Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The clandestine enterprise was entirely legal Now you may say that EBTs were illegal but that is not what the tax authorities tried to prove or what the courts found. There was a dispute about whether payments to players and officials required taxes paid for PAYE and NI. The court said taxes had to be paid, the Tax Avoidance scheme was ruled to not in fact avoid tax liabilities at all. HMRC never pressed that it was an illegal Tax Evasion scheme that ried to hide income off-shore and out of the reach of the authorities which if found to be true would have compelled criminal charges against the parties involved At the time Rangers failed to pay the tax man there were no rules about outstanding debts to tax authorities or any other financial fair play rules in place. Many clubs have spent beyond their means and gone unpunished. Should the funniest victory in scottish football history the 2012 Scottish Cup Final be wiped from the records because it was clear Hearts had no ability to pay their debt and the owner arrested for tax evasion. Yes, but in operating the scheme, Rangers chose to register their players with inaccurate contractual information,in order to conceal it from football's authorities. That's why titles should go. Arguments over legality or even sporting advantage, are best avoided. They didn't matter when teams got thrown out of cups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Another disciple. Thanks Good Lord. This vaulting arrogance is now quite out of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Should the funniest victory in scottish football history the 2012 Scottish Cup Final be wiped from the records because it was clear Hearts had no ability to pay their debt and the owner arrested for tax evasion. If their players were all correctly registered with no hidden extra contract / side letter parcels of money being funnelled their way then no issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I stopped reading there. Sure you did. It was clandestine. It was hidden from the authorities in a side letter. You of all people must know the definition of clandestine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Yes, but in operating the scheme, Rangers chose to register their players with inaccurate contractual information,in order to conceal it from football's authorities. That's why titles should go. Arguments over legality or even sporting advantage, are best avoided. They didn't matter when teams got thrown out of cups. We already had an inquiry about the players being improperly registered presided over by one of the most prominent judges in Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 We already had an inquiry about the players being improperly registered presided over by one of the most prominent judges in Scotland. It would appear he had the answer before asking the questions. As was the case of the EBT ruling, members of the bar do not always make the correct rulings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortar Bored Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 It would appear he had the answer before asking the questions. As was the case of the EBT ruling, members of the lodge do not always make the correct rulings. FTFY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 We already had an inquiry about the players being improperly registered presided over by one of the most prominent judges in Scotland. Yes I know. I think that ruling should be revisited though, because LNS was instructed to judge on an existing assumption which has since changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Loving how opinions on the LNS inquiry have changed so radically on here. Just remember who pushed for that inquiry and pushed for the verdict is final condition... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Loving how opinions on the LNS inquiry have changed so radically on here. Just remember who pushed for that inquiry and pushed for the verdict is final condition... Is there something wrong with changing opinions? It wasn't that long ago, it was every Rangers fans opinion, that your club had died... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bambino7 Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Loving how opinions on the LNS inquiry have changed so radically on here. Just remember who pushed for that inquiry and pushed for the verdict is final condition... Says the fan of a club who's support accuse every other verdict against their club being decided by feenyuns! Facts have changed since the original carpet sweep. Just because it went slightly in your new clubs favour isn't to say the verdict shouldn't been looked into, appealed or decided again. Just like The Judge favored your old club on the big tax case before appeal so should LNS's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Yes I know. I think that ruling should be revisited though, because LNS was instructed to judge on an existing assumption which has since changed. What has changed? Rangers owed the tax authorities an 8 figure sum in the original ruling on (small tax case, multiple admission of improper EBTs in the big case). The number has increased but it still doesn't break any rules that governed football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Loving how opinions on the LNS inquiry have changed so radically on here. Just remember who pushed for that inquiry and pushed for the verdict is final condition... I'm trying to remember, Bennett, but I can't. Who did press for the 'verdict is final' condition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 What has changed? Rangers owed the tax authorities an 8 figure sum in the original ruling on (small tax case, multiple admission of improper EBTs in the big case). The number has increased but it still doesn't break any rules that governed football. LNS judged on the assumption that the scheme to dodge tax was operated successfully. Now, it stands that it wasn't and that the players were registered improperly to conceal a practice that could result in a bill certain to result in liquidation. I don't think it will be re-visited, but as I regarded the initial ruling as unjust, I welcome the pressure that's arisen for that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 LNS judged on the assumption that the scheme to dodge tax was operated successfully. Now, it stands that it wasn't and that the players were registered improperly to conceal a practice that could result in a bill certain to result in liquidation. I don't think it will be re-visited, but as I regarded the initial ruling as unjust, I welcome the pressure that's arisen for that to happen. LNS hearing focused mostly on side letters, separate issue and one which ha been dealt with. Players were registered correctly, the SFA confirmed this and so did LNS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Says the fan of a club who's support accuse every other verdict against their club being decided by feenyuns! Facts have changed since the original carpet sweep. Just because it went slightly in your new clubs favour isn't to say the verdict shouldn't been looked into, appealed or decided again. Just like The Judge favored your old club on the big tax case before appeal so should LNS's. A carpet sweep? Surely you're not saying that William Nimmo Smith was biased and unprofessional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bambino7 Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 A carpet sweep? Surely you're not saying that William Nimmo Smith was biased and unprofessional? Nope. And neither did the footballing authorities that made your club start at the bottom tier because the old one died. But you can never trust everyone, just look at Duff and Phelps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 LNS hearing focused mostly on side letters, separate issue and one which ha been dealt with. Players were registered correctly, the SFA confirmed this and so did LNS. The side letters are central to this. They are the evidence that the details of payments included in the registration process, differed from the reality of what Rangers were actually paying their players. LNS did say that the deliberate deceit didn't render the players ineligible. I'm not sure that he said the registration was "proper", but you can maybe prove me wrong on that. Either way, I think the ruling was unjust, so I'm keen for it to be re-visited. Any premise will do really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The side letters are central to this. They are the evidence that the details of payments included in the registration process, differed from the reality of what Rangers were actually paying their players. LNS did say that the deliberate deceit didn't render the players ineligible. I'm not sure that he said the registration was "proper", but you can maybe prove me wrong on that. Either way, I think the ruling was unjust, so I'm keen for it to be re-visited. Any premise will do really. For a man that existed in a world where the incorrect spelling of a name can result in a prosecution failing to then assert that nothing can be done about actual deceit is wholly inadequate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 For a man that existed in a world where the incorrect spelling of a name can result in a prosecution failing to then assert that nothing can be done about actual deceit is wholly inadequate. Indeed. It can probably be defended legally, but of course not morally. The injustice is such that the ruling should be examined again. It won't happen though. What gets me but doesn't really surprise me, is that I'm not aware of a single Rangers fan who is prepared to recognise that they don't really deserve those titles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.