Rangers Rumours Archive November 20 2012

 

Use our rumours form to send us rangers transfer rumours.


20 Nov 2012 19:22:17
It is possible that HMRC would have deducted any payments made, from the historical 'assumed debts', and the current due debt would not have been reduced. I say possible but only those in charge could confirm.
This method is used by them frequently, because although payments are calculated by companies for current tax liabilities the allocation, when paid, is down to the authorities.
I am trying to see the logic for non-payment by whyte and the pursuance of administration/liquidation by both of them.
Finally it cannot be emphasised enough the effect this had on any possible cva. Take away Ticketus[ whyte's debt] and ['big tax case+interest'], then a cva would have been a more practical proposition to all concerned. We cannot turn the clock back but certain organisations must come in for closer scrutiny.

Believable76 Unbelievable21

Yeah I really do not know what to make of it all. I am scratching my head asking why was there the rush for liquidation which on hindsight seems to have been the goal.

I am of the opinion that today is really only a victory for David Murray. The players are to be chased for money (could be trickey given most have probably left these shores) and us the fans are now heading to places like Stirling.

Not only that but I feel that the defence used has left us open to the football authorities hammering us as essentially it looks like to prove the case in Murrays favour was to admit breach of SFA and SPL rules.

As the poster states surely the liabilities would not have been that high had we seen it out. Thanks a lot Mr Murray - you obviously have the clubs interests rotted firmly at heart!

Agree0 Disagree1

It now becomes apparent that the big tax case didn't sink rangers although there were tens of millions in other debts when Whyte bought the club from Murray. But the club costs at the time relied on champions league group stage £20m year on year to survive.
Ally's first attempt and failure at CL automatically sunk the club into admin.
No one can contest this.

Agree0 Disagree4

Nice post very true.

Agree0 Disagree2

A big mess just got even bigger. I really think it would have been better to have lost outright and had some closure. The damage has already been done. Now this will just drag on , more money for lawyers , worried ebt recipients , god forbid another tax man appeal.aick of it just want the Gers to move on and up.

Agree0 Disagree0

To me it seems like panic stations in this sorry mess the fans deserved better a panic sell the sooner all this talk is over the better whats done is done move forward bad management from the top and a quick sell

Agree0 Disagree0

The only reason EBT's existed were to avoid tax and no one can disagree with that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rangers used them to pay players a higher wages tax free . PLAYERS accepted it as tax free income and we all know that!!!

If it is a loan then all 111 people owe the tax man lots of cash so I take it they will pay??? If they dont want to pay then It proves it's a tax scam which we all deep down know it is anyway.

Agree1 Disagree1

The 111 people don't owe the tax man anything. They owe the oldco as the money they were given were loans not a part of there wage. So the question is when are these people going to pay back the money they owe us. And lets start with the ones that are still around.

Agree0 Disagree0

21 Nov 2012 08:36:57
It should be clear that this was an appeal by Rangers/MIM to a claim by HMRC. Hmrc must regret not taking the £10m offered by MIM in 2010 after a history of losing all cases against EBT,s Yes it was avoidance but legal until 2011 If SFA/SPL had read the submitted annual accounts they might have questioned "where does this Rangers Trust money end up" Is C Ogilvie now staying in office repaying loan with deduction for tax?
Rangers must now move on leaving Regan,Lawell,Sutherland,Thomson,Brown,Petrie et all with the only sensible base a Eufa run [tv sponsered] Atlantic league where they can achieve competative watchable saturday football If as reported Bolton,with £30m tv money have a debt in excess of £100m we should certainly be looking beyond England for a business model

Agree0 Disagree0

Am a gers man and apologise sir david murry he done nothing wrong and was right allalong

Agree2 Disagree0

The loan trust is seperate from the Oldco and no tax is liable for the majority of cases. There may be a few EBTs with dual contracts and the individuals will have to pay HMRC the tax liability. It is these individual cases that the SPL will consider as a breach of disclosure, but I doubt it will justify any stripping of titles.

