Jump to content

Would you support an independent review into the SFA/SPL's handling of Rangers' use of EBTs and it's consequences?


kila

Independent review  

621 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you support an independent review into the SFA/SPL's handling of Rangers' use of EBTs and it's consequences?

    • Yes
      501
    • No
      31
    • Don't Care
      89


Recommended Posts

PMGB seems to think that she will not come out and support a review.

 

AJoorbk.jpg

Rod Petrie is the star in the east and fair play to Hibs fans for telling the club it is not acceptable. How's he getting on with his attacks on Edinburgh's Irish club ? 

 

If the SFA will not agree to the enquiry then the SPFL clubs should boycott the Scottish cup.  It's that simple and Reagan  will be finished. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If only were some way to organise a Sept of Baelor wildfire party for the 5% contingent.

Leftie democracy at its best right there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think at around 80% support you would probably find that in most supporters forums (except celtic where it would be close to 100%).

 

But the powers that be have swept it under a maoosive rug. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert

It is a pity that the question was apparently confusing or open to people obfuscating. As currently stated the question is about an investigation into the sfa and spl actions or inactions and i have hardly seen any argument against that. To restore (or create) some sort of credibilty of our football authorities it is essetial.

On the red herring of posibility of investigation of the vlad era i would welcome an investigation of the sfa and spl treatment of hearts under vlad. The rules invented or uniquely applied to punish hearts and whether there was consistent treatment of all clubs at that time.

the issue of digging over the oldco ashes is a separate issue and here i have more sympathy with those opposed to that. We pretty much know the facts now and those responsible. The only real issues will come out now in an inquiry into the sfa and spl roles - for example did the sfa and spl breach their own rules in the way they admitted newco to their association and league?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PMGB is correct that it cost us millions, wether we lost millions through Sevco transgressions or overspending on our part to compete is neither here or there.

 

Every club suffered huge financial losses as a result & years on, like us are still trying to recover from it.

 

An independent review if done without prejudice, would imo prove Sevco's & the GFA's culpability & therefore has to be done, or the element of doubt will always be there.

 

As for Ann being Sevco's "star in the east" I think she'd be disappointed with PMGB's inference on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a pity that the question was apparently confusing or open to people obfuscating. As currently stated the question is about an investigation into the sfa and spl actions or inactions and i have hardly seen any argument against that. To restore (or create) some sort of credibilty of our football authorities it is essetial.

On the red herring of posibility of investigation of the vlad era i would welcome an investigation of the sfa and spl treatment of hearts under vlad. The rules invented or uniquely applied to punish hearts and whether there was consistent treatment of all clubs at that time.

the issue of digging over the oldco ashes is a separate issue and here i have more sympathy with those opposed to that. We pretty much know the facts now and those responsible. The only real issues will come out now in an inquiry into the sfa and spl roles - for example did the sfa and spl breach their own rules in the way they admitted newco to their association and league?

Exactly.

 

How any right minded Scottish football fan would not want such an investigation beggars belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rod Petrie is the star in the east and fair play to Hibs fans for telling the club it is not acceptable. How's he getting on with his attacks on Edinburgh's Irish club ?

 

If the SFA will not agree to the enquiry then the SPFL clubs should boycott the Scottish cup. It's that simple and Reagan will be finished.

The clubs won't do that. As for the fans, and not just Hibs, what could be done if they felt their views were being disregarded ?

 

You hear of boycotts etc from various groups, even Rangers fans ironically, but has there ever been one ? Would there ever be one in this instance ? Could there ever come a time when a collective will of supporters brought real and tangible action in the face of apathy from their clubs ?

 

Think that's enough questions for one post but you can see where i'm going here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless confidence is restored and the slate wiped clean fans will drift away and be less inclined to part with their cash if they believe Scottish fitba is corrupt and wont investigate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, if an independent review takes place, then it's not specifically to punish sevco

Although they deserve to receive some sort of sanctions for the blatant cheating they've been getting away with for years.

It would expose the corrupt way the game in this country is run to the benefit of two clubs at the expense of all the others.

It's this reason that the authorities want us all to "move on"

They know there are a lot of cans of worms that could be opened if there was a truly independent investigation, which is the last thing they want

Agree with all of this. The reason this is still rumbling on is because the various Scottish footballing authorities almost certainly did what they could to protect Rangers and maintain the status quo.

 

The involvement and conduct of the authorities absolutely needs to be reviewed. The ability to punish Rangers has probably disappeared due to the conduct of the authorities and the limited scope of their investigations and interest in finding any wrongdoing, and that's exactly why there should be in independent injury into the whole embarrassing affair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a pity that the question was apparently confusing or open to people obfuscating. As currently stated the question is about an investigation into the sfa and spl actions or inactions and i have hardly seen any argument against that. To restore (or create) some sort of credibilty of our football authorities it is essetial.

