Greenlantern Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 (to Drooper)Are you retarded? Seriosuly what are you all about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I wanted to see the actual evidence itself. It wasn't shown. What was shown and disclosed was nothing more than what is already in the public domain. to say you have seen evidence of 53 side letters (not contracts for some reason) then not present any evidence of this is weak. why could they present the sections of the waterues and papac correspondence they used and not other parts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speckled tangerine Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) Not a chance the BBC wouldn`t have dotted the i`s and crossed the t`s prior to this going out. Can`t see Duff & Phelps sabre rattling going anywhere near a courtroom. Forget everything else tonight (and I have no doubt there is fucking loads not broadcast) but D & P are shitting bricks...........edit- mixed metaphor! Edited May 23, 2012 by speckled tangerine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 to say you have seen evidence of 53 side letters (not contracts for some reason) then not present any evidence of this is weak. why could they present the sections of the waterues and papac correspondence they used and not other parts? You're right, they're making it up. Cheeky devils! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 And how about the FD receiving confirmation that part of a player's salary was now being paid via the EBT? i didn't catch that. where in the show was it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p&b is a disgrace Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 If the double contracts thing is proved, which it seems to have been, then it would be very difficult for him to say that he thought he was acting legally. I say this because the EBT loophole only works if the payments are discretionary. If there were dual contracts how could this be the case? Also there is some suggestion by Alex Thomson that Martin Bain sent emails asking for his "discretionary" loans to be paid to him. More evidence that they were breaking the rules of the loophole they were trying to exploit. On another note If SDM made £6.3million through EBTs why does he not pay the tax back instead of Rangers. At 40% that would be £2.5million in tax. He profited not Rangers. Its the employers responsibility to apply the correct application of tax law - not the employees. HMRC will seek redress from the employer ( along with interest and penalties - which could equal as much as 105% of the underpaid tax ). The employer would then need to raise a seperate action to recover monies from the employee. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 From D&P statement: "There is a world of difference between knowing that Ticketus was a potential source of working capital funding for the Club and its new owners (Craig Whyte/Wavetower) - which is our position - and knowing that funding from ticket sales had been effectively used to purchase the Club. The BBC have failed miserably to make that distinction." Sound familiar? Remember when the SFA Panel said the other directors (McLelland/Greig) knew something was going on and did nothing? Nice try Haudit and Daudit, but yer baw deep in this one.....GIRUY 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p&b is a disgrace Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 If the double contracts thing is proved, which it seems to have been, then it would be very difficult for him to say that he thought he was acting legally. I say this because the EBT loophole only works if the payments are discretionary. If there were dual contracts how could this be the case? Also there is some suggestion by Alex Thomson that Martin Bain sent emails asking for his "discretionary" loans to be paid to him. More evidence that they were breaking the rules of the loophole they were trying to exploit. On another note If SDM made £6.3million through EBTs why does he not pay the tax back instead of Rangers. At 40% that would be £2.5million in tax. He profited not Rangers. Its the employers responsibility to apply the correct application of tax law - not the employees. HMRC will seek redress from the employer ( along with interest and penalties - which could equal as much as 105% of the underpaid tax ). The employer would then need to raise a seperate action to recover monies from the employee. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Was Boumsong on an EBT ? If so, it might explain the murkiness of his transfer to Toon just months after the **** got him for free...... "Boumsong signed a 5½-year contract with the Magpies. However, as Boumsong had played the requisite number of games for Rangers that season, he still received a Scottish Championship Winners Medal, despite having been a Newcastle player for around five months by the time Rangers won the title. The £8 million transfer fee raised eyebrows,[1] as the player, being out of contract, had joined Rangers for free just months before, at which point Newcastle showed no interest in signing him. This transfer is one of those about which the Stevens inquiry report in June 2007 expressed concerns: "There remains inconsistencies in evidence provided by Graeme Souness – a former manager of the club – and Freddy Shepherd – apparently acting in an undefined role but not as a club official – as to their respective roles in transfer negotiations." "The inquiry is still awaiting clarification from agent Willie McKay".