The BIG strip the titles thread

[bennett]

Avoidance, evasion,  it's been done to death.

 

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

No legal or illegal involved?

Taxable income is a matter of legislation so there is no way that can be true.

Now there is a court order that has decided the tax due to HMRC it would be illegal for Rangers not to pay the monies. While in dispute it isn't illegal to withhold payment.

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, bennett said:

Avoidance, evasion,  it's been done to death.

 

Avoidance is 100% legal and HMRC have no recourse to reclaim it.  That is not the case here.

 

[SilverWolfe]

So the problem with Rangers titles isn't financial doping. So you reject Celtic's primary argument that Rangers gained a competitive advantage by fielding players they could not afford.

The argument has nothing to do with the money Rangers spent. They died because of that.

The argument is around the registration of players with the football governing bodies. I.e. clubs had to disclose what each player was being paid. Rangers did not disclose EBT payments as part of this registration and therefore the registrations become null and void. It is quite simply breaking the rules.

However, for me there are 2 scenarios here

1. Rangers were well aware of what they were doing and on purpose did not register the EBT payments.

2. Rangers on good faith having been advised did not realise that EBTs should be registered with the SFA and their intention was not to mislead.

I think the SFA would need to prove that scenario 1 was in play and therefore Rangers purposely cheated. I don't think they would be able to prove this and therefore I'd be happy to let it go on the basis that scenario 2 was the reason.

There is possibly another layer to this as well. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong here) that all clubs need to file a set of annual accounts to the SFA. If this is the case then the SFA would have clearly seen the EBTs being reported in the accounts and should have pulled them up and investigated it at the time. If they were aware and did nothing then we are looking at whole scale corruption. Is this one of the reasons they don't want to open it up again? Just speculating here, playing a bit of devils advocate. Thoughts?

[williemillersmoustache]

4 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Ok which specific rule was broken that helped achieve the financial doping?

What are you getting at?

Language is important here and I'm in no mood to go looking through the SFA handbook but, in order to avoid tax on players wages paid for via EBTs, they were not declared as such when the player was registered, they should have been.

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, Tartantony said:

 

I think the SFA would need to prove that scenario 1 was in play and therefore Rangers purposely cheated. I don't think they would be able to prove this and therefore I'd be happy to let it go on the basis that scenario 2 was the reason.

 

 

Again, no.

We're talking about professional businesses here meant to be adhering to standards.

You cannot simply claim ignorance to the fact certain payments should have been disclosed.  The rules are pretty clear so at the very least it would not be difficult to consult with the SFA/SPL/SPFL or whoever saying 'we've got x payments to players on this basis, do you need formal disclosure'.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

1 minute ago, williemillersmoustache said:

What are you getting at?

Language is important here and I'm in no mood to go looking through the SFA handbook but, in order to avoid tax on players wages paid for via EBTs, they were not declared as such when the player was registered, they should have been.

I'm probing for a specific rule breach. You want to strip titles because Rangers broke the rules but you don't seem to have any argument about what rules they have breached.

The SPL already held an inquiry about the double contracts and side letters, and fined them £250,000 for an administrative error. Are you arguing that Lord Nimmo Smith did not come to a proper outcome and did not apply a proper punishment as dictated by SPL and SFA rules? Tell us why Lord Nimmo Smith is wrong and you are right.

[Paralytic Critic]

No matter what a clubs finances are like rules are put in place for a reason.

We could argue all day whether the ebt's were legal or not but what is plain to see is that Oldco did not properly register their players by withholding the side letters from the governing body. The SFA can deny they knew what was going on but they know now it has happened, so they have to act to do something about it.

So not acting now while Newco continue to say they still have these trophies is only going to bring our game into disrepute. There should be a clear out from the top of the SFA, and rather than strip titles from Oldco lets just get this pretence that the new club is still the same club ended, and that they only have 5 years of history.

[SilverWolfe]

Again, no.
We're talking about professional businesses here meant to be adhering to standards.
You cannot simply claim ignorance to the fact certain payments should have been disclosed.  The rules are pretty clear so at the very least it would not be difficult to consult with the SFA/SPL/SPFL or whoever saying 'we've got x payments to players on this basis, do you need formal disclosure'.

My point and Rangers point will be that they did go to whoever their advisors were and ask if it needed to be disclosed and because the overall belief was that EBTs were not salaries they did not need to disclose. I'm sure they would have had advisors at the time who knew the SFA rules inside out and would have gone with what they were told. It's easy to sit here with hindsight and court rulings but it needs to be judged on what they were told at the time.

Has the first investigation been made public? I'd quite like to see what they found.

[SilverWolfe]

23 minutes ago, Jim McLean said:

I'm probing for a specific rule breach. You want to strip titles because Rangers broke the rules but you don't seem to have any argument about what rules they have breached.
The SPL already held an inquiry about the double contracts and side letters, and fined them £250,000 for an administrative error. Are you arguing that Lord Nimmo Smith did not come to a proper outcome and did not apply a proper punishment as dictated by SPL and SFA rules? Tell us why Lord Nimmo Smith is wrong and you are right.

 

Lord Nimmo Smith carried out that investigation when the courts had ruled in favour of Rangers and so was treating EBTs as non salary payments. Now that HMRC have won, EBTs should be treated as salary payments. This completely changes the entire angle of the investigation.

 

[williemillersmoustache]

5 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

I'm probing for a specific rule breach. You want to strip titles because Rangers broke the rules but you don't seem to have any argument about what rules they have breached.

The SPL already held an inquiry about the double contracts and side letters, and fined them £250,000 for an administrative error. Are you arguing that Lord Nimmo Smith did not come to a proper outcome and did not apply a proper punishment as dictated by SPL and SFA rules? Tell us why Lord Nimmo Smith is wrong and you are right.