SDM had no way of knowing the appeal would be successful and a 2-1 majority reflects how uncertain the outcome was.
Considering the disastrous consequences to SDM personally, it is understandable he wasn't prepared to risk a coin toss.

As for all the shouting about moral integrity and tax cheats, get real, tax avoidance is the status quo for every business. Even if HMRC appeal and win it will not affect Rangers punishment from the SPL, the charge is non-disclosure of dual contracts not EBTs.

The reality is Rangers paid the ultimate price for flying too high, and the fans must drop all this nonsense about an anti-Rangers conspiracy, HMRC set the agenda not the SFA or SPL.

There is no point on harping on about what could have been, hindsight is always 20-20, its time to focus on football and a return to the SPL and Europe.

For all intensive purposes this debacle is over, time to move on.

Agree1 Disagree2

Is there a chance that this money can now be recovered back to the old version club, used to pay the other debts and then we go back to where we were and in a pretty healty situation financially?

While I ask this I am aware that with the time involved in these type of circumstances we will prob be back in the top flight anyway with the route we are currently taking.

Agree0 Disagree0

I agree all should pay the loan back, if it's not a wage it is a loan so it should be paid back and the money should go to creditors.

Agree0 Disagree0

"The 111 people don't owe the tax man anything. They owe the oldco as the money they were given were loans not a part of there wage. So the question is when are these people going to pay back the money they owe us. And lets start with the ones that are still around."

EBTs were paid to players by a Trust, wholly separate from the club. The club paid money into this trust, and that is where their involvement ended. No-one is going to have to pay back these loans, the trusts no longer exist and are not seeking the re-payment. The taxman is owed a far smaller sum, payable by the old RFC company, due to a small number of improperly administered EBT payments.

Agree1 Disagree0

I agree it was bad management from our directors that caused the sell off of the club time to move on

Agree1 Disagree0

The main thing is they can't take our titles we never "cheated"..we have our history we have good honest owners even walter's back we have plenty to look forward to the sooner this dies out the better..kev

Agree3 Disagree0

None of the loan recipients owe the oldco anything, the loans were provided by a trust and the beneficiaries of the trust are the families of the loan recipients.

The report does not clear every case, just most of them, the SPL will punish Rangers for failing to disclose these non-loans. I doubt it will involve titles, just fines that must be paid if they want back in the SPL.

HMRC are not guilty of anything, Rangers were guilty of failing to pay HMRC any contributions from June 2011 to Feb 2012, and for this they were liquidated and rightly punished by the trading association they are a member of.

Please stop trying to shift the blame onto everyone but Rangers, it makes you sound deranged.

Agree0 Disagree2

If the old club are dead & this is a new "debt free" club there is no history when The Rangers win the 3rd division it will be the 1 title they have won, they still died in massive debt not just to the taxman, if admin had worked the history stays intact & the debtors at least get some money but Glasgow Rangers folded a NEW club (company) was formed hence NO history, its not complicated

Agree0 Disagree3

If the liquidators demand the repayment of these "so called" loans, does anyone really think that the players will hand back a total of £46 million and say `thank you, that really helped me when i needed a payday loan` or will they say sorry a far as i am concerned the money was an agreed CONTRACTUAL payment. There may be a few twists and turns to come.

chasaboy

Agree0 Disagree1

Kev - you are 100% correct the football authorities cannot take any titles from your club because you are a new club with no titles to remove. they can only be taken from the real rangers football club who are in liquidation.

Agree0 Disagree2

The loans are not owed to the liquidator, they are owed to the Trust which is a seperate entity.

I don't believe titles will be stripped, however it is surreal to refer to a liquidated football club as the most successful club in the world, it doesn't matter which way one tries to slice and dice it.

