coprolite

unconvinced by his past form. Has skill definitely. Does he have the nuts to go with it?

That's clearly not what he meant. He meant that MG had to put in less money to pay for players they were getting anyway. It is still a shite argument. He is still a liar and convicted fraudster.

They knew Wes Burns.

the loans are loans. facts are as found by the FTT. no sham. all transactions real and effective. this stuff's all before p4 on the judgement

You can't get a scheme approved by HMRC, despite what some of the more disreputable advisory firms may tell you to flog them.

in response to the Dundee comparison, it depends on the creditors not the SFA. liquidation and admin with CVA are different.

sure. if you put proceeds of crime into one in a false name.

You are confused. Rangers using EBTs for an illegal purpose is very different from using them illegally. It doesn't matter too much though. The point is they acted illegally. They cheated.

salty salty tears. delicious

You are confusing their reason for using it with how they used it. I agree that there would be no real reason for using the trust the way they did absent the tax benefit but that doesn't mean the use was illegal. if i do up old cars and sell them legitemately on ebay but don't tell hmrc, it isn't using ebay to sell cars that is illegal.

I thought that LNS had found that the players were incorrectly registered in the first place, no? they got off because of "no sporting advantage". I can't see why the decision would change because of the tax treatment which is only a bit relevant. The decision was obviously a farce but no one should get their hopes up.

nope. Rangers use of the EBT was entirely legal and above board. This is not and has not been in doubt. The way they reported their PAYE obligations was the problem. Had they done what they did but paid the tax and NI, there would be no issue. Ergo the EBT was not the problem, the tax return was.

The loans were found to be actual bona fide loans as a fact by the FTT. They were not a sham. What the court of session found was that the funds were put at the disposal of employees as a result of their employment, not that they weren't loans.

The outcome was the FTT ruled the EBT scheme was legal. The UTT upheld that decision. HMRC went back to court and challenged not the legality of EBTs but if they eliminated a tax burden at all. On this point HMRC won. The outcome is EBTs are legal, they just don't avoid tax. nobody has ever said that EBTs were illegal, ever, at all. The question was always whether the payments were income from employment in the hands of the players. The ftt was not ruling on the legality or otherwise. They were deciding, wrongly as it turns out, on the tax point.

i weed my pants

According to AFC heritage Jess started that game as well as being an unused substitute. What a player. Those were the days: rachid's overhead kicks; arild's hair; the conga; miniskirts. If it wasn't for the mediocre squad fillers and terrible results it would have been great.

miniskirts min! This is evidence only that familiarity breeds contempt and that it takes a while to see the flaws.

Don't be so defeatist. Hamilton might finish below you.

itk and organised!

I have convinced myself that you are ITK and that we are in advanced talks with all of the above. if they don't all sign i will hold you responsible. how come there is a two day deadline?

inebriation is no excuse. if it was, then the papers are all in the clear.

thanks. the birmingham forums were pretty uninformative (although they did say he was a winger) and were written in that whiny accent.

Does anybody know why things don't appear to have worked out so well for Stewart at Birmingham?

One time a tramp told me a story that involved a talking horse. Sadly, it appears that wee Joe may be heading down that road. Or he just put his name to any old pish that the journo made up, probably for some money.

You should lump the whole war chest on Walker. he's great. Mcclean's shite.