youngsy Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) CLUELESS ^^^ The ruling means nothing if the club died ! and it did and it was a company as well and why it was liquidated. Did you read the attachment ? Did you also know that the SFA licence was revoked with immediate effect when Charles Green bought the assets because the old 1872 club was to be liquidated ? I notice how you say assets ! WHY ? because the club was a company and all this shite about the club being separate from the company is nonsense. You just want to still boast and brag 54 titles WATP aren't ya ? You just can't accept that the old Rangers football club you supported is now dead but you want me to accept the BTC ruling go and do something to yourself will ya that inflicts pain So you'll have a date when the licence was revoked i should imagine and if so what licence is the club being operated under?Edit too add,3/8/12 was the date that full membership of the SFA was transferred from oldco to newco,so again i'll ask when was the licence revoked? Btw asking someone to harm themself tells me how much of a lowlife scumbag you are. Edited November 24, 2012 by youngsy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) You chaps really seem to have some difficulty when it comes to reading comprehension. I was summarising my understanding of Green's position. Personally, I disagree with him. My own view is that the verdict of the FTT will make it very hard for the SPL to prove that the EBTs and associated side-letters were dual contracts in the sense of the SFA/SPL regulations. Unless HMRC appeal and unless that appeal succeeds, I don't see the SPL or SFA being successful. Green is wrong on this,no question. The SPL titles,Scottish Cups and League cups were awarded to the club for winning the relevant bodies competitions,if there is found to be cheating then those same bodies retain the right to strip a club of those awards. Although i did read that the SFL had no interest in pursuing any such removal/stripping of the League cup. Whether the SPL win their case though is another thing altogether. Edited November 25, 2012 by youngsy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Henrik,you're on for your hat-trick. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) Green is wrong on this,no question. The SPL titles,Scottish Cups and League cups were awarded to the club for wining the relevant bodies competitions,if there is found to be cheating then those same bodies retain the right to strip a club of those awards. Although i did read that the SFL had no interest in pursuing any such removal/stripping of the League cup. Whether the SPL win their case though is another thing altogether. The SFA/SPL have two problems. The first is proving that the EBTs and side letters represent dual contracts in the sense of their own rules and regulations. The second is proving that they were not disclosed. The majority verdict suggests that the EBTs were loans. In paragraph 208, they specifically state that they regard the side letter's obligation does not amount to an emolument. There is nothing in the SFA/SPL regulations that require disclosure of loans. There are also a couple of sections in the dissenting opinion that suggests that disclosure did happen although what was disclosed was rather vague. Given that EBTs had been around for over 10 years before the SFA/SPL discovered they had a problem with them suggests that the vagueness of disclosure was not an impediment. There are some exceptions where the Murray Group admits a tax liability. Not all of these concern footballers although a few do. The first is termination payments. However, given the Juninho precedent, it will be difficult for the SFA/SPL to argue that these should be sanctioned. The second concerns guaranteed bonuses and involves just 5 players. Obviously we do not know which players. However, it is not clear that these bonuses were hidden from the SFA/SPL given the points raised in the dissenting opinion and neither is it clear that these bonuses were the subject of a second contract. Edited November 25, 2012 by Paquis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliche Guevara Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 The SFA/SPL have two problems. The first is proving that the EBTs and side letters represent dual contracts in the sense of their own rules and regulations. The second is proving that they were not disclosed. The majority verdict suggests that the EBTs were loans. In paragraph 208, they specifically state that they regard the side letter's obligation does not amount to an emolument. There is nothing in the SFA/SPL regulations that require disclosure of loans. There are also a couple of sections in the dissenting opinion that suggests that disclosure did happen although what was disclosed was rather vague. Given that EBTs had been around for over 10 years before the SFA/SPL discovered they had a problem with them suggests that the vagueness of disclosure was not an impediment. I think the problem you have is you keep equating the findings in relation to the tax liability to the SPL enquiry. The FTT could only consider evidence within certain parameters, and on a technicality (so far) felt they had to reach the decision they did (but not unanimously). Again, you have recognised that EBTs are tax avoidance schemes. Look at the evidence of the recipients - they pretty much state, under oath, these payments were contractual. The SPL only require to come to a verdict on the balance of probability, rather than beyond reasonable doubt or within the peculiar requirements of such as a tax Tribunal. The evidence of the employees hangs Rangers. The EBTs were agreed terms of contract of employment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I think the problem you have is you keep equating the findings in relation to the tax liability to the SPL enquiry. The FTT could only consider evidence within certain parameters, and on a technicality (so far) felt they had to reach the decision they did (but not unanimously). Again, you have recognised that EBTs are tax avoidance schemes. Look at the evidence of the recipients - they pretty much state, under oath, these payments were contractual. The SPL only require to come to a verdict on the balance of probability, rather than beyond reasonable doubt or within the peculiar requirements of such as a tax Tribunal. The evidence of the employees hangs Rangers. The EBTs were agreed terms of contract of employment. That is not what the Tribunal found. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliche Guevara Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 That is not what the Tribunal found. Come tae f**k! How many times do we have to try and discuss the fact that these are seperate cases? The BTC is actually distinct from the SPL investigation. The SPL investigation can consider the employee evidence that the FTT (majority) decided it couldn't. Again, they don't pronounce on the SFA's laws, only tax laws. The evidential requirements are different... