Ric Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) I don't think anyone on this thread is saying that at all. The point has been made that simply naming them would not be particularly explosive. Forgive me, as I don't regularly swallow low brow trash Scottish red tops, I favour facts over explosions. It would, imo, be somewhat lacking in journalistic integrity for the players not to be named as this is a key element to the programme tonight. In fact not naming them would leave the BBC open to taunts of "you just made it it, you can't even name the players" from the Rangers support. Edited May 23, 2012 by Ric 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Wasn't Mols 29 when signed for your lot? (born 1970 signed 1999) My point was that Rangers (and Celtic) would have had the clout to sign the likes of Mols - it would be different if you were talking about a world reknowned footballer at the time like Beckham or Rivaldo. Yes because they were saving millions by not paying tax - that's it in a nutshell. The old "for every £5 they put down I'll put down £10" statement my Murray should have been preceeded by "because we don't pay what we should to HMRC" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huckleberry Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Surely if the HMRC cant get the tax from RFC then they could chase the EBTers for it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 My point was that Rangers (and Celtic) would have had the clout to sign the likes of Mols Surely that is an irrelevance. It's how they paid for the players, and in turn the number of players they were able to bring in. If you have simple analogy of £20m and each player is a £5m then they can afford 4. If they pay only £2.5m then they can afford 8 and at the same time operate a questionable scheme regarding payments to public bodies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I'm not entirely convinced that RFC couldn't have attracted the players without EBTs. Rangers:- Klos, Ricksen, Moore, Amoruso, Numan, Konterman, Reyna (Caniggia 66), de Boer, Ferguson (Hughes 87), Flo, Mols (McCann 74). RFC line up fron Old Firm game in 2001 - all either signed from Scottish teams (Caniggia, McCann), ageing old pros (de Boer, Mols) or attracted during the 'boom' period of Scottish Football in 1997 to about 2003. The problem, for Rangers anyway, is that there is no way to prove that Well if they have 'something' it will be interesting to see exactly what it is. Indeed. And if it is proof of second contracts it will be far closer to 'explosive' than 'interesting' Surely if the HMRC cant get the tax from RFC then they could chase the EBTers for it? The players, or more accurately their advisers and agents, would be grossly stupid if they did not get an indemnity from Rangers as part of the deal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 So the EBT players shouldn't be named as they were just doing their job, yet those on the first SFA panel had to be named because they were doing their job? I said earlier that the names themselves don't matter and I don't think they do. I guess it will be more ammo for those of us against Rangers if big players who made big impacts are named rather than benchwarmers for example; but I don't think the viewing public are going to have a massively different response if it is revealed to have been R. de Boer, Konterman, Reyna and Novo or F. de Boer, Klos, van Bronkhurst and Mols for example. The absolute number of players recieving EBTs is far more damning IMHO 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Not sure they have evidence. Mark Daly claims to have seen documents...well i am claiming they don't exist...see how easy that was? Still not interested in hearing names of those who were in the scheme and more interested in hearing the outcome of the BTC...Surely after the outcome of the appeal would have been the best time to air the programme. The De Boers..Arthur Numan..Gio Van Bronckhorst. What would make me laugh is if we paid Konterman through this scheme..Now he should certainly be made to pay it back!! Ok, then, here it is - you lost. It's the appeal that's ongoing, remember? Let's just hope that rangers' contrite, apologetic and transparent response to the original findings can sway the result of that, shall we? Oh, hang on a minute..... It's Butterkist time! Oh, and No.8 - isn't it time you went down Boots and got your prescription refilled? The "anti-trog, speak like a rational person" pills appear to have worn off. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DensDerry80 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 CC was the best player to ever grace the SPL, but how did we manage to pay his wages yet allegedly rangers couldnt without using EBT's?? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Harper Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I assume this is because Rangers are a Global brand? Ooh, hello FN, fancy meeting you here Your Pal, Charlie Rory Bellows Harper 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Saints Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Then he's a coward. The only proper solution is for Rangers to be liquidated, and a NewCo/Phoenix/whatever they want to call it to muddy the waters to start outside both the SPL and SFL. I couldn't agree more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danlichtie Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Surely that is an irrelevance. It's how they paid for the players, and in turn the number of players they were able to bring in. If you have simple analogy of £20m and each player is a £5m then they can afford 4. If they pay only £2.5m then they can afford 8 and at the same time operate a questionable scheme regarding payments to public bodies. I appreciate where you are coming from - I'm not sure that SDM or any of the Rangers board will have increased their transfer/wage budgets by use of EBT. The main people who benefit from EBTs are the payees - not the club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danlichtie Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 The players, or more accurately their advisers and agents, would be grossly stupid if they did not get an indemnity from Rangers as part of the deal. Any idemnity wouldn't cover illegal activity though (i.e. tax evasion). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graeme_p Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 One thing I really don't understand (and it may be willful ignorance on the part of some RFC fans) is the implication that Whyte was entirely to blame for the lack of paying PAYE. Are we seriously to believe that he was in charge of payroll and was the only individual responsible for making payments to HMRC or even balancing the books? Regardless of how many board members he sacked, someone surely was in charge (or likely a team of people) at RFC involved in paying wages, taxes, invoices etc. Even at a much smaller club like mine, I can't imagine John Christison going through accounts, making sure wages were paid and pies would be delivered on time for Saturday! Or are people really that naive? You have hit the nail on the head and re-iterated a point I have made a few times here. I know for a fact (because i know some of the staff, but obviously won't identify them) that they knew PAYE was not being paid. They also knew that VAT was not being paid or put aside. They chose to do nothing about it. Some of these people have been employed by Rangers for many years so that were not Whytes people. Some of these people wil be members of professional bodies and would have had a duty under that association to bring this behaviour to the attention of the authorites. None of these people are Craig Whyte. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Thats right, well done. Get the diddy excuses in early. If all else fails & your chairmen are cowards, blame someone else. Care to explain that in English? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) I appreciate where you are coming from - I'm not sure that SDM or any of the Rangers board will have increased their transfer/wage budgets by use of EBT. The main people who benefit from EBTs are the payees - not the club. Yes, but they may not have signed for Rangers had they not received the level of tax free payment they did with an EBT. If Rangers wage cap () was £10k a week for example. £10k a week after tax is far more attractive to a player than £10k before tax, which becomes several thousand pounds less per week. Conversely, for Rangers to have signed the same player and pay them £10k after tax, without an EBT, would have cost the club several thousand pounds a week more, per player. Edited May 23, 2012 by Mr X 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I appreciate where you are coming from - I'm not sure that SDM or any of the Rangers board will have increased their transfer/wage budgets by use of EBT. Surely they would have increased it by the exact amount of tax that should have been paid that was not? It is speculative to suggest that the players who were there would have simply been on lower take home pay. If so, surely they'd just have paid them less anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Harper Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 The names of the players are important, particularly if they are the same ones who have been shouting loudest about how it's all a conspiracy, like Hately, Goram McCoist, "we need clarity and total transparency", remember, Ally, be careful what you wish for, LOL. did the rangerstaxcase.com dude not claim a while ago (as an example), that every player that they fielded at Easter Road on the last day of the season in 2005 was on one of these EBT / 2 contract deals ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I appreciate where you are coming from - I'm not sure that SDM or any of the Rangers board will have increased their transfer/wage budgets by use of EBT. The main people who benefit from EBTs are the payees - not the club. Surely the wage budget is a constant - so by paying less tax there was more money left over either to buy more players, or buy better (more highly) paid players in the first place 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Any idemnity wouldn't cover illegal activity though (i.e. tax evasion). Well something must, as the HMRC are going after Rangers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fasda Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) If the EBT illegality is upheld (RFC are appealling an HMRC decision that they are illegal) then names of the EBT'ers is interesting but not essential at the moment. If there are double contracts associated then the names are essential because the games that they played in are nullified. No one really expects the SFA/SPL/UEFA to go back and change the scores but it would set the record straight albeit a bit late for the dopes they shafted i.e. us. Edited May 23, 2012 by Fasda 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.