Agree0 Disagree2

We nee to just accept the FACT that chronic mismanagement of the club was to blame, simple.

Agree0 Disagree0

Now that we won the tax case surely that means hmrc couldnt have been the biggest creditor yet had more influence over the cva surely theres an argument there

Agree0 Disagree0

HMRC was under no obligation to accept the CVA, which would probably have landed them more money regardless of the BTC.

Unfortunately the other taxes alone forced the company into administration and HMRC voted against the CVA "on principle". In short, a newco would have happened anyway.

Agree0 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 19:41:14
All these guys saying that the players are liable for the loans are talking nonsense. Only if the trustees (who are working for David Murray) request the money back will it have to be paid, and there is little chance of this happenin. Also all those east end tax experts are chewing their nose now. SPL cannot win case as payment classed as loans and not contractual payments.

Believable53 Unbelievable30

Irrespective if EBT were classed as loans or not, they were not disclosed to SPL thus in breach...go read the report more fully.

Agree1 Disagree3

Depends on what else was/wasn't in contracts.

Agree1 Disagree1

SPL must win case as loan was part of contract and not submitted.

Agree1 Disagree3

Oh my god, this WAS not part of contract, it was a loan. Can you read or hear?

Agree1 Disagree0

What is wrong with you guys. They were declared loans which means not part of contracts. They were a discretionary payment and as such are not part of contract.

Agree1 Disagree0

We've just found out that all clubs in SPL will lose all trophies I any player has been found to take a loan fom a company outside their club.
EG Murray Group, HSBC, WONGA.
This means all trophies for last 12 years will be stripped in all competitions.

PLAYERS ARE NOT ALLOWED LOANS EVEN FROM A BANK.

Is that what is being said here??

Skme folk need to give themselves peace.
Loans are allows in the rule book...loans are not part of a salary...hence why they are alled loans and subject o repayment terms laid down by trustees.

Agree1 Disagree0

Arre they not allowed mortgages either...does the SPL have to know about them too? Credit Cards, etc?

where does it all end....

HMRC pursured a club for a fantasy bill...big questions need asked.
As for Scottish football...the lot of you are a disgrace...you lampooned an club and now look....YOU WERE WRONG....alot of people will be waking up thsi mornign feeling like right t**ts....and don't expect Rangers to do anythign but stick the kniofe in and twist it when the going gets tough for everyone else...

Agree1 Disagree0

Really worried about this now - i've got a £400 overdraft at the bank, but i haven't told my boss about it. Perhaps i won't be allowed to go to SPL games again?

Agree1 Disagree0

21 Nov 2012 15:53:06
I think the cigars should be put back into the box untill we all read the findings again = this is not over!

Agree0 Disagree2

The liquidators will request it back then you will get the players side of events thats when the cookie will crumble

Agree0 Disagree0

The liquidators cannot request it back as it was an MIH trustee scheme ya balloons not a Rangers one

Agree0 Disagree0

Don't know wot anyone else thinks but I'm sickened to think all these overpaid mercenaries and directors. We're abiding tax legally or not while I paid to watch them week in week out. Having full tax deducted from minimum pay wage. Feel like a total mug now and sickened by it

Agree0 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 17:35:24
MSM saying the old club have "won" the tax case, if they cared to report it accurately the liability is reduced, not eradicated.
It makes the SPL case even more cut and shut because there have been payments made to employees but players specifically that weren't disclosed!

Believable42 Unbelievable72

Titter titter, timmy ! get over yersel.It must be so painfull for you to witness the might of the Rangers Jugernaut. look over yer shoulder. the fight back is gathering pace. lovin it , lovin the obsession smeltic fans have with Scotlands big team.

Agree9 Disagree1

35 players now to be persued...some victory...