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Come tae f**k! How many times do we have to try and discuss the fact that these are seperate cases? The BTC is actually distinct from the SPL investigation. The SPL investigation can consider the employee evidence that the FTT (majority) decided it couldn't. Again, they don't pronounce on the SFA's laws, only tax laws. The evidential requirements are different... Well, if this business ends up in the Court of Session, I know which perspective will carry the most weight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 For all the Sevco fans who don't understand the consequences of liquidation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k0IkDTPQWU 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Henrik,you're on for your hat-trick. The real Henrik must have said that to himself every other game 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) You chaps really seem to have some difficulty when it comes to reading comprehension. I was summarising my understanding of Green's position. Personally, I disagree with him. Well fair enough, but there was nothing in your original post yesterday afternoon to imply that you were distancing yourself from Green's argument. Indeed, the 'But there's a twist...' part of the post is your own words and suggests an endorsement of what Green claims, so don't criticise anyone else's powers of comprehension please. What you're also doing above is conflating the issues of the BTC and the SPL commission. Clearly the two are related, but they're not synonymous. To see them this way is either to misunderstand the distinction or more probably, ignore it because it suits you to do so. Edited November 25, 2012 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) The SFA/SPL have two problems. The first is proving that the EBTs and side letters represent dual contracts in the sense of their own rules and regulations. The second is proving that they were not disclosed. The majority verdict suggests that the EBTs were loans. In paragraph 208, they specifically state that they regard the side letter's obligation does not amount to an emolument. There is nothing in the SFA/SPL regulations that require disclosure of loans. There are also a couple of sections in the dissenting opinion that suggests that disclosure did happen although what was disclosed was rather vague. Given that EBTs had been around for over 10 years before the SFA/SPL discovered they had a problem with them suggests that the vagueness of disclosure was not an impediment. I pretty much agree with this, but I see the first one as less problematic than you do. I think I'm right in saying that the regulations cover 'payments of any kind' which I'd imagine would indeed include loans. The question of disclosure is murkier however. Clearly, some disclosure took place - it was known for instance that EBTs were in operation. How specific such disclosures were and how specific they needed to be however, I don't know. I honestly think this week's verdict should make little difference, but I also think it might make some. The tide has turned a bit. The media machine headed by fools like Traynor has re-grouped and is now applying pressure for it all to be dropped. Were actual SPL people like Doncaster heading it, I've little doubt that this is what would happen. The independence of the commission gives me some hope however. Edited November 25, 2012 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenolly Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I pretty much agree with this, but I see the first one as less problematic than you do. I think I'm right in saying that the regulations cover 'payments of any kind' which I'd imagine would indeed include loans. The question of disclosure is murkier however. Clearly, some disclosure took place - it was known for instance that EBTs were in operation. How specific such disclosures were and how specific they needed to be however, I don't know. I honestly think this week's verdict should make little difference, but I also think it might. The tide has turned a bit. The media machine headed by fools like Traynor has re-grouped and is now applying pressure for it all to be dropped. Were actual SPL people like Doncaster heading it, I've little doubt that this is what would happen. The independence of the commission gives me some hope however. This is the crux of a matter, is a loan classed as a payment, some may argue that payments only go one way where as loans (usually) are paid back 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 This is the crux of a matter, is a loan classed as a payment, some may argue that payments only go one way where as loans (usually) are paid back That's a good point. I'd have thought 'payment of any kind' covered all bases; but this time last week, I also thought I understood what 'loan' meant. I'm very possibly wrong here too - I accept that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Just a thought on the 'loans' , apart from the RS crew failing to ask Dodds when he was due to repay it, is that when the recipients are going for a mortgage etc, are they disclosing the humungous debt they have? Might cause them problems in the future even if it was set up to be repayable on 'death'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenolly Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Payments are taxable and are generally for services rendered, and not re payable Loans are generally re-payable and not taxable but depending on where you get them are used against your credit score. I've had loans in the past from my employers for advances on wages to bridge you over in an emergency or when starting a job in a new location and although doesnt show on your credit score it is paid back from your wages after tax over a pre dtermined time scale, but is always paid back and must be completely cleared when leaving that employers service. If I had of been HMRC I would have asked to see what the repayment terms were, even if RFC had stated they don't start to pay back till year 2100 at £1 a year and could prove this as a written agreement it is a loan otherwise in my mind its a payment 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 You don't think the question of loans and repayment were gone into, including at the tribunal? Even the taxman's lawyer told the tribunal that he accepted the loans were not a sham. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 You don't think the question of loans and repayment were gone into, including at the tribunal? Even the taxman's lawyer told the tribunal that he accepted the loans were not a sham. You don't expect the P&Bers to accept that do you? Common sense doesn't come in to it with them, blind hatred has denied them the ability to see things straightly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 You don't expect the P&Bers to accept that do you? Common sense doesn't come in to it with them, blind hatred has denied them the ability to see things straightly. You do realise what forum you're posting on don't you ? :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenolly Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 You don't think the question of loans and repayment were gone into, including at the tribunal? Even the taxman's lawyer told the tribunal that he accepted the loans were not a sham. If common sense had taken place, HMRC would have asked in advance show me the loan schedule, Murray here you go, Taxman ok its a loan. If its a loan and as you have said it was accepted by hectors lawyer as being a loan, how did it get so far?? Even Murray was desperate to avoid taking a hit so sold his pride and joy for a quid to a charlatan, with D&P putting the value on the CVA proposal and Chukkie accepting punishments for newco based on oldco as they were that desperate to get back in. I don't think its as clear as made out, this has been running for years now and i have a feeling we may have more to come 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.