On the red herring of posibility of investigation of the vlad era i would welcome an investigation of the sfa and spl treatment of hearts under vlad. The rules invented or uniquely applied to punish hearts and whether there was consistent treatment of all clubs at that time.

the issue of digging over the oldco ashes is a separate issue and here i have more sympathy with those opposed to that. We pretty much know the facts now and those responsible. The only real issues will come out now in an inquiry into the sfa and spl roles - for example did the sfa and spl breach their own rules in the way they admitted newco to their association and league?

A good post, FA. The disparity in the treatment of us/Romanov in comparison to Rangers/SevCo is incredible, including areas such as transfer embargoes. Even back to the fines CL got first time around and our exponential fines for discipline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alwaysthereinspirit

Exactly.

 

How any right minded Scottish football fan would not want such an investigation beggars belief.

Newco fans and wannabes on here probably see themselves as right minded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a don't care.

 

Have those that do care raised it within either FoH or at the shareholder AGM?

 

If yes, what was the reaction?

 

If not, well I guess no one really cares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless confidence is restored and the slate wiped clean fans will drift away and be less inclined to part with their cash if they believe Scottish fitba is corrupt and wont investigate.

Alongside a restored 2 club dominance if Rangers get act together though its bad enough with Celtic just now.

 

1985 since last non old firm league title (Aberdeen)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there'd be some disgust if the club came out in favour of sweeping under the carpet and moving on

 

 

I'd be surprised though, as I'd expect Budge to have been one of the SPFL board members in favour of an independent review. She's mentioned in the past how she'd change things in Scottish football, some controversial (too many teams for a country of 5.3 million), so I don't expect her to be in favour of the status quo.

I'm surprised that Hearts havn't issued a statement on this. Could it be because Campbell Ogilvie is threatening to dish the dirt on his time here during the Vlad era.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that Hearts havn't issued a statement on this. Could it be because Campbell Ogilvie is threatening to dish the dirt on his time here during the Vlad era.

Like black mail?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, EBTs were legal at the time RFC used them. However, the way they operated the scheme, meant that RFC's EBTs could never be legal, and they knew it.

 

To be paid tax-free, payments had to be non-contractual and there should be no expectation of a payment by the employee. Thus, even hinting to a player or his agent during transfer negotiations, that there might be an EBT payment at some point, or suggesting that part of his weekly wages should be paid this way, nullifies the tax-free option. Similarly, giving side-letters to players was also a no-no.

 

What RFC did, in effect, was to greatly reduce a player's taxable weekly wage, and pay the balance tax-free into his individual sub-trust - a clear breach of the EBT rules. Of course, some agents were a bit worried about this dodgy sounding tax scheme and wondered if HMRC would at some point come after their players for unpaid tax. Don't worry, said RFC. We'll give your player a side-letter, stating that if he's ever asked to cough up the tax, we'll pay it for him. Another breach of the rules. Sir David Murray knew right from the start that his EBT scheme was (tax) illegal.

 

This also meant that all the EBT players had 2 contracts - one with their (low) taxable wages, which was registered with the SFA, and their EBT contract which wasn't. RFC had to keep this scheme as secret as possible since the scheme wasn't being operated correctly.

 

Did the SFA know that RFC weren't fully and correctly registering some 55 players over the years? Or, did the SFA know about the EBTs and agree with RFC that they didn't have to be registered, just in case HMRC made any enquiries? In fact HMRC did make a direct enquiry re RFC's EBT payments in 2009. No doubt the SFA only supplied them with the taxable contract details that had been registered.

 

Given that the then president of the SFA was the former RFC Company Secretary, and the recipient of a ?95k EBT, and that there were other former RFC employees (and still are) in the SFA, I'm betting that the SFA were fully aware of the EBT payments.

 

Said Campbell Ogivie, in his role of RFC - CS was responsible for setting up an earlier tax dodge - the Discounted Options Scheme. However, HMRC quickly found out about it, declared it illegal and issued a demand for c?2M (still unpaid) which became known as the 'Wee Tax Case'. However, he forgot to tell the Lord Nimmo Smith Enquiry about the DOS scheme. He told NMS that he hadn't been involved at all in the EBT scheme, so of course he couldn't tell NMS that RFC had already admitted tax liability for 5 of the individual EBTs.

