PeeTeeJag Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) I think that the contracts were renegotiated with clauses such as being allowed to leave at the end of the season if a club offers a minimum price. But were the wages not deferred, meaning that the players would still be looking for their full wages to be re-imbursed at a later date? It could be that in the contracts the player gets a cut of the deal equivalent to what they were owed in deferred wages. As a side note, if a company in administration was owed money by another person or company, wouldnt the administrators be looking to get that money back so as to help reduce the debt? If then the EBTs are loans and in effect the club is owed money back from these loans to players etc, shouldn't H&D be trying to call in these debts? Edited April 17, 2012 by PeeTeeJag 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I think that the contracts were renegotiated with clauses such as being allowed to leave at the end of the season if a club offers a minimum price. But were the wages not deferred, meaning that the players would still be looking for their full wages to be re-imbursed at a later date? It could be that in the contracts the player gets a cut of the deal equivalent to what they were owed in deferred wages. As a side note, if a company in administration was owed money by another person or company, wouldnt the administrators be looking to get that money back so as to help reduce the debt? If then the EBTs are loans and in effect the club is owed money back from these loans to players etc, shouldn't H&D be trying to call in these debts? No 8 I think it was said when I asked the same thing, was that the EBT's were from the Trust and not Rangers. Re wage deferral tho, does that not make the players creditors inspite of amended contracts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 If then the EBTs are loans and in effect the club is owed money back from these loans to players etc, shouldn't H&D be trying to call in these debts? Don't wanna rock the boat and show up all the "legends" for what they were, not actually playing for their long standing love of all things Rangers like the fans believe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Politically, he can hardly be seen to say anything other then he hopes for a CVA at this stage. He didn't say that he hoped for a CVA though...he said he thought everybody in Scotland wants Rangers to get a CVA and move onwards as the club they are now. Massive difference and nothing could be further from the truth. He should stick to speaking for himself and Dunfermline instead of the whole nation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkshirepud Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 No 8 I think it was said when I asked the same thing, was that the EBT's were from the Trust and not Rangers. Re wage deferral tho, does that not make the players creditors inspite of amended contracts? And if they become creditors, does it push the current HMRC share of the debt below 25% when we reach the end of the deferred period? is this why Haudit and Daudit are stringing this out? How legal would such a move be? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeTeeJag Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Sooooooooooooooo if the players were getting these EBTs from the Trust, where was the Trust getting the money from? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 So Yorkston doesn't read P&B then. Did he do his straw poll at a Rangers game? There's no doubt there is a clear difference between what the press are saying what everyone wants and what everybody wants....rangers dead. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeTeeJag Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) After a bit of googling it appears that Murray set up a trust which rangers paid into. He did this with his other companies. The Trust then pays out to the players as "loans". So technically rangers didnt pay the players through EBTs, the trust did. And if the players or club officials havent paid anything back for 5 years and the Trust hasnt chased it up then the debt is wiped out. Edited April 17, 2012 by PeeTeeJag 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 After a bit of googling it appears that Murray set up a trust which rangers paid into. He did this with his other companies. The Trust then pays out to the players as "loans". So technically rangers didnt pay the players through EBTs, the trust did. which would be a second contract and contravene the SFA/SPL rules would it not ?! if so......expulsion I'd say. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 which would be a second contract and contravene the SFA/SPL rules would it not ?! if so......expulsion I'd say. Exactly ...anyway you cut snake FC are fuked. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) which would be a second contract and contravene the SFA/SPL rules would it not ?! if so......expulsion I'd say. A loan from a trust is not a contract from Rangers (or anyone else). Edited April 17, 2012 by Bearwithme -4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeTeeJag Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Interestingly in rangers books they put these payments to the Trust down as a loss, not as just moving money about. So if rangers have put this money into the Trust surely H&D should be trying to recover the money from the past 5 years that it still has in it's accounts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fru T Bunn Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 It just sounds like the buns are fooked,well good enough for them.I can't see anyone with any sense taking on what could be £100 million + of debt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 A loan from a trust is not a contract from Rangers (or anyone else). funny that the HMRC don't seem to see it that way......... Bain himself was quoted as saying his "bonus" was to be paid through the EBT and that all correspondence was to be shredded ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 funny that the HMRC don't seem to see it that way......... Bain himself was quoted as saying his "bonus" was to be paid through the EBT and that all correspondence was to be shredded ! I doubt if HMRC's case is about the rules relating to footballing contracts. That's a different issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeTeeJag Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 If it is proven that these payments were in effect wages and bonuses that should have been taxable then HMRC should be going after the players and officials for non payment of taxes as it is their own responsibility to pay their taxes. Can of worms anyone? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I doubt if HMRC's case is about the rules relating to footballing contracts. That's a different issue. The HMRC have stated that the see the way Rangers (amongst other football clubs) used the ETB as illegal as it was effectively a "tax free bonus payment for doing their job" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 If it is proven that these payments were in effect wages and bonuses that should have been taxable then HMRC should be going after the players and officials for non payment of taxes as it is their own responsibility to pay their taxes. Can of worms anyone? not when the players pay tax at source. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeTeeJag Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 not when the players pay tax at source. But the players werent paying tax on the money they received through the EBTs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 But the players werent paying tax on the money they received through the EBTs. and who paid the players.......that were supposed to pay the tax at source ?? 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.