Agree2 Disagree5

Ok so if this was the case why would they use the word won because by your statement it makes it even more easier for oldco to be found guilty so why bother saying they had won anything??confused.com

Agree2 Disagree0

Not just players but managers etc as well....including Ally? {The Ed039's Note - No record of Ally being in receipt of any of these schemes)

Agree2 Disagree0

This is a victory for rangers no matter what celtic fans try and say.we have been found not guilty of tax avoidance this is what the witch hunt was all about accusing us of tax avoidance get it round the doubters ..kev watp

Agree3 Disagree0

Garbage!!!

The ebts were LOANS, therefore there was no need to disclose them to anyone!!

If a player got a loan to buy a house would they need to disclose this to the spl.....no they wouldnt!!

A LOAN is a LOAN....NOT a dual contract/side contract!!!

Try to understand this!!

Agree3 Disagree0

Ed- Does this mean there is now no case to answer with regard to stripping us of titles and cups?. {The Ed039's Note - There will still be an investigation by the SPL and they will come to their own conclusion so no point in second guessing, it depends on whether they also consider these payments indeed to be a "loan", but lets be real, and this is coming from a Rangers supporter through and through, we all know what these payments really were and what they were supposed to do, it just in the eyes of a very complicated law system)

Agree2 Disagree0

It says the payments were loans that ARE recoverable. it does not state anywhere that these loans need to or indeed will be recovered. simple as we won the case, we didnt cheat we were just simply the best.

Agree1 Disagree0

The SPL/SFA witch-hunt is blown out the water now: so tell me when are the resignations starting at these corrupt institutions? 54 and counting.

Agree1 Disagree0

All payments were specifically included in the Accounts, in a scheme that has been proved to be legal - so in what way were they not disclosed? Dubious practice - yes. Illegal - definitely not.

Agree0 Disagree0

If side letters had existed then surely these would have been contractual payments and therefore illegal. The fact that they are being considered as loans means the side letters are either non-existent or irrelevant. I wonder if the SPLSFA will see it this way...

Agree0 Disagree0

All this gloating is like a murderer let off on a technicality and gloating to the victim's family. Quite tasteless, just like that of other fans gloating about the 'death' of Rangers.

Agree0 Disagree1

Ed. I'm surprised at your comments re 'we all know what these payments really were'. They were loans through an EBT scheme. Im not saying its right or wrong. Dodgy practice yes but not illegal. Many organisations used these and many people have benefited from them - including many EPL players. HMRC chose to take on Rangers and have been proven wrong to do so. They should take a look at themselves and many

Agree0 Disagree0

I don't hear much gloating mate. What we should hear is people like you apologising for the witch hunt and coming out in support of Rangers who have been taken to liquidation because HMRC decided they would treat them as a test case and try to make an example of them. I'm a Pompey fan and if I was a rangers fan I'd be furious. How can HMRC get away with this? Rangers should sue them as should every creditor who would have benefited from a CVA which could have been agreed. Shame on you mate for gloating at this total injustice. Good luck Gers fans

Agree0 Disagree0

I think theirs a big diff between a murderer what planet you on boy

Agree0 Disagree0

As far as i have read all EBT s were disclosed in accounts so open for all to read

Agree0 Disagree0

Time to draw a line on this the real losers are the rangers fans and small creditors the rest is dribble

Agree0 Disagree0

"The Ed039's Note - There will still be an investigation by the SPL and they will come to their own conclusion so no point in second guessing, it depends on whether they also consider these payments indeed to be a "loan", but lets be real, and this is coming from a Rangers supporter through and through, we all know what these payments really were and what they were supposed to do, it just in the eyes of a very complicated law system" - I disagree entirely, the FTT have decreed that these transactions were not payments but were loans, which were to be repaid (in principle.....the fact that they won't be is not an issue). The SPL would be on incredibly shaky ground if they ignored this definition and arbitrarily announced the same transactions to be salary payments, and there is no way that their ruling on the matter would stand up to legal scrutiny. It's similar, but not identical, to the legal notion of precedent. The court will find that the transactions have been defined properly and after much deliberation by a body of experts (i.e. the tribunal), and that will stand.