 

Why did RFC go the wall, and all the English clubs who operated them didn't? As far as I know, the English clubs didn't waste years in denying the existence of sideletters etc. They relatively quickly came to an agreement with HMRC to pay the tax due over several years. RFC could have done this too, after the sideletters were discovered by the City of London Police in an Ibrox raid in 2007. It would have meant downsizing for a few years - also known as living within your means. David Murray didn't fancy that though, and he also thought he was untouchable. He was wrong, and RFC paid the price.

 

Incidentally, for the Celtic haters. Yes, CFC inherited an EBT when Juninho was transferred from Middlesbrough. However, they were a bit suspicious of it and after taking tax advice, they stopped it and settled all the tax due with HMRC.

 

I am not aware of any other Scottish club which used an EBT scheme.

 

There should be an independent enquiry into the actions of the authorities re their relationship and decisions relating to RFC and its successor club.

 

There are many issues which the authorities need to fully explain, among them -

 

- the issue of European licences to RFC in 2011/12 and possibly for earlier seasons. I know that this has been referred to the SFA's compliance officer, but I'm not hopeful.

- attempts to shoehorn a new club into the SPL and then the First Division.

- did the SFA/SPL know in October 2011 that RFC would be shortly going into administration? If so, did they tell Craig Whyte to try and see out the season? He stopped  paying PAYE and VAT, and still only made to February.

- the granting of a 'conditional' SFA licence to enable the new club to play against Brechin City, which didn't exist in the SFA rule book.

- the publication of the infamous 5-way agreement between RFC (old), TRFC (new), SFA, SPL and the SFL.

- exactly what action the SFA took in response to the 2007 HMRC enquiry.

- why did the SFA not realise that the contracts sent by RFC were complete and utter bull? Especially when there were so many ex-RFC employees in positions of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, EBTs were legal at the time RFC used them. However, the way they operated the scheme, meant that RFC's EBTs could never be legal, and they knew it.

 

To be paid tax-free, payments had to be non-contractual and there should be no expectation of a payment by the employee. Thus, even hinting to a player or his agent during transfer negotiations, that there might be an EBT payment at some point, or suggesting that part of his weekly wages should be paid this way, nullifies the tax-free option. Similarly, giving side-letters to players was also a no-no.

 

What RFC did, in effect, was to greatly reduce a player's taxable weekly wage, and pay the balance tax-free into his individual sub-trust - a clear breach of the EBT rules. Of course, some agents were a bit worried about this dodgy sounding tax scheme and wondered if HMRC would at some point come after their players for unpaid tax. Don't worry, said RFC. We'll give your player a side-letter, stating that if he's ever asked to cough up the tax, we'll pay it for him. Another breach of the rules. Sir David Murray knew right from the start that his EBT scheme was (tax) illegal.

 

This also meant that all the EBT players had 2 contracts - one with their (low) taxable wages, which was registered with the SFA, and their EBT contract which wasn't. RFC had to keep this scheme as secret as possible since the scheme wasn't being operated correctly.

 

Did the SFA know that RFC weren't fully and correctly registering some 55 players over the years? Or, did the SFA know about the EBTs and agree with RFC that they didn't have to be registered, just in case HMRC made any enquiries? In fact HMRC did make a direct enquiry re RFC's EBT payments in 2009. No doubt the SFA only supplied them with the taxable contract details that had been registered.

 

Given that the then president of the SFA was the former RFC Company Secretary, and the recipient of a ?95k EBT, and that there were other former RFC employees (and still are) in the SFA, I'm betting that the SFA were fully aware of the EBT payments.

 

Said Campbell Ogivie, in his role of RFC - CS was responsible for setting up an earlier tax dodge - the Discounted Options Scheme. However, HMRC quickly found out about it, declared it illegal and issued a demand for c?2M (still unpaid) which became known as the 'Wee Tax Case'. However, he forgot to tell the Lord Nimmo Smith Enquiry about the DOS scheme. He told NMS that he hadn't been involved at all in the EBT scheme, so of course he couldn't tell NMS that RFC had already admitted tax liability for 5 of the individual EBTs.

 

Why did RFC go the wall, and all the English clubs who operated them didn't? As far as I know, the English clubs didn't waste years in denying the existence of sideletters etc. They relatively quickly came to an agreement with HMRC to pay the tax due over several years. RFC could have done this too, after the sideletters were discovered by the City of London Police in an Ibrox raid in 2007. It would have meant downsizing for a few years - also known as living within your means. David Murray didn't fancy that though, and he also thought he was untouchable. He was wrong, and RFC paid the price.

