Paquis Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 If even ten percent of what that guy is saying is correct in law, old Rangers are f*cked out of the park, half the league championships of the last decade will have to be marked "no award" and Sir Dave is going to spend the next few years dodging HMP Barlinnie rather than HMRC. We've been here before with anonymous lawyers, of course... But that looks, on the face of it, absolutely damning. If there's any substance to it, the SPL and BDO are going to eat old Rangers and their employees alive. Of course, we have been here before with the legions of amateur accountants, lawyers and tax experts. And they all got it wrong. So I would suggest caution before going down that road again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I am genuinely confused as to whether or not Rangers are correct in their calls for the SPL investigation to be scrapped as they now have 'no case to answer' following the big tax case verdict. My reading of the situation is that although they have been found not liable for tax they could still be deemed to be in breach of football rules for not declaring all payments made to players for footballing activities, be it in the form of salaries or these loans. The waters are further muddied for me by a bloke in my work's insistance that ALL payments to players were declared in Rangers' accounts. Could someone clear up this specific point for me, preferably without wearing blue or green tinted specs whilst doing so? So was there some wee man employed at the SFA who was supposed to add up all the players wages as registered by the clubs, allowing for win bonuses, appearance money, goals bonuses , image rights etc etc and allowing for incoming/outgoing transfers and then compare it to the accounts? First of all he'd always be at least a season if not 18 months in arrears due to the nature of publishing accounts. Secondly if players wages were not listed separately from all other employees he wouldn't be able to reconcile the figures anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 There are a couple of points here. Counsel for HMRC tried to argue that these side-letters formed part of the contract and were used for payment of a 'wage' (FTT decision page 38). However, in its decision, the Tribunal found that the payments were not 'earnings or emoluments' but were recoverable loans (page 58). So the question then becomes whether it is an SFA requirement to disclose loans made to players. In terms of disclosure there is also some confusion. In the dissenting decision, Dr. Poon states on page 84: "As the use of the remunerationtrust became more wide spread, in the contracts for players with a sub-trust in place,the clause for the terms of bonus payments was reduced to stating that the club wouldpay the player 'a bonus in accordance with the schedule agreed from time to time'." So, while the schedule was vague, it was actually lodged with the SFA. This is supported on page 120 .... For bonus payments to the footballing employees, there appeared to be aschedule agreed for the start of each season and lodged with SFA as a matterof normal practice. The bonus entitlement should be the same for eachplayer in the team squad in accordance with the schedule agreed. It wouldappear that the bonus and appearance money for players with a sub-trust hadbeen paid via the trust mechanism while other players without a sub-trustreceived their entitlement through payroll. The SFA/SPL argument is that the side-letters and the EBT represent contracts for payments for footballing activities. The finding of the Tribunal is that they were loans and not payments and there is also evidence that they were disclosed to the SFA even though they may have been vague. If that disclosure has been made then how the payment is made is no business of the SFA/SPL. So tell me how much of any loan has ever been paid back ? ZILCH ! The HMRC will pursue former employees of Rangers PLC in an attempt to regain some of the cash for the loans so as to catalogue these loans as loans. If these former employees do not wish to pay anything back and start to produce these so called side letters or contracts stating that these loans do not need paid back as in the side letter ! the BTC is back on if evidence of contractual agreements saying it is a loan but is really actually a bonus payment disguised as a loan. How much loyalty will former players show when pursued to pay back the loan ? they are more likely to show side letters exempting them contractually than actually paying back a loan they got as part of their wages IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 And I genuinely struggle to empathise with that comment. Football wise there's nothing that makes us different. Well if you're from Govan, you probably chose your club for the same reason I chose mine. But we both know that vast numbers of OF fans have no obvious connection to Glasgow. It's also the success thing. I cannot imagine supporting a team where trophies come along all the time. I honestly think I'd lose interest. I'll not go into the sectarian element here, but again it would put me off either club sufficiently I think. It takes all sorts of course and there's more of your sort than mine. It's a generalisation I know, but I just think that OF fans tend to have a very different outlook on football and what they get from it than diddy supporters