Agree0 Disagree0

As a rangers fan her,s hopping that rangers takes out a writ against all these clubs in the sphell that called rangers cheats and that includes smelick w.a.t.p

Agree0 Disagree0

Rangers have done nothing wrong. The EBT scheme was disclosed on the yearly accounts which are then signed off by the SPL to allow the club to participate in the league.

If the SPL/SFA try to remove titles this will be wrong as a court of law has proven that the money given was a "loan". What would happen if the SPL/SFA stripped Rangers of titles and then all of the players/staff repaid the loan?

The Pilot!

Agree0 Disagree0

Worst legal decision since the OJ Simpson murder trial. Guaranteed to be overturned on appeal. These so called loans were given for one reason only,to gain an unfair advantage

Agree0 Disagree0

Does it matter rangers will still be liquidated

Agree0 Disagree0

It really makes no difference if ebt's where included in the company accounts "for all to see". It hinges on the facts if or if not they where disclosed to the SPL/SFA. Tax tribunal result has no bearing as we are looking at the rules of the governing bodies not a court of law. If you need an example two words; John Terry.

Agree0 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 17:22:13
For those getting their information from the BBC, read it!

The former Rangers Football Club has won an appeal against a tax bill over its use of Employee Benefit Trusts.

The club, which is now in liquidation, used the scheme from 2001 to 2010 to make £47.65m in payments to players and staff in the form of tax-free loans.

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) had challenged the payments, arguing that they were illegal.

Read it again!!
"The majority view reflects the argument that the controversial monies received by the employees were not paid to them as their absolute entitlement.

"The legal effect of the trust/loan structure is sufficient to preclude this. Thus the payments are loans, not earnings, and so are recoverable from the employee or his estate.

Believable45 Unbelievable11

20 Nov 2012 17:06:07
"Thus the payments are loans, not earnings, and so are recoverable from the employee or his estate."
Leaves the door wide open for the SPL/SFA's tribunal, the payments made were not as a result of the disclosed contracts, rather they were facilitated by side letters/secondary contracts.

Believable13 Unbelievable23

Its a certainty now that Rangers will be found guilty of undisclosed payments to players that were not in contracts. This case has just proved it and the players and managers etc will be chased for the money they cheated the taxman out of.

Agree0 Disagree2

The ruling states "loan not payment" so surely there is no case to answer to SPL inquest as a loan by definition is something to be paid back

Agree0 Disagree0

"they cheated the taxman"

I think you'll find that the result today means this is emphatically not the case.

I'm also wondering if the SPL, etc do in fact have a case. Do loans need to be disclosed under the SFASPL rules?

Agree1 Disagree0

"Loans" by definition are not contractual. So side letters/secondary contracts definitely NOT in place for these. Otherwise they would not have been "Loans".

Agree0 Disagree0

What a clown. Loans not payments is what it says. Show me where the SPL or SFA rules say a loan must be disclosed? I think you may struggle with that one Timmy. So in summary, there was no tax evasion and no dual contracts. That means no cheating. HMRC have through their witch hunt taken us to liquidation. Before anyone says that was Whyte who did that, have a think. Whyte would never have been near ibrox had the big tax case not been created by HMRC. There would have been many more investors interested and Whyte would not have had as sniff. Post Whyte a CVA would have been agreed had this fictional tax case not existed. It's totally unacceptable that HMRC have behaved in this way. Rangers and many of the creditors should be looking at their legal options as surely there is a strong case for suing them? Lets see how many EPL clubs HMRC go after now? I suspect none as Timmy who was the leading the case will be happy having achieved part of his objective. Good try but we are still here. Oh...and isnt it time for some aplogies and grovelling from the elite in the SPL ? Lets see whose man enough to stand up. Itbwould be nice but wont make a real difference as we will never forget.

