The_Kincardine Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Would I be right in thinking that the reason that cheatco are being used as the test case because a football club has to declare it's players wages and is therefore easier to examine? Some would say I have a pedantic side. That I ignored your tragic use of 'it's' rather than calling you for it shows my tolerance. If it was open and honest why did HMRC have to go to such lengths to get your dead ol'club to co-operate? You're, again, confusing the legal with the moral. Being uncooperative is wrong but, again, neither illegal nor immoral. OK on a (rare) evening when no drink has been taken here's my braindump on EBTs and title-stripping, criminality and morality - much of which I've said before but it is (in my head) worth repeating. EBTs Perfectly legal. Even when shown to have failed (as in the CoS judgment) nothing illegal has been declared. The process is simple: HMRC present a bill to BDO and get pennies in the pound. Same as any other creditor. Title Stripping Done to death by LNS. Nothing has changed. He and his peers judged that players were properly registered and no sporting advantage was gained. The CoS decision doesn't change this. Criminality Utter bollocks. No crime was committed over the use of EBTs. A few pea-brains try and posture but no one with even a hint of sanity would even consider it. Morality We are cunted here. We spent over the odds and are architects of our own demise. Anyone who thinks paying Dan Eggen £68K or Christian Nerlinger £1.8M ok is clearly deranged. Were EBTs good for Rangers? Absolutely not - our hubris brought the club to its knees. Were EBTs illegal and/or criminal? Don't be fucking silly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Regarding criminality - don't HMRC tend to just hit companies with fines/interest payments? I know directors have ultimate liability in a company for paying tax/NI but it's easier for HMRC to add penalties rather than try to bring cases against directors since they have the power to basically say "this is what we think you owe us" and then *poof*, that's what you owe them unless you can prove otherwise? There's stuff to do with companies having a separate legal personality on incorporation but a) I'm tired and b) I don't know enough about it so chances are I'd sound a bit like Billy Dodds talking about, well, anything... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 If that's the case, then I take it this side letter thing was a clerical error? The side letter thing was about declarations to the authorities - covered by LNS. Nothing to do with HMRC's grievance. Have I missed something again? There you go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbermoresaint Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) EBT's are neither illegal nor criminal. Rangers' use of EBT's to evade tax is both illegal and criminal. Edited November 11, 2015 by Tibbermoresaint 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) There you go That makes absolutely no sense It's rare that I'm surprised on P&B these days but to simply add 'again' to the the end of my question as if you've answered it is well, surprising !! Edited November 11, 2015 by Ned Nederlander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Some would say I have a pedantic side. That I ignored your tragic use of 'it's' rather than calling you for it shows my tolerance. You're, again, confusing the legal with the moral. Being uncooperative is wrong but, again, neither illegal nor immoral. OK on a (rare) evening when no drink has been taken here's my braindump on EBTs and title-stripping, criminality and morality - much of which I've said before but it is (in my head) worth repeating. EBTs Perfectly legal. Even when shown to have failed (as in the CoS judgment) nothing illegal has been declared. The process is simple: HMRC present a bill to BDO and get pennies in the pound. Same as any other creditor. Title Stripping Done to death by LNS. Nothing has changed. He and his peers judged that players were properly registered and no sporting advantage was gained. The CoS decision doesn't change this. Criminality Utter bollocks. No crime was committed over the use of EBTs. A few pea-brains try and posture but no one with even a hint of sanity would even consider it. Morality We are cunted here. We spent over the odds and are architects of our own demise. Anyone who thinks paying Dan Eggen £68K or Christian Nerlinger £1.8M ok is clearly deranged. Were EBTs good for Rangers? Absolutely not - our hubris brought the club to its knees. Were EBTs illegal and/or criminal? Don't be fucking silly. At the top I'm replying to open and honest, and you're then mumbling about illegal and immoral. You have continually ignored and avoided the point that while the ebt itself may not be criminal the behaviour of those administering it may have been. Like the stalking of people who worked for HMRC for example. Not a bad brain dump, I can see how you might want most of it to be true and you're right, it did bring the club to it's knees. On the way to being face down in a puddle, en route to a pine box six feet down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 EBT's are neither illegal nor criminal. Rangers' use of EBT's to evade tax is both illegal and criminal. Aye well that's you, Strychnine and a few other held back for extra reading lessons. Hopefully your grasp of English will improve before you sit National 4. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbermoresaint Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Still not liking the truth, Kincardine? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 The side letter thing was about declarations to the authorities - covered by LNS. Nothing to do with HMRC's grievance. There you go And my question was nothing to do with HMRC's grievance. So if the side letters were about declarations, or lack of, to the authorities. How can you suggest EBTs were openly declared? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 So if the side letters were about declarations, or lack of, to the authorities. How can you suggest EBTs were openly declared? Our use of EBTs was in our annual reports. it was never a secret. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbermoresaint Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Were the side letters in the annual reports? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) Our use of EBTs was in our annual reports. it was never a secret.Well, it was a secret, mate. Rangers were very secretive. They hid the second contract, which paid players via EBTs from the authorities.Can you show me the accounts that confirm the detail provided on EBTs? They may state that you used EBTs, but do they state that they were used to pay players? Edited November 11, 2015 by dave.j 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyman Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) See fat mikes got the knives out for the sfa now for fucking up the fit and proper for mr glib & shameless. I'm liking him more and more. Can't post story from iPad. In the sun. Probably shite but made me chuckle Edited November 11, 2015 by greyman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) Well, it was a secret, mate. Rangers were very secretive. They hid the second contract, which paid players via EBTs from the authorities. Can you show me the accounts that confirm the detail provided on EBTs? They may state that you used EBTs, but do they state that they were used to pay players? pages and pages of Olympic gold medal standard deflection taking BRALT into a discussion of the definition of 'criminality', all to avoid the central fact of Dave J's 13 word sentence. The reason all trophies 'won' during the EBT decade should be struck off. Full details of all players contracts must be lodged with the football authorities. OldDead,Adminstered AndLiquidated Rangers deliberately did not do this. To gain an unfair Sporting Advantage. Rendering the money that all scottish football fans spent following a rigged / uneven playing-field sport during that era pretty much wasted. Edited November 11, 2015 by Ken Fitlike 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyman Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 MIKE ASHLEY is taking the SFA to court. SunSport can reveal that the tycoon has demanded a full judicial inquiry into the decision by the beaks to pass Dave King as a fit and proper person. The bombshell news comes just a week after the Sports Direct supremo launched a legal move to have the Gers chairman jailed. Mike Ashley is taking the SFA to court Mike Ashley is taking the SFA to court The case, to be heard at Edinburgh’s Court of Session, is scheduled for a first hearing on Friday, December 11. It could eventually lead to the original decision being overturned by the sitting judge. Ashley is understood to have served legal papers last month calling for a review of the SFA ruling handed down on May 19. He wants to examine the process Hampden’s hierarchy went through before clearing King. Seething Gers fans will view the MASH Holdings v SFA case as a clear attempt to further disrupt the rebuilding process at the crisis-torn club. King was able to take up the role of Ibrox chairman when he was passed fit and proper by the SFA. Just two months before May’s ruling, he had led a successful bid to oust the previous regime. However, the game’s governing body still needed time to assess the businessman’s suitability given his tax convictions in South Africa. The fact he’d sat on the Light Blues’ board prior to their administration in 2012 was also considered by Hampden chiefs. At the time, the SFA consulted the relevant authorities in South Africa and Scotland, including the police, South African Revenue Services and HMRC, before allowing King to become chairman. But that hasn’t satisfied Ashley, who has declared all-out war on King and his board. The petition will already be in the hands of the SFA. Judicial reviews generally look into whether processes behind decisions made by public and private bodies are legal and fair. It promises to be another messy affair in this never-ending saga with Ashley also dragging King through the courts. Their feud exploded publicly last week as King insisted the costly legal fight against Sports Direct would continue. Ashley’s lawyers then argued King breached a gagging order — obtained by the Sports Direct chief in June — in an interview with Sky Sports’ Jim White. The latest twist comes less than a week after HMRC, at the third time of asking, won their appeal in the “Big Tax Case” and Gers’ annual report confirmed they need an additional £2.5m to survive the season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBlue Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 But I thought the good guys won? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 But I thought the good guys won? aye - HMRC! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njord Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 The page to go with greymans text Stupid sevconians still don't get, that Big Mike is their only hope 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njord Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 "Seething Gers fans" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Some would say I have a pedantic side. That I ignored your tragic use of 'it's' rather than calling you for it shows my tolerance. You're, again, confusing the legal with the moral. Being uncooperative is wrong but, again, neither illegal nor immoral. OK on a (rare) evening when no drink has been taken here's my braindump on EBTs and title-stripping, criminality and morality - much of which I've said before but it is (in my head) worth repeating. EBTs Perfectly legal. Even when shown to have failed (as in the CoS judgment) nothing illegal has been declared. The process is simple: HMRC present a bill to BDO and get pennies in the pound. Same as any other creditor. Title Stripping Done to death by LNS. Nothing has changed. He and his peers judged that players were properly registered and no sporting advantage was gained. The CoS decision doesn't change this. Criminality Utter bollocks. No crime was committed over the use of EBTs. A few pea-brains try and posture but no one with even a hint of sanity would even consider it. Morality We are cunted here. We spent over the odds and are architects of our own demise. Anyone who thinks paying Dan Eggen £68K or Christian Nerlinger £1.8M ok is clearly deranged. Were EBTs good for Rangers? Absolutely not - our hubris brought the club to its knees. Were EBTs illegal and/or criminal? Don't be fucking silly. A good post that achieves some clarity. Your argument however that the LNS view is not altered by the CoS decision - although being an outlook I share- does mark a shift from yourself. You thought that the title stripping investigation should have been halted in the wake of the FTTT decision. It seems that you're only now, clinging to the idea of the two verdicts not being closely related. 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.