Guest Kincardine Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Then we'd have been found guilty by the FTTT. This was the crux of their failed case. Yawn .. Kincardine reduced to 'Tedi the troll' like posts ... So which part of my post was trolling? Why does making a point of fact......ooops its the web so 'FACT' can you disagree with? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Then we'd have been found guilty by the FTTT. This was the crux of their failed case. I'm going through the FTTT release on the governments official website about the side letters/contracts.Players and staff have been called in as witnesses as in the PDF but are named as colours ! I'm awaiting Mr Pink in the document so we know who Benny is Firstly side letters/contracts have been produced as evidence by players & agents,there are evidential letters and legal club contracts that are both signed by players agents and board members of Rangers and dated the same day. From what I am reading and the way I understand it is that Rangers have got off on a technicality that the loans were always called loans in the cases of one off payments or a couple of payments to a player during his time at Ibrox. There appear to be cases where multiple regular payments have been pleaded guilty too but do not mention which player or board member but Barry Ferguson will be most certainly one of these guilty parties as they were not discretionary payments and not a one off or a couple of them. So there you go Rangers got off on a technicality for most of the EBT payments because they were one off's or a couple but do not show a regular pattern were the HMRC has won cases because the payments were regularly paid to players and staff over a given period of time.It would appear that these were the cases MIH pleaded to before the BTC because there was no point defending them against compelling evidence. The SPL commission on the other hand will see all the FTTT evidence including the side letters/contracts and will not be ruling if Rangers were avoiding tax,the fact that there are 2 contracts by the club to the player signed by the player and his agent and Rangers board members declaring the player will be paid a certain amount will most certainly be a nail in the coffin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 So which part of my post was trolling? Why does making a point of fact......ooops its the web so 'FACT' can you disagree with? I think Dhen's point - and it's a point I've been making for a while - is that the SPL commission don't give a toss about the tax status of the payments made by EBT. Their focus is on whether those payments were declared to the relevant authorities. Someone posted the relevant rule a few pages ago, but to summarise, any and all payments made to players by any party must be declared to the relevant authorities. I have to say that, from what we've seen and heard from the BBC documentary, Boumsong, Dodds et al, that doesn't appear to be the case. Still, we'll just have to wait and see. There are precedents here, with "smaller" clubs having been docked points and even thrown out of competitions for what appear to be much less serious infractions of registration rules - but hey, that's only my opinion. After the FTTT, anyone claiming to know how this one is going to pan out would be sticking their neck right out. Morally, I reckon they should get hammered, but then that remains my position regarding the BTC. Lawyers make their living, though, by interpretation of rules, and the bending/breaking of same, so once again m'learned friends get paid big bucks to play a game that doesn't affect them personally. Can you tell I'm not a big fan of the legal profession? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 You are trolling by simply circling around and completely ignoring the fact that the Commission and the FTTT have an entirely different set of rules and criteria on which to judge upon. They don't. Rangers had no obligation to declare non-contractual payments. How the f**k could we delare non-declatory payments? This is the thing that HMRC absolved us of. There is a happy circle between our absolution by The FTTT and the panel from the moribund SPL. This means that any decision they make apart from "The SPL's rules were fundamentally flawed" is subject to ridicule. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 (edited) I think Dhen's point - and it's a point I've been making for a while - is that the SPL commission don't give a toss about the tax status of the payments made by EBT. Their focus is on whether those payments were declared to the relevant authorities. Of course I can't predict what The SPL's monkeys will come up with. However, if they ignore what The FTTT said then they are major fools and the game's a bogey. Edited January 19, 2013 by Kincardine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 What does this mean ... Kincardine can probably help us out .. I'm NO LEGAL EXPERT (disclaimer for Bennett) but imho it seems to state the person has conceded that if the individual has a side letter then the payments were in factual CONTRACTUAL .. And then the FTTT would have found against us. They didn't. Point invalidated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 They don't. Rangers had no obligation to declare non-contractual payments. How the f**k could we delare non-declatory payments? This is the thing that HMRC absolved us of. There is a happy circle between our absolution by The FTTT and the panel from the moribund SPL. This means that any decision they make apart from "The SPL's rules were fundamentally flawed" is subject to ridicule. Kincardine, please. HMRC did not clear rangers of anything - they may well still appeal over the FTTT verdict. The FTTT cleared rangers of tax liability on some of the cases - not all. The club, like any other club, MUST declare ALL payments made to players, by themselves or a third party. The SPL's rules, and the SFA's for that matter, and the legal rules regarding taxation, are completely separate. Being partially exonerated in the FTTT does not matter a hill of beans to the SPL commission. In fact, the acknowledgment that extra payments were made outside of the declared contracts is as good as saying "It's a fair cop, guv - we'll come quietly". Like I said above, though, it'll buy a few Mercs and ski-ing holidays.