Paquis

Nope .... definitely not a 'good guy'. But where his interests and ours coincide ...............

SIR DAVID MURRAY TAKES LEGAL ACTION OVER TAX LEAKS(Issued on behalf of Levy & McRae Solicitors and Notaries Public Professor Peter Watson of Levy & McRae has confirmed that he has been instructed by Sir David Murray to submit a complaint to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service regarding the publication of information relating to his tax affairs. Professor Watson said: "Sir David regards such information as private and confidential and the publication of such information as unlawful. He has asked that this matter is investigated and that anyone found guilty of breaching the law is the subject of prosecution." Squeaky bum time at HMRC, for certain 'journalists' and bloggers

At least we have an intellect.

You really need to stop making stuff up. There were 111 trusts of which 108 were actively used. 81 were for Rangers players and 27 for Murray Group employees (FTTT decision, para 96). The rest of your post is fiction and not very good fiction either.

I would leave your socks out of this

Great minds think alike

It really isn't very good. And I simply do not believe that HMRC have told him anything beyond that they are considering an appeal. With a possible police investigation into leaks, they are not going to be telling anyone anything right now. Neither do I believe he has spoken to any 'experts'. Otherwise he would have known that a majority decision is not sufficient cause for an appeal. Finally, he makes an error of fact right at the end: "Meanwhile the wider case for legislation on these loans looks even more overwhelming as the rest of us fork out more tax in return for spending cuts." Did nobody tell him that this already happened in the 2011 budget What a clown

If you are referring to Thomson's blog then, yes, I read it. Frankly, I don't think it is very good.

I have removed most of the quote to save space on the board. Oor Alex is a master at cherry picking the bits he likes. And just about all of it comes from the dissenting opinion. Funny how that happens The dissenting opinion certainly provides some essential information that none of us knew. For example on page 102 para 121. 121. The occasion of Rangers winning the UEFA championship led to six sub-trusts being created for Mr Warwick, Mr Camden, Mr Islington, Mr Kensington, Mr Balham, Far be it for me to doubt the eminent Dr. Poon on statements of fact. However, this little faux-pas might lead to the rest of her narrative being treated with less credibility than it might otherwise deserve. How many other 'facts' has she also got wrong? On the question of the appeal, that can only be on a point of law. The fact that this was a majority decision and not a unanimous one is not a point of law. Finally, HMRC have 56 days to appeal. Appeals are usually heard within 12 to 24 months and the decision takes another 6 to 9 months. So we could easily be looking three years down the road. By that time the old club will be dead and buried so no money there. It also begs the question as to what the SFA/SPL will do. They have clearly been waiting for the FTTT verdict. If it is appealed will they also wait for that?

I wonder if the BBC will also be highlighting their own efforts at tax avoidance in the program

It is, however, normal practice for us to complete a sentence with a single full stop rather than three.

Well, if this business ends up in the Court of Session, I know which perspective will carry the most weight.

That is not what the Tribunal found.

The SFA/SPL have two problems. The first is proving that the EBTs and side letters represent dual contracts in the sense of their own rules and regulations. The second is proving that they were not disclosed. The majority verdict suggests that the EBTs were loans. In paragraph 208, they specifically state that they regard the side letter's obligation does not amount to an emolument. There is nothing in the SFA/SPL regulations that require disclosure of loans. There are also a couple of sections in the dissenting opinion that suggests that disclosure did happen although what was disclosed was rather vague. Given that EBTs had been around for over 10 years before the SFA/SPL discovered they had a problem with them suggests that the vagueness of disclosure was not an impediment. There are some exceptions where the Murray Group admits a tax liability. Not all of these concern footballers although a few do. The first is termination payments. However, given the Juninho precedent, it will be difficult for the SFA/SPL to argue that these should be sanctioned. The second concerns guaranteed bonuses and involves just 5 players. Obviously we do not know which players. However, it is not clear that these bonuses were hidden from the SFA/SPL given the points raised in the dissenting opinion and neither is it clear that these bonuses were the subject of a second contract.

You chaps really seem to have some difficulty when it comes to reading comprehension. I was summarising my understanding of Green's position. Personally, I disagree with him. My own view is that the verdict of the FTT will make it very hard for the SPL to prove that the EBTs and associated side-letters were dual contracts in the sense of the SFA/SPL regulations. Unless HMRC appeal and unless that appeal succeeds, I don't see the SPL or SFA being successful.

What a load of bollox

That is a point of view. Charles Green and his lawyers will disagree with you. Remains to be seen if Green changes tack or if the SPL choose to back off. Otherwise, chances are that this will end up in the Court of Session and I don't think that serves anyone's interests.

Because the 'leaked' information would appear to have come from HMRC. When your information is coming from just one of the parties then it is going to tend towards their version of reality.

Serious answer .... I am not aware of any detailed analysis from a Rangers point of view (other than my own) but I haven't looked either. The blogs that I read take the view that the FTT verdict stands on its own and does not need to be dissected. The ramifications with regard to the SPL inquiry has been looked at by a number of non-Rangers sources. The most interesting one that I have found is that of STV. But there is a twist to all this. The position of Charles Green is that the 'new' Rangers are not members of the SPL and are not subject to their jurisdiction. He also maintains that he 'owns' the titles and that the SPL cannot take away his property. His position was never based on the FTT outcome. I am told that Green's lawyers feel that he has a very strong position in law. While the FTT verdict seriously weakens the SPL view that EBTs and their associated side-letters constituted a second or dual contract will anyone actually get into that argument with them? In the event that Rangers choose to ignore the inquiry (as intimated by Green a while ago) will the 'independent commission' (no laughing at the back) test the strength of the SPL's argument? Then there is the question of the SPL's resolve. No doubt that their position has been weakened by the FTT verdict. There has also been a noticeable change in media attitudes towards Rangers. A general feeling of enough is enough. The SPL might feel that there is nothing to gain either from negative publicity or being dragged through the courts by Green. In that event, look for a 'not proven' verdict in January with the hope that it will all go away quietly.

I read the most recent Broganlogantrevino effort at length and made a fairly long critique last night. It suffers from the same problem as many on this board. It starts off with an opinion and then cherry picks from the FTT judgement to try to find facts to support the prejudged opinion. McConville seems to suffer from the same problem. RTC has tried to do a vanishing act. Fortunately, and despite their best efforts, the content has been preserved for posterity. There are plenty of Rangers blogs around. While they don't have the benefit of leaked information from HMRC or other journalistic support, there are some pretty interesting discussions with regard to what is going on at Rangers.

They are only interested in Rangers

You really should get yourself a life. This obsessing is bad for you.

Ah yes, living within our means .... like Hearts, like Dunfermline, like Dundee (twice in admin), like Motherwell, like Celtic (net loss after taxation of £28.537 million between 2000 and 2010). So Scottish football has a structural problem .... your point? The rest of your post is just the usual bollox.

Oh dear ... there you go again. Clutching at the dissenting opinion like a drowning man clutching at a straw. The past is what it is. There are many things that I would have done differently had I been in charge. But I wasn't. The FTT decision should be the end of this whole saga and should allow us to all move on. Unfortunately it does not seem likely. There are too many agendas, too much hate, too much bile. Already people like yourself are trying to cherry pick in the judgement to support a conclusion that you made months ago. It doesn't work and no amount of cherry picking is going to make it work. You don't like Rangers. Okay we get it. But Rangers are here whether you like it or not and we are not going to go away. Get over it.

Looking back, shutting the f**k up and waiting for the Tribunal to rule might have been a more prudent approach than prejudging everything and spouting a load of bollox.