[2] However the Stevens enquiry later issued two clarifications. It said of Souness, "We wish to make it clear that inconsistencies did not exist within the evidence given by Graeme Souness to Quest concerning his role in transfers covered by the Inquiry during his time as manager of Newcastle United FC and neither the Premier League nor do Quest have any concerns in this regard".[3] As regards McKay it stated: "Further to the key findings from the final Quest report published on 15 June 2007 by the Premier League, Quest would like to emphasise that, in that report, it was clear that no evidence of irregular payments was found in the transfers in the inquiry period which involved the agent Willie McKay. Quest would also like to thank Mr McKay for his cooperation with the inquiry." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 You're right, they're making it up. Cheeky devils! the way he presented the wattereus evidence makes me skeptical. watch it back, it's classic tabloid obfuscation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Remember that what has been said tonight may now result down the not too long line in proceedings for criminal conspiracy - a lot of what could have been said they may well have been advised they cannot say at the risk of being used by Murray, Whyte, etc to argue in a court of law that it being splashed all over the mainstream media prejudices any chance they have of a fair trial - a common get out of jail card played by neer-do-wells in British courts. Yes, I'm well aware of that. As I said, I wasn't expecting any smoking gun evidence to be aired tonight - and it wasn't. That is why I said it was tame. Even the Grier / Ticketus stuff isn't a smoking gun. Just because Grier knew that Ticketus had done a deal with Rangers doesn't mean he knew the money was to be used to pay off Lloyds. He may well have done - but the programme didn't produce a smoking gun to prove that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Can someone please remind me how you put someone on ignore. It's been that long since I had to do it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Witold Sygula Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Have to hold my hand up....my info that the docu would claim that Minty arranged for the Bunnet's phone to be bugged was bollocks. Clearly I was duped 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 This is slightly off topic with the documentary stuff - but has it been made clear how much of Rangers "overall payment to players"... i.e. wages/bonuses + EBTs... were EBTs? I.e. what proportion was. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18169502 Several tabs a load to get through. Key quote "The remaining ten SPL clubs replied and confirmed that they had never set up An EBT scheme for their employees." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cutty Old Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) If we can rewind a little.................. ......The SFA panel came to the conclusion, after careful consideration, that it would be too severe for Rangers to face expulsion as members of the SFA. After the latest revelations, any panel, group of chairmen or independent body looking at all the aspects of this case must surely arrive at the decision that means Rangers should not be allowed to participate in scottish football, with immediate effect. Or, does Michael Johnston, and anyone else in that camp, still believe that Rangers have been punished enough ? Edited May 23, 2012 by Cutty Old 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 This is slightly off topic with the documentary stuff - but has it been made clear how much of Rangers "overall payment to players"... i.e. wages/bonuses + EBTs... were EBTs? I.e. what proportion was. The totals on the table could be added up? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 it's also possible the prior sentence said "mr watteureus may recieve discrentionary payments through an EBT". without context this is useless. Indeed it is possible but if you think there's a chance it did and the BBC still ran that show regardless, I have some shares in moon-stock to sell you. I was also disappointed they didn't actually show what the proof was - this table on their site saying whether or not there was a side letter, why not show it? I was wanting to see the evidence tonight not just another hint they're on their way to oblivion. Most interesting tonight was the suggestion of D+P being at it. I find their response rather amusing, it's as if they think Mark Daly unilaterally decided to broadcast a national television story tonight with all kinds of libel issues with no checking, editing or legal reference. Good one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Have to hold my hand up....my info that the docu would claim that Minty arranged for the Bunnet's phone to be bugged was bollocks. Clearly I was duped Noooooooooooo.......I'm sure you are right but Daly & BBC legals just holding it back to use as final nail in Dave's coffin....... 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.