do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 So tell me how much of any loan has ever been paid back ? ZILCH ! The HMRC will pursue former employees of Rangers PLC in an attempt to regain some of the cash for the loans so as to catalogue these loans as loans. If these former employees do not wish to pay anything back and start to produce these so called side letters or contracts stating that these loans do not need paid back as in the side letter ! the BTC is back on if evidence of contractual agreements saying it is a loan but is really actually a bonus payment disguised as a loan. How much loyalty will former players show when pursued to pay back the loan ? they are more likely to show side letters exempting them contractually than actually paying back a loan they got as part of their wages IMO. Whether the loans are ever paid back is not relevant to the discussion. The Tribunal found that they were loans and that is all that matters. Second, HMRC cannot pursue anyone for repayment of these loans. Repayment is a civil matter between the lender and the borrower. HMRC has no role there. Third, counsel for HMRC accepted that the loans were not shams and were real legal events. HMRC cannot now change their minds on that statement. A change of mind is not grounds for an appeal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Credibility ? Indeed ! Yes but at least i'll comply with a legal decision instead of ignoring it just because it doesn't sit with my opinion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 So tell me how much of any loan has ever been paid back ? ZILCH ! The HMRC will pursue former employees of Rangers PLC in an attempt to regain some of the cash for the loans so as to catalogue these loans as loans. If these former employees do not wish to pay anything back and start to produce these so called side letters or contracts stating that these loans do not need paid back as in the side letter ! the BTC is back on if evidence of contractual agreements saying it is a loan but is really actually a bonus payment disguised as a loan. How much loyalty will former players show when pursued to pay back the loan ? they are more likely to show side letters exempting them contractually than actually paying back a loan they got as part of their wages IMO. Whether the loans are ever paid back is not relevant to the discussion. The Tribunal found that they were loans and that is all that matters. Second, HMRC cannot pursue anyone for repayment of these loans. Repayment is a civil matter between the lender and the borrower. HMRC has no role there. Third, counsel for HMRC accepted that the loans were not shams and were real legal events. HMRC cannot now change their minds on that statement. A change of mind is not grounds for an appeal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Of course, we have been here before with the legions of amateur accountants, lawyers and tax experts. And they all got it wrong. So I would suggest caution before going down that road again. That's very wise advice. Nonetheless, Ms Poons' take on the case should be - at very least! - ringing alarm bells. How could it not? She really does tear MIH a new hoop there, and lays out in graphic detail the issues that future proceedings - proceedings with far wider remits than the case ORFC just won- should examine. Looks like it's brown trousers time for Sir Dave... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 That's very wise advice. Nonetheless, Ms Poons' take on the case should be - at very least! - ringing alarm bells. How could it not? She really does tear MIH a new hoop there, and lays out in graphic detail the issues that future proceedings - proceedings with far wider remits than the case ORFC just won- should examine. Looks like it's brown trousers time for Sir Dave... Her perspective is interesting but of limited relevance. The fact is that the majority decision went the other way. 2-1 is not a draw as Celtic found in Lisbon the other night. I am curious as to what future proceedings, in your view, might take place. HMRC are very limited in what they can do and I don't see what recourse BDO might have towards MIH given that they sold the business as a going concern to Craig Whyte. I suppose that BDO may try to recover some of the loans but my guess is that the legal structure of the EBTs is such that while the Trust can recover a loan, the entity that paid the money into trust cannot. That said, BDO may well have a case for recovering monies due to Rangers but withheld by the SPL and SFA. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Tedi: Looking for a future cellmate, is he? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 BDO may well have a case for recovering monies due to Rangers but withheld by the SPL and SFA. I think that the fact that Rangers FC (R.I.P.) cheated by not paying several £millions in PAYE for 9 months of season 2011/2012 would rule that out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I think that the fact that Rangers FC (R.I.P.) cheated by not paying several £millions in PAYE for 9 months of season 2011/2012 would rule that out. Now, think about that for a moment. Are you suggesting that the SFA/SPL are acting as agents for HMRC? I think we both know that isn't the case. SFA/SPL were looking out for their own interests and nothing else. However, BDO may well have a case that they were improperly withheld. If BDO are able to recover those monies from the SFA/SPL then they will go towards paying part of that unpaid tax bill 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Her perspective is interesting but of limited relevance. The fact is that the majority decision went the other way. 2-1 is not a draw as Celtic found in Lisbon the other night. I am curious as to what future proceedings, in your view, might take place. HMRC are very limited in what they can do and I don't see what recourse BDO might have towards MIH given that they sold the business as a going concern to Craig Whyte. I suppose that BDO may try to recover some of the loans but my guess is that the legal structure of the EBTs is such that while the Trust can recover a loan, the entity that paid the money into trust cannot. That said, BDO may well have a case for recovering monies due to Rangers but withheld by the SPL and SFA. I've no idea - Mrs R is the lawyer in the Rodent household. Perhaps it's possible that Sir Dave will never see the inside of another courtroom? Who knows? On the other hand, given that Rangers appear to have won *specifically within the terms of reference of this particular case* and that the dissenting opinion is so blunt... Well, there are serious questions to be answered here. Wouldn't you agree? I think it would be something of a travesty of justice if that judgement was left unused. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Of course an Orc would state it's bigoted ... gave you more credit than that ... obviously I was wrong Why,after all you've shown with your attitude to the verdict that despite the finding in favour of the PLC you were intent on ignoring it,therefore showing a bigoted and hateful attitude against the club by not respecting the verdict,bigotry isn't always confined to religion you know. . Also bear in mind for weeks/months you previously asked would Rangers fans accept all findings in the EBT and SPL investigation whichever way the verdicts went. So by not accepting this verdict is somewhat hypocritical of you is it not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Now, think about that for a moment. Are you suggesting that the SFA/SPL are acting as agents for HMRC? I think we both know that isn't the case. SFA/SPL were looking out for their own interests and nothing else. However, BDO may well have a case that they were improperly withheld. If BDO are able to recover those monies from the SFA/SPL then they will go towards paying part of that unpaid tax bill No. The fact remains, Rangers FC (R.I.P.) cheated by not paying several £millions in PAYE for 9 months of season 2011/2012. For that reason, the old club was entitled to no prize money from any competitions that it played in during season 2011/2012.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umbungo1874 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 No. The fact remains, Rangers FC (R.I.P.) cheated by not paying several £millions in PAYE for 9 months of season 2011/2012. For that reason, the old club was entitled to no prize money from any competitions that it played in during season 2011/2012.. The prize money was sold to Mr Green as an asset. He then played hard ball with the SPL and said they could keep it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 The prize money was sold to Mr Green as an asset. He then played hard ball with the SPL and said they could keep it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I've no idea - Mrs R is the lawyer in the Rodent household. Perhaps it's possible that Sir Dave will never see the inside of another courtroom? Who knows? On the other hand, given that Rangers appear to have won *specifically within the terms of reference of this particular case* and that the dissenting opinion is so blunt... Well, there are serious questions to be answered here. Wouldn't you agree? I think it would be something of a travesty of justice if that judgement was left unused. Look ... it was a tax avoidance scheme. We all know that. It was used by lots of people and lots of companies and it was all legal. The Tribunal established that fact. Now, we can all have a view as to whether tax avoidance schemes are moral or immoral. But while they are legal they will get used. Just look how many well-known people have been using various schemes such as film companies for just that purpose. The only issue we are left with now is the SPL/SFA investigation into dual contracts. My view is that this decision will make that much more difficult and will open the SFA/SPL to being challenged in the Court of Session if they try to strip any titles. The result of the Tribunal has made this into a high risk strategy for the SPL/SFA. My guess is that it will fizzle out with a strongly worded statement and nothing more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Not paying debt does not amount to cheating no matter how you dress it up You obviously don't know the rules & regulations of the SFA in regards to paying dues and bringing the game into disrepute. I suggest that you read the rules & regulations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Not paying debt does not amount to cheating no matter how you dress it up If it did then just about every club in the SPL and quite a few others are guilty of cheating. People really need to think before they spout this rubbish. 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.