youngsy Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Fair point, but it just doesn't make sense, it leaves far too many questions unanswered. Anyway you look at it, McCoist and Smith were, arguably, the two biggest names at Ibrox during that era. If they didn't have EBT's then a very pertinent question is; Why not? If they were not even offered an EBT, again; Why Not? If they were offered one and both knocked it back, then we have to ask the question why? Did their financial advisors advise against taking an EBT? If so did they pass on their concerns to the club? As I said too many unanswered questions. So now because they may not have been recipients they have to explain why they weren't. Why the hell should either of them give a reason as to why they didn't receive or take up any option on one? So there has to be an explanation as to why they were recipients,if they were,but also explain why they weren't recipients,if they weren't. Behave yourself. These EBTs started two years after Smiths' first tenure. Out of all the senior coaching staff under Smith second tenure not one was mentioned by Daly as being on the list of having received one. Walter Smith,manager-not on the list, Ally McCoist-not on the list,Ian Durrant-not on the list,Kenny McDowall-not on the list,Jim Stewart-not on the list. Now that either tells me that Daly isn't very good at his job as an investigative reporter or just maybe none of the mentioned received an EBT. I'll go with Daly being competent at his job and none of those mentioned were recipients. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 (edited) So now because they may not have been recipients they have to explain why they weren't. Why the hell should either of them give a reason as to why they didn't receive or take up any option on one? So there has to be an explanation as to why they were recipients,if they were,but also explain why they weren't recipients,if they weren't. Behave yourself. These EBTs started two years after Smiths' first tenure. Out of all the senior coaching staff under Smith second tenure not one was mentioned by Daly as being on the list of having received one. Walter Smith,manager-not on the list, Ally McCoist-not on the list,Ian Durrant-not on the list,Kenny McDowall-not on the list,Jim Stewart-not on the list. Now that either tells me that Daly isn't very good at his job as an investigative reporter or just maybe none of the mentioned received an EBT. I'll go with Daly being competent at his job and none of those mentioned were recipients. Because it would be significant that they refused what so many accepted. If it were so kosher, why didn't they accept such a good deal? If they knew is wasn't kosher, why didn't they put a stop to it? (seeing as they are such good R*ngers men and only think of the club/company/team/'institution' and its good) Edited November 12, 2012 by killingfloorman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 (edited) Because it would be significant that they refused what so many accepted. If it were so kosher, why didn't they accept such a good deal? If they knew is wasn't kosher, why didn't they put a stop to it? (seeing as they are such good R*ngers men and only think of the club/company/team/'institution' and its good) At the time the EBT scheme was legal,the argument was/is whether they were being operated correctly and considering that MIH operated this scheme please tell us all what Smith and McCoist could have done to stop this scheme. They are football managers,not financial wizards FFS. If they declined or accepted it would have been their own decision,no doubt after consultation with a consultant. Others made the decision to accept,again no doubt after consultation. The company,of which Smith and McCoist were employees,operated the scheme,not Smith or McCoist. Edited November 12, 2012 by youngsy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 At the time the EBT scheme was legal,the argument was/is whether they were being operated correctly and considering that MIH operated this scheme please tell us all what Smith and McCoist could have done to stop this scheme. They are football managers,not financial wizards FFS. If they declined or accepted it would have been their own decision,no doubt after consultation with a consultant. Others made the decision to accept,again no doubt after consultation. The company,of which Smith and McCoist were employees,operated the scheme,not Smith or McCoist. you have a point, however there does seem to be an awful lot of buck passing when it comes to responsibility. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Capsule Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Should that not be you'll donate £50 if they go tits up and enter the administration merry go round again? Rangers will never be gone. You know this as well as I do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 1352735671[/url]' post='6798408']At the time the EBT scheme was legal,the argument was/is whether they were being operated correctly and considering that MIH operated this scheme please tell us all what Smith and McCoist could have done to stop this scheme. They are football managers,not financial wizards FFS. If they declined or accepted it would have been their own decision,no doubt after consultation with a consultant. Others made the decision to accept,again no doubt after consultation. The company,of which Smith and McCoist were employees,operated the scheme,not Smith or McCoist. The fact that it was legal is irrelivant, it's a tax dodge that's why only a handful of idiots used it most looked at it and said no thanks, as for not being a financial wizard, ignorance is no defence in tax dodging its every individuals responsibility to pay the correct tax ,and no doubt Smith and any of the other millionare dodgers would have had an agent and or financial advisor negotiate their contracts, if your boss said to you tomorow we're going to give you a massive wage rise , you'd ask a few questions , and when you were told it's a legal scheme were you don't pay tax an....ALARM BELLS!!!!!! Anyone with half a brain would tell them to shove it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mylothedog Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 (edited) At the time the EBT scheme was legal,the argument was/is whether they were being operated correctly and considering that MIH operated this scheme please tell us all what Smith and McCoist could have done to stop this scheme. They are football managers,not financial wizards FFS. If they declined or accepted it would have been their own decision,no doubt after consultation with a consultant. Others made the decision to accept,again no doubt after consultation. The company,of which Smith and McCoist were employees,operated the scheme,not Smith or McCoist. As much