Bobby_F Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I really think that clubs should extend the early bird dates for season ticket renewal. How can they expect you to commit to a set of fixtures when you do not know who is going to be in the league, and more importantly, whether the league itself is a corrupt sham. Oh, wait a minute, this delay may be - at least in part - designed for precisely that purpose. The thought of not watching St Mirren next season is a little unreal, but at the same time, if this turns out the way that a lot of us fear it might, how can we possibly support it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) The players (apparently) had a contract for normal wages, which the SFA and the tax man saw and tax was paid on, but they also had a 2nd contact for the lions share of their wages being paid into an EBT tax free, players were given a take home value for their wages. No player would have taken the lump sum offered in an EBT without some written gaurantee (A contract) to ensure they did get paid, this is the second contract that they are looking into The EBTs were fully disclosed in Rangers annual reports over a period of years. Funny how nobody at the SFA or SPL noticed them. Any evidence for this second contract? Edited May 7, 2012 by Paquis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenolly Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I've heard of this, but it contradicts what the suits have been publically claiming. ETA: do you have a link to where this is formally laid out? Give me half an hour and i'll give you the links 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 So Rangers wanted the vote postponed and it's postponed. Just coincidence they didn't send anyone to the meeting of course. Even now they're re getting away with taking the piss. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyman Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 The bears den is talking ('arrogateblue') that they're moving to engerlund blah, blah, blah. Think his mum gave him too many choccie biccies with his ovaltine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) Give me half an hour and i'll give you the links Remember that UEFA won't allow a newco to compete in European competitions for 3 years (ie - no license), but this is different from them being prohibited from entering the domestic league set-up wherever permitted: Scotsman article: However, the administrators acknowledge that European football governing body Uefa would not make any distinction between the old and new companies and that a newco Rangers would be barred from playing European football for three years. The Uefa stance is clear and unequivocal on how it treats any newco created to shield a football team from any financial or regulatory ills experienced by the organisation from which it sprang. “If a club sets up a new company simply to avoid paying its debts or obligations then they would almost certainly fail the three-year rule [for obtaining the required Uefa licence],” a spokesperson for Uefa told The Scotsman. “This is to ensure clubs do not simply create a ‘newco’ and leave the previous entity in charge of dealing with debts.” Previously, Uefa have made the following statement pertaining to newcos: “Clubs are not allowed to change their legal form or structure in order to obtain a licence, simply by ‘cleaning up’ their balance sheet while offloading debts – thus harming creditors (including employees and social/tax authorities) as well as threatening the integrity of sporting competition. Any such alteration of a club’s legal form or structure is deemed to be an interruption to its membership of a UEFA member association and, consequently, three years must pass before a club can apply again for a UEFA licence. In other words, the three-year rule is designed basically to avoid circumvention of the club licensing system.” Edited May 7, 2012 by Drooper 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 So Rangers wanted the vote postponed and it's postponed. Just coincidence they didn't send anyone to the meeting of course. Even now they're re getting away with taking the piss. Yep .... its all big bad Rangers fault that the other SPL chairmen lack a set of balls. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordHawHaw Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I really think that clubs should extend the early bird dates for season ticket renewal. I've asked that today, most be done and dusted before this is settled, who know we might even have the results of the EBT investigation if Doncaster can remember where he's hidden put it down 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araminta Moonbeam QC Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 The bears den is talking ('arrogateblue') that they're moving to engerlund blah, blah, blah. Think his mum gave him too many choccie biccies with his ovaltine Pahahahahahahaha. Yep. They'll be playing in the Harrogate and District league Div. 3 (level 15) in no time. North Yorkshire will love them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) They are also not illegal. The whole case is that EBTs were not illegal per-se, but their application as employed by RFC was a deliberate attempt to 'stiff' the tax authorities. The fooball case is that they were not disclosed as a 2nd form of remuneration which rendered player registrations invalid. Edited May 7, 2012 by Claymores 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 The proposed 'sanction's are a soft-sponge punishment, tied with a passport to let FC Govan 1690 into the league next season. The measures shouldn't be voted for at all, so an adjournment is not a bad thing. The SPL will not be able to hand FC Govan a get out of (debtors) jail free card here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenolly Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 From the Scottish Football Association rules on Club Licensing (specifically Part 3, Section 03 – The Club as Licence Applicant and the UEFA Licence). Emphasis ours. "3.1.1 The Licence Applicant may only be a football club, that is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity member of the Scottish Football Association (Full or Associate Member). The licence applicant is responsible for the fulfillment of the club licensing criteria. This membership must have been in place at the start of the licence season for a minimum period of three consecutive years . [...] 