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Then we'd have been found guilty by the FTTT. This was the crux of their failed case. Yes, the FTTT depended on the notion of whether or not payments were 'contractual'. The SPL Commission is more concerned with this idea of "payments of any kind". However you insist on cutting it Kincardine, these are not necessarily the same thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Kincardine, please. HMRC did not clear rangers of anything Is this really your view? We were absolved by The FTTT and have no obligation towards HMRC regarding that case. To say anything otherwise is perverse. Also to try and say the The SPL's enquiry should take a different slant is equally perverse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Also to try and say the The SPL's enquiry should take a different slant is equally perverse. To suggest they may legitimately do so is not at all perverse. It's simply to recognise the subtle differences between the remits of the two inquiring bodies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 The ''main'' prediction was that Ran@ers would die...........that happened \O/ waves at Youngsy £100 quid ya bottler Very good,wunfellaff. Nice twist and play on words from you. Well done,does this mean The Rainbow Trust aren't getting a donation from you for the kids. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Yes, the FTTT depended on the notion of whether or not payments were 'contractual'. The SPL Commission is more concerned with this idea of "payments of any kind". However you insist on cutting it Kincardine, these are not necessarily the same thing. Monk, this shows that The SPL's rules weren't up to the mark and, if The Commission has any crediblity, that will be their result. The sane person in me sees this as much as an investigation into the flawed, discredited and moribund SPL as to Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Monk, this shows that The SPL's rules weren't up to the mark and, if The Commission has any crediblity, that will be their result. The sane person in me sees this as much as an investigation into the flawed, discredited and moribund SPL as to Rangers. You should by now know what I think of the SPL as a body. However, you appear to be asserting that as Rangers may have done something outwith that which the rules allow, the rules must therefore be unfit. Do you really need me to point out the flaw here? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Youngsy we know Rangers admitted to the liability in a number of cases. The number is irrelevant whether it's 1 or 30 I really do not care a jot. We know that a large number of players had side letters and the likes of Billy Dodds and quite a few players have admitted the payments were contractual. It should be logical and safe to assume that those players would be included in the number that did not make the court hearing .. YES or NO? Players that have admitted the EBT loans were part payment for their contract wages will sink Rangers PLC at the SPL hearing and any of the bears that believe otherwise are simply deluding themselves. The minute the hearing hears testimony that the payments were part of the original contract or see the side letters the game is up. I am fairly confident that you realise the gig is up but steadfastly refuse to come out and admit it. Good backtracking from you. After all you were so adamant about these mythical 30 EBTs being found against the PLC that you went out your way to try and prove it by quoting this blogger,Tam Payne,as a relevant and informed source when the reality is the guy knows the total sum of absolutely fucking nothing and has been shown up as an out and out no-mark. As for the SPL Commission,in what way do i realise the gig is up as you put it,if the hearing goes against the PLC then that's something i can live with,if it goes our way then i can assure you,you will most certainly be hearing from me. Meanwhile keep putting your faith in bloggers such as Tam Payne,he's absolutely laughable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 You should by now know what I think of the SPL as a body. Aye good point. I keep forgetting we're on the same page here! However, you appear to be asserting that as Rangers may have done something outwith that which the rules allow, the rules must therefore be unfit. Do you really need me to point out the flaw here? I do not see the flaw. I think it's obtuse for The SPL to try and batter us for their own incompetence and lack of foresight. The rules of the SPL( RIP) did not anticipate the use of EBT's. My anticipation is that The Commission will agree with me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 You should by now know what I think of the SPL as a body. However, you appear to be asserting that as Rangers may have done something outwith that which the rules allow, the rules must therefore be unfit. Do you really need me to point out the flaw here? This has been lifted from the FTTT government website ! looks a dead cert there are deffo side letters/contracts to me ENJOY ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Once again young Dhensboy post some C&P's as proof of something he doesn't really understand but a blogger told him it was gen up. The boy is off his head if he can't accept the FTT verdict for what it was. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 I do not see the flaw. I think it's obtuse for The SPL to try and batter us for their own incompetence and lack of foresight. The rules of the SPL( RIP) did not anticipate the use of EBT's. My anticipation is that The Commission will agree with me. As far as I can see, they did - not specifically perhaps, but why should they have had to? Rangers chose to operate this EBT system. The FTTT found that they did so, largely legally. It seems however that the payments involved were not fully disclosed in registering the players. Why would that now be anyone's problem but Rangers'? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 You can bleat all you like about the SPL being wrong when they find The Cheats guilty ... but everyone knows the TRUTH IS OUT THERE as Brenda stated.. And this is justice *****-style. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 This has been lifted from the FTTT government website ! looks a dead cert there are deffo side letters/contracts to me ENJOY ! That came from McConvilles website That small excert by itself means f**k all, for all we know it could have been doctored. Must do better 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.