as the very thought of both Ibrox clubs turn my stomach, and I would love it if both these characters were recipients, there is no evidence to say either of them were involved. Youngsy is correct. ....as for the text I have put in bold......................Youngsy is half correct. Edited November 12, 2012 by mylothedog 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 you have a point, however there does seem to be an awful lot of buck passing when it comes to responsibility. At the end of the day though the buck stops with Murray and his financial advisers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 The fact that it was legal is irrelivant, it's a tax dodge that's why only a handful of idiots used it most looked at it and said no thanks, as for not being a financial wizard, ignorance is no defence in tax dodging its every individuals responsibility to pay the correct tax ,and no doubt Smith and any of the other millionare dodgers would have had an agent and or financial advisor negotiate their contracts, if your boss said to you tomorow we're going to give you a massive wage rise , you'd ask a few questions , and when you were told it's a legal scheme were you don't pay tax an....ALARM BELLS!!!!!! Anyone with half a brain would tell them to shove it. The fact it was legal is irrelevant!!! I would think that initially the fact the scheme was legal was of huge relevance to those that benefitted from it. If some scheme that benefits people with financial gain is legal then people are going to use that scheme,irrespective of who they are. The whole argument here is whether the scheme was being operated within the gudelines not whether the scheme itself was legal or otherwise. If you employ a tax consultant to advise on a tax avoidance scheme that will cut your tax outgoing by whatever percentage and that scheme is determined to be legal then you will take advantage of that scheme. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umbungo1874 Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 At the end of the day though the buck stops with Murray and his financial advisers. I think you will find at the end of the day the buck stopped with Oldco that's why they got the Tax bill not Murray. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 The fact it was legal is irrelevant!!! I would think that initially the fact the scheme was legal was of huge relevance to those that benefitted from it. If some scheme that benefits people with financial gain is legal then people are going to use that scheme,irrespective of who they are. The whole argument here is whether the scheme was being operated within the gudelines not whether the scheme itself was legal or otherwise. If you employ a tax consultant to advise on a tax avoidance scheme that will cut your tax outgoing by whatever percentage and that scheme is determined to be legal then you will take advantage of that scheme. Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion are both illegal you nugget. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 At the end of the day though the buck stops with Murray and his financial advisers. Taxi for Murray - next stop Saughton 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 (edited) I think you will find at the end of the day the buck stopped with Oldco that's why they got the Tax bill not Murray. Perhaps,although all this mess was under Murrays tenure initially,it was under Whytes tenure liquidation happened though. So in that event you're correct. However would all this have happened if not for Murrays' financial incompetence. Edited November 12, 2012 by youngsy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Taxi for Murray - next stop Saughton Whyte in the next cell i hope. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 (edited) More muddy waters from Rangers boardroom. What Has Happened To Imran Ahmad? Has He Left Rangers? What Has Happened To Imran Ahmad? Has He Left Rangers? As Rangers heads full speed to its share issue, the Ibrox club was delighted to announce the immediate appointment of two new non-executive directors, Ian Hart and Walter Smith. Both come with high reputations in their field and it will clearly be of great assurance to potential investors in Rangers that such eminent figures are on the boards. However, I was intrigued by the end of the report of the announcement on the official Rangers website. It can be found here. The last paragraph reads:- The board of The Rangers Football Club Ltd comprises: Malcolm Murray, chairman (non-executive) Charles Green, chief executive, Brian Stockbridge, finance director, Walter Smith (non-executive), Ian Hart (non-executive). There is no mention of Mr Ahmad, who joined the board as per Companies House on 29th June and who was appointed as Commercial Director on 17thOctober. It might only be a misprint, and if so a rather embarrassing one. If not, what has happened to Mr Ahmad? Posted by Paul McConville Ian Hart denies being part of Charles Green Consortium Edited November 12, 2012 by Bairnforever1992 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 What if Walter Smith used an EBT He might have used an EBT. He could have used an EBT. Maybe he used an EBT He must have used an EBT Ahhhh f**k it lets just tell the lie often enough that we start to believe it ourselves. Which seems to the motto of the P&B .lynch mob in the last couple of pages. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 The Scottish Football Monitor still hasn't blogged on the crisis facing the SPL's 2nd biggest club. You would expect a site which has a title as grandiose as that to show some concern at the goings at Hearts. Now plenty of people on this thread told that The Scottish Football Monitor had the best interests of Scottish football at heart (no pun) and wasn't set up to attack one club and one club alone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 The Scottish Football Monitor still hasn't blogged on the crisis facing the SPL's 2nd biggest club. You would expect a site which has a title as grandiose as that to show some concern at the goings at Hearts. Now plenty of people on this thread told that The Scottish Football Monitor had the best interests of Scottish football at heart (no pun) and wasn't set up to attack one club and one club alone. Have you emailed them to tip them off yet? No point in asking us to do it. We are all worn out after killing off one club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 lol at the SFL plan for Celtic and Sevco to have 'colt' teams in a 3 league restructure job Sevco's colt side would be better than the first one........ and a div or 2 higher. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 http://www.moneysupe...ares-52662.aspx Looks like a tic blog to me.... 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.