3.3.1 UEFA Licence Awards for Scottish Premier League Clubs (SPL) A Licence cannot be transferred from one legal entity to another . " NB: "UEFA Licence" does not denote a licence to compete in UEFA competitions, which are governed by an entirely different set of criteria. As the SFA website explains: "National Club Licensing applies to Scottish FA member clubs and UEFA Club Licensing applies to Scottish Premier League clubs." In other words, to play in the SPL you must have a UEFA Club Licence, regardless of whether you actually compete in UEFA competitions or not. (SFL clubs, who in normal circumstances wouldn't be expected to qualify for European tournaments, are dealt with separately via an "extraordinary procedure" in the event that they do.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alimci Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) Vote delayed. http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/17983379 Are they just waiting for Yorkston to leave? ETA: oops, several pages too late.... Edited May 7, 2012 by alimci 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 The whole case is that EBTs were not illegal per-se, but their application as employed by RFC was a deliberate attempt to 'stiff' the tax authorities. The fooball case is that they were not disclosed as a 2nd form of remuneration which rendered player registrations invalid. The whole point of an EBT is to legally avoid tax. So, in common with any other tax efficient structure they are designed - as you so eloquently put it - to 'stiff' the tax authorities. The football case is a bit of a red herring as the EBTs were disclosed over a period of years to anyone who cared to read an annual report. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) From the Scottish Football Association rules on Club Licensing (specifically Part 3, Section 03 – The Club as Licence Applicant and the UEFA Licence). Emphasis ours. "3.1.1 The Licence Applicant may only be a football club, that is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity member of the Scottish Football Association (Full or Associate Member). The licence applicant is responsible for the fulfillment of the club licensing criteria. This membership must have been in place at the start of the licence season for a minimum period of three consecutive years . [...] 3.3.1 UEFA Licence Awards for Scottish Premier League Clubs (SPL) A Licence cannot be transferred from one legal entity to another . " NB: "UEFA Licence" does not denote a licence to compete in UEFA competitions, which are governed by an entirely different set of criteria. As the SFA website explains: "National Club Licensing applies to Scottish FA member clubs and UEFA Club Licensing applies to Scottish Premier League clubs." In other words, to play in the SPL you must have a UEFA Club Licence, regardless of whether you actually compete in UEFA competitions or not. (SFL clubs, who in normal circumstances wouldn't be expected to qualify for European tournaments, are dealt with separately via an "extraordinary procedure" in the event that they do.) If I'm correct in thinking that the above was largely taken from here.... My link then I thnk they've called it wrong. I can't find anything else to back up their position on this. Edited May 7, 2012 by Drooper 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 The bears den is talking ('arrogateblue') that they're moving to engerlund blah, blah, blah. Think his mum gave him too many choccie biccies with his ovaltine It's not going to happen of course, but it would be brilliant if it did happen now, after a couple of months of the daily propaganda about we cant survive without the bigot brothers. Would be very interesting to see the media's spin on it change overnight and also the collective realisation of the 10 Chairmen of how pathetic they really are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordHawHaw Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Rangers asked for today's vote to be delayed, while not turning up, the rest agreed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 The whole point of an EBT is to legally avoid tax. So, in common with any other tax efficient structure they are designed - as you so eloquently put it - to 'stiff' the tax authorities. The football case is a bit of a red herring as the EBTs were disclosed over a period of years to anyone who cared to read an annual report. But Rangers were not using them as a form of tax-free 'bonus' but rather as a core part of the renumeration agreed upon signing. following on, the football case is that ALL aspects of a player contract must be declared up-front when applying for registration.................not simply something that is capable of being deduced by accounting post-mortem. ERGO - definitely not a red herring in tax or football terms. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araminta Moonbeam QC Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 It's not going to happen of course, but it would be brilliant if it did happen now, after a couple of months of the daily propaganda about we cant survive without the bigot brothers. Would be very interesting to see the media's spin on it change overnight and also the collective realisation of the 10 Chairmen of how pathetic they really are. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it happen. The EPL, FA, chairmen of most league clubs and Chief Constables across the UK would not, however, so its a non-starter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Rangers asked for today's vote to be delayed, while not turning up, the rest agreed Peter Lawell is shitting himself that, without Rangers, he will be outvoted by the other 11 clubs 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.