 

Incidentally, for the Celtic haters. Yes, CFC inherited an EBT when Juninho was transferred from Middlesbrough. However, they were a bit suspicious of it and after taking tax advice, they stopped it and settled all the tax due with HMRC.

 

I am not aware of any other Scottish club which used an EBT scheme.

 

There should be an independent enquiry into the actions of the authorities re their relationship and decisions relating to RFC and its successor club.

 

There are many issues which the authorities need to fully explain, among them -

 

- the issue of European licences to RFC in 2011/12 and possibly for earlier seasons. I know that this has been referred to the SFA's compliance officer, but I'm not hopeful.

- attempts to shoehorn a new club into the SPL and then the First Division.

- did the SFA/SPL know in October 2011 that RFC would be shortly going into administration? If so, did they tell Craig Whyte to try and see out the season? He stopped  paying PAYE and VAT, and still only made to February.

- the granting of a 'conditional' SFA licence to enable the new club to play against Brechin City, which didn't exist in the SFA rule book.

- the publication of the infamous 5-way agreement between RFC (old), TRFC (new), SFA, SPL and the SFL.

- exactly what action the SFA took in response to the 2007 HMRC enquiry.

- why did the SFA not realise that the contracts sent by RFC were complete and utter bull? Especially when there were so many ex-RFC employees in positions of power.

 

Perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perfect.

 

Almost.  Juninho's payment into his EBT was in respect of a pay off when he left Celtic. He didn't actually receive an EBT payment while he was playing for the club.  That is why the SPL did not investigate the matter further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost. Juninho's payment into his EBT was in respect of a pay off when he left Celtic. He didn't actually receive an EBT payment while he was playing for the club. That is why the SPL did not investigate the matter further.

My bad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alwaysthereinspirit

Almost.  Juninho's payment into his EBT was in respect of a pay off when he left Celtic. He didn't actually receive an EBT payment while he was playing for the club.  That is why the SPL did not investigate the matter further.

Please don't bring up Celtic on this particular thread. It'll just bring out the whataboutery group and then we'll all go around in a big circle again. :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye seen this, but they seem to be blaming the SFA for not allowing a review in which they would cooperate with. Just reeks of foul play the more i read intae this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How very convenient that the SPFL have appeared to drop the idea.

 

If they had actually been in favour of a review in the first place, instead of this being an exercise in how to show you "care" about an issue but still sweeping it under the carpet, they would have expressed in their press release how they still hoped that the SFA would change its mind and agree to cooperate with the review.

 

Instead, the press release contains phrases like "The SPFL board still believes that an independent review ... would have resulted in a better understanding" rather than using the phrase "would result...". The language is all geared towards saying "This is done. We're finished with it".

 

Anyone might come to the conclusion that when the SPFL made the call in the first place, they knew the SFA would reject the call. But that would be far-fetched, wouldn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With this, expected, course of events, i'm still waiting for any comments on the questions I posed further up the page.

It's fairly obvious how they will try and play this so how do the fans react when the inevitable sweeping takes place ?

 

Anything ? Nothing ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare and contrast with the demands for an independent enquiry into the FA's handling of the complaints against Sampson. Why are English MPs and media types all over this and yet the Scottish establishment is keeping its mouth firmly shut when it comes to an independent review of the worst sporting corruption ever seen ? Rangers RIP corrupted everything they were in contact with. But no one speaks out. What are they all afraid of ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let them have their own review - there's stuff they can't talk about but they can confirm/deny -

 

support for the entry of Sevco into the SPL

 

support for the entry of Sevco into the 1st division

 

support for the 5way agreement (what do they know/did they know/ were clubs unanimous in their support of the agreement ?)

 

what steps have been taken to prevent a repeat of the  registration fiasco , when were they taken and why ? 

 

are the SPFL satisfied with the conduct of SFA officials during the original enquiries

 

how can the SPFL demonstrate football officials are proactively working to prevent a recurrence - ie management & oversight of contracts and paperwork - what are the lessons learned.  It's the SPFLs league so what are they doing to ensure the integrity of their member clubs actions ? 

 

There's plenty the SPFL can do but I reckon they've asked for something they knew the SFA would never deliver. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to see this coming to a close......perhaps Celtic realised a full enquiry would lead to questions about their own EBT involvement and shall we say asked for this to be dropped.

 

I wonder what the next step will be given all the hard work by many to get us to...well to get us nowhere actually.

 

I'll bet one thing our fans won't boycott the derby match to show their displeasure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to see this coming to a close......perhaps Celtic realised a full enquiry would lead to questions about their own EBT involvement and shall we say asked for this to be dropped.

 

I wonder what the next step will be given all the hard work by many to get us to...well to get us nowhere actually.