Agree1 Disagree0

As a rangers fan i totaly agree with the o.p an appology is long overdue from these cowards and the teams they support in the sphell north ayrshire loyal w.a.t.p

Agree0 Disagree0

So now the players (ALL SPL) have to declare any loans they get?

Agree0 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 17:05:23
Does anybody know if there is any form of recourse against HMRC. They put us into liquidation by not accepting the CVA. Clearly that should have been accepted as they thought they would win, and that the pence in the pound was not enough.
They have delayed sale of Rangers from Murray because this was hanging over our heads. They refused Greens CVA proposals, when clearly they should not have. They have liquidated us and we WIN the case!

Believable45 Unbelievable19

You where liquidated because of last years 14 million tax bill nothing to do with this case

Agree0 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 18:07:26
HMRC did not put Rangers into liquidation, Rangers spending more money that they earned put them into liquidation {The Ed039's Note - Doesnt every club spend more than they pull in? So does that mean every club should go into liquidation?)

Agree1 Disagree0

Rangers went into liquidation as they failed to pay £14m of tax and vat.

Agree1 Disagree0

SDM put Rangers into liquidation by selling it to a man with no money, he panicked believing they would lose their appeal. {The Ed039's Note - True)

Agree0 Disagree0

HMRC do not agree to CVA's if it is for "non compliance".That was the case with Rangers. Read the criteria on the HMRC website it is very clear.i.e current taxation liabilities!

Agree0 Disagree0

"You where liquidated because of last years 14 million tax bill nothing to do with this case"

I think you'll find it was The Rangers Football Club PLC that was liquidated and not the OP...

Agree0 Disagree0

It was Whytes tax bill that put us under - unfortuately it was probably the other potential bill hanging over that started brought Whyte on board and led to his recklesness.

Agree0 Disagree0

And the 20 million owed to ticketus that was used to pay off loyyds people seem to forget if it wasnt for the ticketus deal you would still owe 20 million to the bank who was puttingt pressure on the club already

Agree0 Disagree0

I think you'll find it was The Rangers Football Club PLC that was liquidated and not the OP... how do you know who the op is ?? green man pops up every where

Agree0 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 16:36:08
Rangers have won a significant victory in their tax battle with HMRC with a tax tribunal ruling that payments made to some Rangers players through trusts were loans.

The three-person First Tier Tax Tribunal could not reach a unanimous decision on the club's use of Employee Benefit Trusts between 2001 and 2010.

It found most of the trusts were "valid" and loans are "recoverable" by the trust, although it conceded some advances to players were taxable and any bill is likely to be "substantially reduced" from the initial £46.2m assessment.

WATP. RTID :) :) :)

Believable26 Unbelievable15

Let's Hope Thats An End 2 It!! WATP!!

Agree0 Disagree0

Not that simple folks. Watch for a avalanche of creditors suing for loans to be repaid. A lot of recipients didn't want this result

Agree0 Disagree1

Haven't felt this good in ages! early christmas present for the rangers family!

Agree1 Disagree0

The best thing to come from this is that the creditors will now be entitles to a slightly bigger proportion of the money in the old company

Agree0 Disagree0

Strange ... I would have thought that old/new Rangers support would have ben happier to have lost the case .... that way their 'heroes' would be in the clear as it would be an issue for the directors of old rangers and the liquidators/HMRC to resolve .... now the trust/liquidators are oing to hound every past player, manager and director for repayment of the 'loans' .... {The Ed039's Note - Then thats a job for them to do then)

Agree0 Disagree0

Oh dear dear timothy wont be happy.

Agree1 Disagree0

Innocent for tax, guilty for stupidity now we flushed our club for a few million, very hollow victory

we could have sold 3 players ...but no liquidation and they left for nothing.

very bad advice, jumped the gun before the decision

Agree0 Disagree0

Decision doesn't affect SPL in relation to non-disclosure of dual contracts.

