ribzanelli Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The proof woud be in the hands of Agents...The hands of ex players...if it was 'common practice' do you not think we woud have heard about it by now? Do you not think we would have seen these contracts? Fair doos but surely any agent or player who is essentially complicit in this wouldn't stick their head above the parapet and admit their involvement? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Tbf as uncomfortable as Adam's accusations and Thomson's expose (thusfar) will be for SFA and SPL: any big consequences come down to evidence. If someone - be it Adam, Thomson, or AN Other - produces the double contracts (or other suitable evidence of things not being lodged with SFA which should've), that's the big bomb set-off Ogilvie isn't going to resign, and Rangers aren't going to be punished, over accusations alone. Edited March 21, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Yes, that's why Stratchclyde's finest are taking time from such an overworked schedule, just to confirm that everything has been done to the letter of the law, and is above board. That's also why the SFA have demanded clubs disclose in full details of all payment structures to their staff, because Rangers have absolutely nothign to hide on the issue. Nothing to see here. Oh no. Everyone's made it up. Oh yes. from one of the more "level headed" Rangers posters that's pretty embarrassing stuff tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 FFS...THERE IS NO PROOF....NONE!! Not from me...IF there has been financial wrong doing then i would expect Rangers, or any other club, to be punished to the full extent of the law.. regardless of where that left us. The definition of wishful thinking is idiots like yourself who waited days for this to break only to find out there is nothing but the ramblings of a sick , old, embittered ex employee who is in failing health and hitting out at Sir David Murray one last time. Show us the contracts. Show us the missing Millions from the clubs audited accounts. What about that contract in the Sun on Sunday? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The whole thing about "double contracts" is becoming a matter of semantics - the suggestion is that payments made outwith the contract lodged with the SFA (eg, EBT payments) may have been administered in such a way that it amounted to a contractual payment (ie via side letters). Anyone who thinks that Rangers literally gave players two contracts, one for SFA eyes and one for their own eyes, doesn't understand the allegation. Even if those payments were NOT done with "a second contract", it is still possible that they would be in breach of SFA/SPL rules and would therefore invalidate the registrations. If details of those payments went to the SFA then there would be no case to answer*. As it seems almost certain they didn't, the question is - were those EBT transactions in breach of the rules? The argument will then be on whether they were not related to football, whether they were truly discretionary and whether they were proper EBT transactions. It has been heavily suggested that there is evidence that will show that they were effectively contractual payments and as such should both have been taxed, and should have been lodged with footballing authorities. *If details of those payments DID go to the SFA, then it's more or less a stick on that RFC would lose the big tax case. After all, if it's part of the contract, why would it not be taxed? Hugh Adam does seem to indicate that paying players outwith their registered contracts was common place in football. Perhaps this is why the SFA are now asking other clubs to confirm they have complied with the rules? After all, it it really is/was the norm, then why should Rangers be punished and nobody else? It seems incredibly unlikely that anyone would go back saying "yes, we've been cheating for the last 10 years, sorry about that". How the SFA would then investigate any further is open to question - but as nobody else has a widely publicized case where the use and legality of a tax avoidance mechanism is under question, why would they need to investigate further? It may merely be a tactic to ensure that Rangers (and former directors) are open in admitting to how they were paying players outwith the contracts that were registered. The SFA govern Scottish Football - how many clubs do we think are likely to have some sort of extra payment scheme in the period in question? (ie the last ten years). I just think it's highly unlikely that St Mirren or the vast majority would bother to set up some manner of paying their players "off the books" in modern times. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (PS I'm not calling for Rangers to be closed down immediately and Ibrox levelled and turned into a giant car park. I'm just asking they they are held to account for what they have done and punished accordingly. We are at the beginning of a long process of uncovering wrongdoing and apparent corruption in the Scottish game. If Rangers of course are proven to have done absolutely nothing wrong and are, as you boldly proclaim, whyter than whyte- then fair enough- I shall apologise and withdraw the remarks). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebud Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 FFS...THERE IS NO PROOF....NONE!! Not from me...IF there has been financial wrong doing then i would expect Rangers, or any other club, to be punished to the full extent of the law.. regardless of where that left us. The definition of wishful thinking is idiots like yourself who waited days for this to break only to find out there is nothing but the ramblings of a sick , old, embittered ex employee who is in failing health and hitting out at Sir David Murray one last time. Show us the contracts. Show us the missing Millions from the clubs audited accounts. The "EBT's" are in the audited accounts so no need to look for the missing millions, the contracts for the "EBT's" is what this is really all about. Whether they will surface (if they are there) neither you or I know for sure. However I'm pretty sure 3 months ago you wouldn't have thought any of the revelations/shennanigans/(admin/liquidation)/75% wage cuts etc. were trully on the horizon and they've all come to pass!! I'll take most of your posturing with a "pinch of salt" if you don't mind. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raith Against The Machine Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Is there any element of amnesty in these letters the SFA have sent to the clubs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Is there any element of amnesty in these letters the SFA have sent to the clubs? It hasn't been mentioned. I'd imagine they'll clamp down harder on teams who are found not to have disclosed them, but I suspect that teams which do will be punished. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 FFS...THERE IS NO PROOF....NONE!! Not from me...IF there has been financial wrong doing then i would expect Rangers, or any other club, to be punished to the full extent of the law.. regardless of where that left us. The definition of wishful thinking is idiots like yourself who waited days for this to break only to find out there is nothing but the ramblings of a sick , old, embittered ex employee who is in failing health and hitting out at Sir David Murray one last time. Show us the contracts. Show us the missing Millions from the clubs audited accounts. You could be right. But wishing it isn't enough. I think most people who care about Scottish football would wish all this hadn't happened with Rangers. Unless you know the precise detail then you cannot say one way or the other what actually happened. Given that most people know that Scottish football is institutionally corrupt, then what is coming out of Rangers fits. Rather than trying to pretend it was a (wee) big boy what did it and then ran away, use it as the basis of getting it right next time. But first of all you need to understand exactly what went wrong. (BTW Whyte has not gone away. He may be quiet and lying low but you can be totally sure once someone puts the ball on the centre circle, he will be out of the tunnel like a whippet. Despite what the administrators may say in their continual bluster which always implies more than the reality). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Is there any element of amnesty in these letters the SFA have sent to the clubs? If everyone wrote back saying "yeah, I mean, who didn't pay their players outwith the contracts?" then I suspect it will end up as an amnesty. But does anyone expect many if any to do anything other than reply saying "we can confirm that we have complied with the rules"? The point is that Rangers have to reply, and if they say "we have not paid our players anything other than what it says in the contracts you already have" then Mr SFA is going to say "errrrrr....... what's this Big Tax Case thing all about then?". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) How easy is it going to be for SFA to uncover the possible plethora of 'extra' payments unless clubs admit them? And if the answer is "not very easy' - then surely it's a bit optimistic to expect many/any to admit it, unless it's in accounts etc.? EDIT: ColinM essentiually got there first!! Edited March 21, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Good wee article from Left Foot Forward: http://www.leftfootf...ce-tangled-web/ Before you start, Left Foot refers to political leanings, not religious ones. Why? Its a rehashing of existing stories written by some random oncologist at UCL. I wonder how many of his colleagues on short them contracts have used IR35 over the years. Edited March 21, 2012 by dorlomin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Yes, that's why Stratchclyde's finest are taking time from such an overworked schedule, just to confirm that everything has been done to the letter of the law, and is above board. That's also why the SFA have demanded clubs disclose in full details of all payment structures to their staff, because Rangers have absolutely nothign to hide on the issue. Nothing to see here. Oh no. Everyone's made it up. Oh yes. from one of the more "level headed" Rangers posters that's pretty embarrassing stuff tbh. I have said repeatedly that IF Rangers , or any other club, is found to have made these double payments then they deserve EVERYTHING they get. I have to say everytime one of these big exposes comes along i fear the worst. I had no idea this would be as painful and like most others just want it to be over. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dungolfin Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 If everyone wrote back saying "yeah, I mean, who didn't pay their players outwith the contracts?" then I suspect it will end up as an amnesty. But does anyone expect many if any to do anything other than reply saying "we can confirm that we have complied with the rules"? The point is that Rangers have to reply, and if they say "we have not paid our players anything other than what it says in the contracts you already have" then Mr SFA is going to say "errrrrr....... what's this Big Tax Case thing all about then?". What the letters will do, with respect to Rangers, is force the club and those in charge at this time to state 'on the record' that there were no hidden contracts. Should it then prove to be the case that there were indeed unlawful payments then the SFA can justifiably take action having given them an opportunity to come clean. I'd be interested to see if the SFA or indeed UEFA will contact former players now overseas and outwith the goldfish bowl such as Laudrup, Cannigia and De Boer to ask what they understood the situation to be. I suspect their view of 'discretionary payments' might be different to Sir David Murray's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 If everyone wrote back saying "yeah, I mean, who didn't pay their players outwith the contracts?" then I suspect it will end up as an amnesty. But does anyone expect many if any to do anything other than reply saying "we can confirm that we have complied with the rules"? The point is that Rangers have to reply, and if they say "we have not paid our players anything other than what it says in the contracts you already have" then Mr SFA is going to say "errrrrr....... what's this Big Tax Case thing all about then?". Were the EBTs not given as 'Loans'? I thought the idea was you made these 'loans' out to the players but the understanding was they never paid them back.. The problem Rangers had was they gave the agents letters saying that the 'Loans' did not have to be paid back..which then made them payments...HMRCs problem is they coud not produce any of these letters during the Big Tax Case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Were the EBTs not given as 'Loans'? I thought the idea was you made these 'loans' out to the players but the understanding was they never paid them back.. The problem Rangers had was they gave the agents letters saying that the 'Loans' did not have to be paid back..which then made them payments...HMRCs problem is they coud not produce any of these letters during the Big Tax Case. It seems that is part of the case. Not sure where you got the info that HMRC couldn't produce the letters though. I guess if Rangers win the tax case with zero liability then their case with the SPL and SFA is a lot stronger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Were the EBTs not given as 'Loans'? I thought the idea was you made these 'loans' out to the players but the understanding was they never paid them back.. The problem Rangers had was they gave the agents letters saying that the 'Loans' did not have to be paid back..which then made them payments...HMRCs problem is they coud not produce any of these letters during the Big Tax Case. Supposedly. Which then begs the question: why don't Renegers, in their time of need, not just call these loans in? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Supposedly. Which then begs the question: why don't Renegers, in their time of need, not just call these loans in? Presumably they can show HMRC the repayments coming in and they can just forget that whole Tribunal thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 It seems that is part of the case. Not sure where you got the info that HMRC couldn't produce the letters though. I guess if Rangers win the tax case with zero liability then their case with the SPL and SFA is a lot stronger. Well if they had any of these letters i woud have thought the court case might have been a good time to produce them. 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.