 

I'll bet one thing our fans won't boycott the derby match to show their displeasure

 

 

I'd have thought if there was a chance of Celtic being looked into for unorthodox EBT use you'd be hugely in favour of a review of our governing body

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, EBTs were legal at the time RFC used them. However, the way they operated the scheme, meant that RFC's EBTs could never be legal, and they knew it.

 

To be paid tax-free, payments had to be non-contractual and there should be no expectation of a payment by the employee. Thus, even hinting to a player or his agent during transfer negotiations, that there might be an EBT payment at some point, or suggesting that part of his weekly wages should be paid this way, nullifies the tax-free option. Similarly, giving side-letters to players was also a no-no.

 

What RFC did, in effect, was to greatly reduce a player's taxable weekly wage, and pay the balance tax-free into his individual sub-trust - a clear breach of the EBT rules. Of course, some agents were a bit worried about this dodgy sounding tax scheme and wondered if HMRC would at some point come after their players for unpaid tax. Don't worry, said RFC. We'll give your player a side-letter, stating that if he's ever asked to cough up the tax, we'll pay it for him. Another breach of the rules. Sir David Murray knew right from the start that his EBT scheme was (tax) illegal.

 

This also meant that all the EBT players had 2 contracts - one with their (low) taxable wages, which was registered with the SFA, and their EBT contract which wasn't. RFC had to keep this scheme as secret as possible since the scheme wasn't being operated correctly.

 

Did the SFA know that RFC weren't fully and correctly registering some 55 players over the years? Or, did the SFA know about the EBTs and agree with RFC that they didn't have to be registered, just in case HMRC made any enquiries? In fact HMRC did make a direct enquiry re RFC's EBT payments in 2009. No doubt the SFA only supplied them with the taxable contract details that had been registered.

 

Given that the then president of the SFA was the former RFC Company Secretary, and the recipient of a ?95k EBT, and that there were other former RFC employees (and still are) in the SFA, I'm betting that the SFA were fully aware of the EBT payments.

 

Said Campbell Ogivie, in his role of RFC - CS was responsible for setting up an earlier tax dodge - the Discounted Options Scheme. However, HMRC quickly found out about it, declared it illegal and issued a demand for c?2M (still unpaid) which became known as the 'Wee Tax Case'. However, he forgot to tell the Lord Nimmo Smith Enquiry about the DOS scheme. He told NMS that he hadn't been involved at all in the EBT scheme, so of course he couldn't tell NMS that RFC had already admitted tax liability for 5 of the individual EBTs.

 

Why did RFC go the wall, and all the English clubs who operated them didn't? As far as I know, the English clubs didn't waste years in denying the existence of sideletters etc. They relatively quickly came to an agreement with HMRC to pay the tax due over several years. RFC could have done this too, after the sideletters were discovered by the City of London Police in an Ibrox raid in 2007. It would have meant downsizing for a few years - also known as living within your means. David Murray didn't fancy that though, and he also thought he was untouchable. He was wrong, and RFC paid the price.

 

Incidentally, for the Celtic haters. Yes, CFC inherited an EBT when Juninho was transferred from Middlesbrough. However, they were a bit suspicious of it and after taking tax advice, they stopped it and settled all the tax due with HMRC.

 

I am not aware of any other Scottish club which used an EBT scheme.

 

There should be an independent enquiry into the actions of the authorities re their relationship and decisions relating to RFC and its successor club.

 

There are many issues which the authorities need to fully explain, among them -

 

- the issue of European licences to RFC in 2011/12 and possibly for earlier seasons. I know that this has been referred to the SFA's compliance officer, but I'm not hopeful.

- attempts to shoehorn a new club into the SPL and then the First Division.

- did the SFA/SPL know in October 2011 that RFC would be shortly going into administration? If so, did they tell Craig Whyte to try and see out the season? He stopped paying PAYE and VAT, and still only made to February.

- the granting of a 'conditional' SFA licence to enable the new club to play against Brechin City, which didn't exist in the SFA rule book.

- the publication of the infamous 5-way agreement between RFC (old), TRFC (new), SFA, SPL and the SFL.

- exactly what action the SFA took in response to the 2007 HMRC enquiry.

- why did the SFA not realise that the contracts sent by RFC were complete and utter bull? Especially when there were so many ex-RFC employees in positions of power.

This is where it's at. I notice there were none of the usual suspects on to challenge any of it. When you see nothing being reviewed after that list, you know the game's a sham with zero credibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood

I'd have thought if there was a chance of Celtic being looked into for unorthodox EBT use you'd be hugely in favour of a review of our governing body

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...