of LNS.  But LNS ruled on the the basis that payments to the Trusts were payments that should have been declared to the SFA/SPL.  

 

It's my understanding that HMRC winning on appeal that the loans should have been taxable doesn't change the basis upon which LNS ruled, he already considered the payments to the trusts as payments to players that SHOULD have been declared.

[Escobar PHM]

no....it was to do with admin/liquidation

Sorry but that fine related to 'undisclosed payments' according to any source I can find.

[Footballfirst]

Here's how I remember it;

 

Even the FTT which ruled in favour of the murray group, still classified the payments to the player's trusts as remuneration for their services as footballers - it then ruled that the payments were loans which could technically be recalled, therefore not taxable.

 

Wether they were, or were not, taxable loans/payments, was beyond the scope of LNS.  But LNS ruled on the the basis that payments to the Trusts were payments that should have been declared to the SFA/SPL.  

 

It's my understanding that HMRC winning on appeal that the loans should have been taxable doesn't change the basis upon which LNS ruled, he already considered the payments to the trusts as payments to players that SHOULD have been declared.

I agree with the above, but he also used the  FTTT's finding that Rangers use of EBTs  was "lawful" to justify his decision that there had been no sporting advantage, i.e. EBTs could lawfully be used by other clubs.