Away with you.

You've gone from "whit aboot hertz" to "so celtic are wrong" to now looking for a further offence, which you know isn't there. 

The rule breach was established, you can call it an error if you wish but one wonders how his lordship might have felt about the "administrative error" line if the DOS scheme had not been suspiciously, deliberately excluded from the enquiry.

Again, i cant be hooped digging it out but there's a great letter from HMRC, paraphrasing:

 

Dear Cheat FC,

Mind when you told us there weren't any side letters for the players Cheat X and Thug Y?

Would you care to comment on these two attached side letters for Messrs X&Y and revise your position.

Lots of love,

Hector
GSTQ

 

You can say you can't be arsed with the whole strip the titles thing, I get it and in many ways having to keep smacking arguments like your three separate nonsense's in the last half hour gives weight to that opinion. However, will they be and should they be are different things and the latter is beyond doubt.

[SilverWolfe]

A wee funny side point for the Hibees and Dons fans on here.

 

In 2004/05 we paid Juninho through an EBT. We subsequently paid tax to HMRC but I wonder if we told the SFA about it when registering him.

 

If we didn't then we could have our second place taken from us along with Rangers title and Hibs would have won the league by 2 goals over Aberdeen ????????

 

 

[Jacksgranda]

2 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

Er, no.  Whilst some claim Rangers died in 2012 it can't change the fact those titles were won.

Whether you believe Rangers are currently 'going for 55' or you believe the old Rangers stopped at 54, it happened and it is in the history books.  It is that which people want to be looked at.

It's not just a case of having a big tax bill though, is it?  It's the illegal use of a tax scheme to sign better quality players.  It is illegal means of improving your team.

 

It's nothing to do with that, it wasn't illegal when Rangers were running it, it's the wrongful registration of players which is the issue, not a big tax bill, illegal or otherwise

[Lofarl]

Mind that time the got a porn star to come up with this scheme?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jacksgranda]

1 minute ago, Lofarl said:

Mind that time the got a porn star to come up with this scheme?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Davy Does Hector?

[Insaintee]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

Avoidance is 100% legal and HMRC have no recourse to reclaim it.  That is not the case here.

 

And that's it dead

[The DA]

2 hours ago, bennett said:

At no time has HMRC ever said that Rangers ebt's were illegal, their argument was that tax should have been paid on the loans and that is what the supreme court agreed with. A dispute over 'amount due' which has now been settled and will see HMRC send a bill to BDO.

The earlier points made by the FTT/UTT about the loans are still valid, as is the LNS verdict.

 

Rangers continued to use EBTs and side-letters even after everyone was advised by the taxman in 2004 that EBTs were not valid tax-avoiding vehicles.  The standard approach in those cases is to stop using the tax avoidance vehicle and then argue your case with HMRC. But Rangers are obviously above such things.

[Insaintee]

46 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

It's nothing to do with that, it wasn't illegal when Rangers were running it, it's the wrongful registration of players which is the issue, not a big tax bill, illegal or otherwise

Not quite, it's against SFA regulations to make unregistered payments to players. So the situation is either improperly registered or making undeclared payments. Of the two undeclared payments is more serious can can potentially have much more severe penalties. 

[hellbhoy]

1 hour ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

I'm probing for a specific rule breach. You want to strip titles because Rangers broke the rules but you don't seem to have any argument about what rules they have breached.

The SPL already held an inquiry about the double contracts and side letters, and fined them £250,000 for an administrative error. Are you arguing that Lord Nimmo Smith did not come to a proper outcome and did not apply a proper punishment as dictated by SPL and SFA rules? Tell us why Lord Nimmo Smith is wrong and you are right.

For failing to make the side letters/dual contracts known to the SFA at the time of the players registration is the rule they breached/broken. The SFA eventually fined the company and not the club for this administrative error.

My point?, why is deliberately hiding the second contract from every one only seen as an administrative error when in fact it was a deliberate rule breach for a decade? Not as if someone fucked up along the chain of command thus being an error but in fact was a deliberate omission of the dual contract from the club itself.

59 minutes ago, Tartantony said:

 

Lord Nimmo Smith carried out that investigation when the courts had ruled in favour of Rangers and so was treating EBTs as non salary payments. Now that HMRC have won, EBTs should be treated as salary payments. This completely changes the entire angle of the investigation.

 

You are correct about the SPL's verdict being reliant upon the FTT at the time and that it should be reinvestigated in light of the Supreme Courts decision but?, it ain't going to happen ever. I'm so fucking sure that the SFA & SPL thought this was well tied up beyond ever reaching the Supreme Courts decision of being seen as tax avoidance. You only need to look at both the FTT & UTT outcomes that show how legally and watertight these loans were and will always be seen as loans, legally.

The HMRC have just bypassed the point of where the money was seen to be a taxable income before the money then becomes a legally given loan. The monies before leaving the UK to the offshore account have been deemed taxable income, and the money from the EBT scheme is legal but should have been taxed before it left the UK.

 

[Monkey Tennis]

4 hours ago, thepundit said:

Rangers aren't the first and certainly wont be the last to get into bother with the HMRC. Yet they're the only club I can think of where opposition fans are demanding games be declared null and void. Which is all the more strange given those same fans think Rangers lost all their trophies in 2012 anyway. Why is it worth the effort even arguing about?.....

There's clubs in the Premiership down south who won trophies and had massive tax bills. No one cares.

It's the fact that Rangers players weren't properly registered.  That didn't happen at the other clubs.

Do you honestly not even know what this is about?