Decision doesn't affect liquidation except for prefered creditors( HMRC).

Decision may be appealed by HMRC.

Makes the panic decision by SDM to sell to CW even more tragic.

HMRC would have refused CVA purely on the grounds of CW's governance while in charge.

Agree0 Disagree0

@8 yes it does because it was a loan not a second contract so therefore didn't need to be disclosed to the authorities no titles can be striped if this is the case

Agree1 Disagree0

I'm even angrier now - Murray sold us to that shyster Whyte and he ruined us deliberately.

Agree0 Disagree0

Yes they say loan didnt need disclosed.

but now wait for every sing beneficiery to come out and say theyv signed a document declaring they did not have to pay loan back.

would a highly paid footballer risk thier financial portfolio by commiting to a contract were they have to pay back a percentage of thus earnings.

this will go deeper and deeper.

Agree0 Disagree0

The comment above about creditors suing for loans to be repaid,SUE who

Agree0 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 22:50:29
Its only a game. Andymac.

Agree0 Disagree0

Final bill early dec we will still owe money to hmrc just not the amounts stated earlier in this saga,as for joint contracts we wait and see but lawyers for rangers did say in court we didnt give spl /sfa knowledge of these contracts

Agree0 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 16:18:02
Former Rangers Football Club wins Big Tax Case appeal
The front of Rangers' Ibrox Stadium The former Rangers Football Club was placed into administration in February

The former Rangers Football Club has won an appeal against a tax bill over its use of Employee Benefit Trusts.


SOURCE THE BBC

Believable20 Unbelievable11

20 Nov 2012 16:03:00
any news on the tax case

Believable6 Unbelievable6

Rangers NOT GUILTY
SOURCE BBC

Agree1 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 16:54:21
Its WON mate. Think the timmies will be a tad lost for words for a wee while lol RTID

Agree2 Disagree0

Aye, we won!!!!

Agree2 Disagree0

-----we won-----

Agree2 Disagree0

Rangers have won the EBT Tax Case NOT GUILTY

Agree2 Disagree0

Don't think any timmies will be bothered as what difference does it make ? Do you think all the former employees will be clamouring to repay their "loans" and who would they repay them to ? David Murray ? Craig Whyte ? or the RFF ?

Agree0 Disagree1

They would repay them to oldco, ie. BDO?

Agree0 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 23:17:46
Well the fact that all we have had from the timothys for months is Hector this and Hector that. Tax avoidance this and tax avoidance that.

Agree0 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 15:35:10
Im not normally annoyed by things but the SPL's idea of two 12 team leagues etc are just plain junk. Anything to keep the overpaid jobs for the boys. Without real change at the top to the bottom the Scottish league system will continue to wither with or without the old firm. CheltBlue

Believable19 Unbelievable5

We've just won the Big tax case !!

Agree0 Disagree0

To those who say 'loans' aren't payments therefore are not affected by SPL enquiry.., some bad news I am afraid.

'Preferential loans' i.e. those that are offered at non commercial interest ARE classed as benefits...
In the same way as the 'loan' of a company car from club to player confers a benefit (beneficial use of vehicle) and needs to be declared in the players contract, so the 'loan' of money at non commercial interest rates also confers a benefit (free use of the money.. e.g. saving on mortgage interest payments) and needs to be declared in the same way.

Remember, the reason for declaring player contracts is to prevent anything that could be construed as 'bungs' ,'backhanders' and suchlike so as to stop match fixing or tapping up and the like.

Any benefit relating to footballing activity that could - in theory - be used to induce such activity, needs to be declared.

Put it this like this: If I was to bribe a referee with cash to influence the result of a match, it would clearly fall foul of the rules, Yes?
Would paying them off by means of an EBT loan instead be OK? Of course not!
This is why the SPL enquiry has not been dropped... there is still a case to answer!

Agree0 Disagree0

 
Change Consent