pozbaird Posted March 6, 2012 Author Share Posted March 6, 2012 What a tit Bartley looks in the thick glasses and baseball cap combo Aye, but getting your initials embroidered into the leather headrest of your Range Rover Sport is pure class... Even if I won Euromillions, and actually bought a Range Rover Sport - if I did that, my wife and best mate would boot me in the stones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 "Rangers have played two home matches since they entered administration - against Kilmarnock and Hearts in the Scottish Premier League. On each occasion at Ibrox, the club drew the biggest attendance in Britain that day, about 51,000 and 47,000 respectively." Aye, but if they keep losing 4000 fans a week then that'll leave them with 11000 by the end of the season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 "We lose to Dundee united and they don't drop points until old firm and win it. They win the league." "Not if Motherwell beat Aberdeen." :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Evening Times has some guy claiming the EBT's were legal and okay LEGAL experts have revealed that Rangers could argue Employee Benefit Trusts do not constitute a contract – as the SPL became the latest organisation to investigate their financial affairs.There have been claims today that the stricken Ibrox club could be stripped of the titles they have won since the inception of the SPL, after the governing body launched a probe into an allegation made by former director Hugh Adam last week that players were given two contracts and ‘under-the-table-payments’ stretching back to the 1990s. The SFA confirmed last Friday they were already looking into the Adam allegations, and the SPL confirmed yesterday: ‘‘SPL rules D9.3 and D1.13 impose a prohibition on players receiving payments for playing football or participating in an activity connected with football except where such payments are made in accordance with a form of contract approved by the SPL and require that all such contracts are submitted to the SPL within 14 days of being entered into.” But Richard Cramer, a lawyer with FrontRow Legal, a firm that specialises in sports business, believes the discretionary nature of payments under trust rules is the opposite of the normal understanding of a contract. Rangers, of course, have already been served a demand by HMRC for their use of EBT’s over a decade; the club’s appeal on that demand to a First Tier Tribunal will rule inside the next month on whether they are liable, and the bill could hit a staggering £49million if it goes against them. But it’s the allegation that SPL and SFA contract legislation has been breached that will be probed by the governing bodies, with a range of sanctions open to them if any wrong-doing is proved. It would appear, however, that EBT’s cannot be considered as ‘second contracts’ as has been claimed. Cramer said today: “Rangers could argue to any inquiry that the EBTs are a private matter between club and player because they involve a discretionary payment. “They could say to the league: ‘Why should we inform you of discretionary payments that do not fall under the umbrella of a normal contract?’ “For example, with EBTs there is no contractual enforcement right. You are relying on the goodwill of your employer and you could advance the argument that if there was no contractual obligation to pay money then there is no binding contract. “There is an argument that the club could simply say that all EBTs fall outside the normal definition of contract. “EBTs have always been a little bit scary from a player’s point of view precisely because it is a discretionary payment. What the player is relying on is the ability of the owner or company to honour the agreement.’’ SportTimes can reveal that Rangers paid its parent company Murray Group a £500,000 fee every season for legal matters to be taken care of, and the administration of player EBTs came under that umbrella. And EBT expert Graeme Nuttall, an independent government, said payments made under the scheme were ‘‘not a contractual right’’. He explained: ‘‘There is no obligation to pay the employee a certain amount of money. “Typically, there would be an expression that you were part of a bonus plan and that would be paid into an employee trust. “So it is not a contractual right for the player to receive a sum of money.’’ A draft letter claiming to outline details of off-shore payments and performance-related incentives issued to an un-named Rangers player was published in a Sunday newspaper nine days ago. Nuttall conceded, however, there would be documentation on both sides. He said: “The player would receive some documentation and there would also be a trust deed. “You would expect letters of instruction from the club. The trustees would have issued guidance that is not strictly legally binding. It all works on a trust basis. “There are a lot of good, genuine employee trusts out there. “It has been a constant frustration to me over the years that employee trusts have been used for tax-driven purposes rather for genuine purposes. “I do not know the details of the scheme at Rangers but I assume it was tax-driven.’’ -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 So, after all this we've had two players leave, with a combined wage of just under £12k per week? What an anti-climax. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_sajTLNl-Y 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 So, after all this we've had two players leave, with a combined wage of just under £12k per week? What an anti-climax. only another 950 grand per month to go! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkboy Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Bartley? Where he stands is in the queue outside the administrators' office with the rest of them. I hope their bunions aren't playing up too much He sounded dense as f**k & utterly without clue. I'd not be totally shocked if the administrators told him he was getting cut & he didn't understand their big words. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betting competition Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Looks like this is going to continue on tomorrow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mik Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I'd not be totally shocked if the administrators told him he was getting cut I hope they do it sharpish I'll get me coat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamish_ict Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I've been amused by the thought of the SPL investigating the EBT as another kick in the stones of Rangers. But what if they are doing is investigating to say that in their eyes it's OK, so Rangers shouldn't get fined. Not sure how much sway that would have with HMRC, but it might be of benefit to gers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 A few hours out-of-the-loop in meetings, and the thread has grown about 10 pages . I understand Wylde offerred to leave, and he + Celik have gone. Has anything else tangible actually happened? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parfecto Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 So who are the mystery three other players asking to leave then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Evening Times has some guy claiming the EBT's were legal and okay Don't see how: "SPL rules D9.3 and D1.13 impose a prohibition on players receiving payments for playing football or participating in an activity connected with football except where such payments are made in accordance with a form of contract approved by the SPL and require that all such contracts are submitted to the SPL within 14 days of being entered into" Discretionary or not, they're still illegal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadSaint Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 "We lose to Dundee united and they don't drop points until old firm and win it. They win the league." "Not if Motherwell beat Aberdeen." :lol: That sums them up for me ...not even interested enough in anyone else bar the OF to realise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergie's no1 fan Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 A few hours out-of-the-loop in meetings, and the thread has grown about 10 pages . I understand Wylde offerred to leave, and he + Celik have gone. Has anything else tangible actually happened? It seems after shaving 50k off the 1,000,000 target the chuckle brothers are now going to re-assess the situation again 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Evening Times has some guy claiming the EBT's were legal and okay Yes properly drafted and administered ebt's would not be contractual as they would be discretionary. The problem with Rangers' ebt's is that the tax authorities are saying that they are not discretionary and so tax should be paid. So if the tax authorities prove they are not discretionary and win their case then the ebt's are contractual and Rangers players have two contracts 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Craig Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I heard Steve Davis was one... Don't know how believable it is... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gav-ffc Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 we should go back to the basics, young ambitious players with a average wage. And excellent win/goal bonus. Simply as fck. This guy is the future! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 6, 2012 Author Share Posted March 6, 2012 It seems after shaving 50k off the 1,000,000 target the chuckle brothers are now going to re-assess the situation again The 'shaving' so far appears to have been made by Wylde and Celik walking away. I might be wrong, but I don't thnk Russell and Smith left kicking and screaming against their will. Wasn't that more of a case of them choosing to go, and the administrators accepting their decision to leave? If so, then Haudit and Daudit haven't even swung a cost-cutting axe, much less bring it down. Everything has been instigated by others. How much are the dynamic administration duo costing? Christ, they should have been appointed on piece-work terms...would have saved a fortune. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 When's mark Hatelys colum out? Oh come on! That really isn't a pleasant image Just when we were all enjoying ourselves I heard Steve Davis was one... A cafflick?!?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.